|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 26, 2012 12:13:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Oct 26, 2012 12:44:07 GMT -8
Yes, I have seen several on television already.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Oct 26, 2012 20:41:31 GMT -8
And a delightful response with the gentleman from Fix Expo, er Fix Crenshaw as the star:
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Kasperavičius on Oct 26, 2012 20:49:40 GMT -8
And another breathtakingly poor clip compilation from Beverly Hills Courier - against Measure J.
My take away is that "Beverly Hills is a bunch of rich people that doesn't want a subway under their high school" and that anyone who's against Measure J can't form a cohesive or rational thought as to why.
I can't imagine how this got approved by anyone:
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Oct 27, 2012 7:11:06 GMT -8
These "No on J" people are idiots. First of all, there IS accountability which was built into Measure R and extended into Measure J. So that's absolute bulls*** #1.
A blank check? That's just to make political sound bites.
Disruptive Measure R and J projects, oh they mean where the people of LA WANT a subway to the westside and an expanded rail transit system? Bull*** #2.
More service cuts? Those voting against Measure J are actually voting for more bus service cuts due to the loss of 20% funding of bus operationg from Measures R/J. Idiots?
It's funny, the people who fight in the name of "social justice" actually withhold positive impacts to their own communities.
The way these people talk make it sound like Metro will not build the rail projects, which is factually incorrect. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Beverly Hills = the BRU in terms of mindset. Idiots who use talking points instead of facts to dictate their decisions.
|
|
elray
Junior Member
Posts: 84
|
Post by elray on Nov 2, 2012 15:34:24 GMT -8
These "No on J" people are idiots. First of all, there IS accountability which was built into Measure R and extended into Measure J. So that's absolute bulls*** #1. A blank check? That's just to make political sound bites. Disruptive Measure R and J projects, oh they mean where the people of LA WANT a subway to the westside and an expanded rail transit system? Bull*** #2. More service cuts? Those voting against Measure J are actually voting for more bus service cuts due to the loss of 20% funding of bus operationg from Measures R/J. Idiots? It's funny, the people who fight in the name of "social justice" actually withhold positive impacts to their own communities. The way these people talk make it sound like Metro will not build the rail projects, which is factually incorrect. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Beverly Hills = the BRU in terms of mindset. Idiots who use talking points instead of facts to dictate their decisions. As one who wanted a subway as well as the Expo line, only to see neither done properly, I was opposed to Prop R. I'm genuinely undecided on J - money is cheap and even bad projects should be accelerated, as they will cost more later, but its hard to trust the authority that has made so many bad decisions to date. And when advocates can't be civil and have an honest discussion of the merits of the proposal, I'm inclined to vote NO. Calling people idiots for opposing your narrow POV will not win converts. I don't support the BHHS folks, but the NFSR group is not wrong when they oppose at-grade construction. Why can't the issue be revisited, especially if you're asking for another vote to double-down on taxes? Ever public measure promotes "accountability", then packs the oversight committee with friends who almost universally rubber-stamp everything. Such claims are worthless.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 2, 2012 16:44:27 GMT -8
These "No on J" people are idiots. First of all, there IS accountability which was built into Measure R and extended into Measure J. So that's absolute bulls*** #1. A blank check? That's just to make political sound bites. Disruptive Measure R and J projects, oh they mean where the people of LA WANT a subway to the westside and an expanded rail transit system? Bull*** #2. More service cuts? Those voting against Measure J are actually voting for more bus service cuts due to the loss of 20% funding of bus operationg from Measures R/J. Idiots? It's funny, the people who fight in the name of "social justice" actually withhold positive impacts to their own communities. The way these people talk make it sound like Metro will not build the rail projects, which is factually incorrect. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Beverly Hills = the BRU in terms of mindset. Idiots who use talking points instead of facts to dictate their decisions. As one who wanted a subway as well as the Expo line, only to see neither done properly, I was opposed to Prop R. I'm genuinely undecided on J - money is cheap and even bad projects should be accelerated, as they will cost more later, but its hard to trust the authority that has made so many bad decisions to date. And when advocates can't be civil and have an honest discussion of the merits of the proposal, I'm inclined to vote NO. Calling people idiots for opposing your narrow POV will not win converts. I don't support the BHHS folks, but the NFSR group is not wrong when they oppose at-grade construction. Why can't the issue be revisited, especially if you're asking for another vote to double-down on taxes? Ever public measure promotes "accountability", then packs the oversight committee with friends who almost universally rubber-stamp everything. Such claims are worthless. My narrow POV? Don't you think it's a narrow POV when people are saying factually incorrect material? I just clarified that #1 - there is accountability. That's a fact and it's written into the Measure R/J. BRU claims no accountability, why do you take that as fact when that's not in the Measure? #2 BRU calls rail projects disruptive? Don't know if you've been living under a rock, but the majority of Angelenos keep asking for better public transit and trains are #1 b/c it can bypass traffic. There was a good article in the LA Times over the weekend that said "the inconvenience of a few should be sacrificed for the greater good of the many". These projects are sorely needed and people want to ride rail. I ride with the people in the Expo Line, they're appreciative it's here. Again, another lie the BRU tells its members. Don't tell me the 160,000 daily riders on the Red Line are pissed they're on a subway. #3 absolute false claim the BRU says is that "bus cuts will happen with Measure J". Absolutely false, there will be less bus service without Measure J as there is 20% of bus operations funding built into the Measure. This is a fact, not a claim. Yet the BRU spins it and people think of unwritten language as fact. Read the Measure and think of your own opinion. BHUSD, NSFR and BRU are the close minded people who come up with opinions and if you keep repeating them, they apparently become truth. The Measure clearly states what I just said. Each thing that BHUSD, NSFR and BRU spin is clearly factually incorrect and should be called out for slander.
|
|
|
Post by TransportationZ on Nov 2, 2012 20:50:04 GMT -8
These "No on J" people are idiots. First of all, there IS accountability which was built into Measure R and extended into Measure J. So that's absolute bulls*** #1. A blank check? That's just to make political sound bites. Disruptive Measure R and J projects, oh they mean where the people of LA WANT a subway to the westside and an expanded rail transit system? Bull*** #2. More service cuts? Those voting against Measure J are actually voting for more bus service cuts due to the loss of 20% funding of bus operationg from Measures R/J. Idiots? It's funny, the people who fight in the name of "social justice" actually withhold positive impacts to their own communities. The way these people talk make it sound like Metro will not build the rail projects, which is factually incorrect. I can't believe I'm saying this, but Beverly Hills = the BRU in terms of mindset. Idiots who use talking points instead of facts to dictate their decisions. As one who wanted a subway as well as the Expo line, only to see neither done properly, I was opposed to Prop R. I'm genuinely undecided on J - money is cheap and even bad projects should be accelerated, as they will cost more later, but its hard to trust the authority that has made so many bad decisions to date. And when advocates can't be civil and have an honest discussion of the merits of the proposal, I'm inclined to vote NO. Calling people idiots for opposing your narrow POV will not win converts. I don't support the BHHS folks, but the NFSR group is not wrong when they oppose at-grade construction. Why can't the issue be revisited, especially if you're asking for another vote to double-down on taxes? Ever public measure promotes "accountability", then packs the oversight committee with friends who almost universally rubber-stamp everything. Such claims are worthless. I would agree that we should always be open to other view points, I have to agree with LAofA. The problem is that these people put illegitimate claims and offer no real evidence of an issue. They do this simply to shut down projects, and they do not even try to work with the authority. Atleast with Farmdale, we may have gotten an unneeded slow-down and station, but atleast the whole project didn't have to be shutdown. Also, I don't see what the issue is of at-grade construction. Phase 2 will already have a sh*t-ton of grade separations along the line, and Santa Monica WANTED at-grade when Metro wanted a tunnel. EVERY major street the line crosses will get a nice new bridge. If anything, the at-grade automobile is far more dangerous than a train on fixed guideway with gates and lights to alert everyone when it's coming. The BHHS issue is so BS is not even worth mentioning. The even more hilarious part is that these people will love the rail line once it's in-place.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 5, 2012 9:15:13 GMT -8
I hope I am wrong, but I have a bad feeling about Measure J passing even though a couple weeks ago I thought it had a very good chance. It is always tough to get 2/3 vote for a tax measure, but with other measures on the ballot and a shaky economy it is that much tougher.
I received some Democratic group mailings over the weekend and both of them suggested a no vote on J, which surprised me a bit. People with a bone to pick on a small issue (think a subway tunnel should go a 100 yards this way versus another way) will then use that as an excuse to vote no.
The main opposition is from so called political leaders that I absolutely abhor - Goodmon, Antonovich, Mirsch, Ridley-Thomas, and the Bus Riders Union. If it doesn't get a 2/3 vote, it is going to be a nightmare listening to these guys thinking they won.
The only good thing is that if it doesn't pass, there will be other opportunities to extend it in the future, although much of the acceleration would be lost. Lets hope my uneasiness is wrong as I was wrong about Measure R passing in the first place. I have seen some ads on TV so maybe that will turn the tide like it did last time.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 7, 2012 7:31:46 GMT -8
LA's Measure J received 65% of the vote, but still didn't pass. In CA, 2/3 of the vote is needed to pass a tax measure. So, we lost. Los Angeles lost. Special thanks to Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills High School, Bus Riders Union, Crenshaw Coaltion, etc... who spread misinformation and lies about tying bus cuts and fare raises to Measure R. For anybody who vote "No on J", don't complain about traffic. You could have done something. A 1/2 cent sales tax costs you $25/year, not a big deal when you want to get around a city with little public transportation that needs significant expansion. Oh well, ironically, we're still getting all our projects, just expect the subway to Westwood in 2036 now and not 2022.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Nov 7, 2012 9:31:52 GMT -8
LA's Measure J received 65% of the vote, but still didn't pass. In CA, 2/3 of the vote is needed to pass a tax measure. So, we lost. Los Angeles lost. Special thanks to Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills High School, Bus Riders Union, Crenshaw Coaltion, etc... who spread misinformation and lies about tying bus cuts and fare raises to Measure R. For anybody who vote "No on J", don't complain about traffic. You could have done something. A 1/2 cent sales tax costs you $25/year, not a big deal when you want to get around a city with little public transportation that needs significant expansion. Oh well, ironically, we're still getting all our projects, just expect the subway to Westwood in 2036 now and not 2022. I think the real reason was MTA self-destructing themselves with their inner politics by not including the Gold Line Montclair extension and therefore failing to get the additional 2% from San Gabriel Valley they needed.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Nov 7, 2012 9:57:44 GMT -8
I question how the campaign was run. I do not watch TV, so I do not know about the presence of TV ads, but the Facebook page was not created until October 17. Without any Measure R projects actually opened and little connection in voter's minds with other projects, this was a tough sell. My question is - can we run this again in 2016, when Expo has opened, and the Crenshaw Line, Regional Connector, and Purple Line are all under construction?
|
|
|
Post by bobdavis on Nov 7, 2012 11:18:25 GMT -8
Regarding Measure R--the Gold Line Foothill Extension is part of that program, and it's well on the way to major construction. But Measure J did not include funds for Azusa to Montclair, which convinced one of the "city fathers" in Claremont to take a "No on J" position. Then we have our "usual suspects" and "nattering nabobs of negativism": BRU, NFSR and Beverly Hills NIMBYs. Someone I know thought it was just planning too far ahead, and that many of us will be long gone by the time it would actually go into effect.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 7, 2012 11:53:00 GMT -8
Regarding Measure R--the Gold Line Foothill Extension is part of that program, and it's well on the way to major construction. But Measure J did not include funds for Azusa to Montclair, which convinced one of the "city fathers" in Claremont to take a "No on J" position. Then we have our "usual suspects" and "nattering nabobs of negativism": BRU, NFSR and Beverly Hills NIMBYs. Someone I know thought it was just planning too far ahead, and that many of us will be long gone by the time it would actually go into effect. I thought the language in J that allows for projects in a subregion to be reallocated was a strong enough argument for this. This would have allowed the 710 Project funds to be reallocated to the Gold Line. However, that didn't seem to alleviate some of the Anti-710 or Pro Gold Line forces, which seemed odd to me. Now the 710 has more of a chance to be completed and the Gold Line less of a chance. People just thought they were mad at the MTA and voted against J because of it, but I don't think this made much sense. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune seem to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 7, 2012 13:08:27 GMT -8
Regarding Measure R--the Gold Line Foothill Extension is part of that program, and it's well on the way to major construction. But Measure J did not include funds for Azusa to Montclair, which convinced one of the "city fathers" in Claremont to take a "No on J" position. Then we have our "usual suspects" and "nattering nabobs of negativism": BRU, NFSR and Beverly Hills NIMBYs. Someone I know thought it was just planning too far ahead, and that many of us will be long gone by the time it would actually go into effect. Just as masonite explained, too much misinformation to Measure J. Measure J would have allowed re-allocation of funds within regions w/ a 2/3 approval vote from the Metro board. Now, without Measure J, those funds are locked in for the projects. The SGV shot itself in the foot and now the $700M is locked in for a I-710 extension. This is what happens when people are misinformed. Metro should have done a better job, but better publicity would have been great. Remember in 2008 when Antonio would go to TV stations to promote Measure R? Nobody on Metro's end did that for Measure J.
|
|
|
Post by spokker on Nov 7, 2012 19:01:49 GMT -8
Told you.
And now I'm done here.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 7, 2012 20:02:45 GMT -8
Told you. And now I'm done here. Don't head to Vegas anytime soon Nostradamus. 2/3 vote is always a long shot, and a lot of us predicted it would be tough to reach this time around. How do you explain Props. 30 and 39?
|
|
|
Post by metroman on Nov 7, 2012 21:50:33 GMT -8
This is what happens when people are misinformed. Metro should have done a better job, but better publicity would have been great. Remember in 2008 when Antonio would go to TV stations to promote Measure R? Nobody on Metro's end did that for Measure J. Maybe because I've been busy lately, but I don't recall Tony V doing much to promote Measure J. Metro did come out with a nicely produced tv ad, but waited till late in the game before airing it. But I agree, Metro didn't get the message out very well.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 8, 2012 4:22:26 GMT -8
Now that Obama is re-elected, Villaraigosa could become transportation secretary. If so, he could push for an infrastructure bank, or other federal programs that could take the place of Measure J.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Nov 8, 2012 21:42:14 GMT -8
J is down, but not out...
About 700,000 votes remain uncounted in LA county as of yesterday; many of them provisional ballots. There are 4.3 million registered voters in the county; 700,000 is a considerable percentage of that. With J almost-there-but-not-quite in terms of the 2/3 majority, it's possible those votes could tip the scales.
Wasn't Measure R originally projected to not make the 2/3 majority? And then the next day it did.
|
|
|
Post by John Ryan on Nov 9, 2012 11:39:54 GMT -8
How long will it take to count the nearly "800,000 outstanding vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that had not been counted?"
|
|
|
Post by tonyw79sfv on Nov 11, 2012 18:45:09 GMT -8
Metro's The Source blog posted a city-by-city breakdown of the Measure J results. Direct PDF link.City of Industry had the lowest support at 33.3% and West Hollywood had the highest at 81.4%. City of Industry had 7 voted yes and 14 voted no. City of Los Angeles as a whole had 69.4%. I further broken down the City of Los Angeles results to the 15 council districts; only 4 of the 15 of the districts were below the 2/3 threshold and they are CD 3 (SW SFV), CD 7 (NE SFV), CD 12 (NW SFV), and CD 15 (Harbor Gateway to San Pedro). The highest is CD 13 (East Hollywood/Silver Lake) at 80.4%. I have listed current and future rapid transit/commuter rail lines as reference to show what each district has and would anticipate. These are based off the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's results by community PDF. Los Angeles City Council District boundary map.City of Los Angeles (whole) 69.4% METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 537,680 NO 237,401 CD 01 76.3% Ed Reyes (Pico-Union/Westlake/Echo Park/Chinatown/Highland Park) Metro Red/Purple/Gold Lines METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 24,139 NO 7,517 CD 02 72.3% Paul Krekorian (North Hollywood/Valley Village/Studio City) Metro Orange/Red Lines Metrolink Ventura County Line METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 37,610 NO 14,411 CD 03 61.1% * Dennis P. Zine (Canoga Park/Woodland Hills/Reseda/Tarzana) Metro Orange Line METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 33,235 NO 21,187 CD 04 75.0% Tom LaBonge (Sherman Oaks/Hollywood Hills/Hollywood/Los Feliz/Koreatown) Metro Orange/Red Lines Future: Metro Purple Line/East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor/Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 54,172 NO 18,092 CD 05 70.0% Paul Koretz (Encino/UCLA-Westwood/Century City/Palms/Cheviot Hills/Fairfax District) Future: Metro Purple/Expo phase 2/Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 50,659 NO 21,725 CD 06 70.7% Tony Cardenas (Lake Balboa/Van Nuys/Panorama City/Arleta/Sun Valley) Metro Orange Line Metrolink Antelope Valley Line Future: East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 25,095 NO 10,409 CD 07 63.5% * Richard Alarcon (Sylmar/Mission Hills/Pacoima/Sunland) Metrolink Antelope Valley Line Future: East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 29,803 NO 17,105 CD 08 71.9% Bernard Parks (Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw/Leimert Park/Jefferson Park) Metro Expo/Silver Lines Future: Crenshaw Line METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 36,163 NO 14,145 CD 09 74.3% Jan Perry (South Park/USC-Exposition Park/South Los Angeles) Metro Expo/Blue/Silver Lines METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 19,649 NO 6,803 CD 10 73.7% Herb J. Wesson, Jr. (Koreatown/Mid-City/Arlington Heights) Metro Red/Purple/Expo Lines Future: Crenshaw Line METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 35,416 NO 12,618 CD 11 69.5% Bill Rosendahl (Brentwood/West Los Angeles/Mar Vista/Venice/Westchester) Metro Green Line Future: Expo Line phase 2 and Crenshaw Lines METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 54,826 NO 24,028 CD 12 55.5% * (lowest) Mitchell Englander (West Hills/Chatsworth/Granada Hills/Northridge/Porter Ranch) Metro Orange Line Metrolink Ventura County Line METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 39,645 NO 32,484 CD 13 80.4% (highest) Eric Garcetti (Hollywood/East Hollywood/Silver Lake/Atwater Village) Metro Red Line Metrolink Ventura County and Antelope Valley Lines METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 35,815 NO 8,721 CD 14 72.5% Jose Huizar (Downtown Los Angeles/Union Station/Eagle Rock/Boyle Heights/El Sereno) Metro Red/Purple/Blue/Expo/Gold/Silver Lines All Metrolink lines except IEOC (Union Station is in CD 14) Future: Downtown LA Streetcar and West Santa Ana Transit Corridor METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 33,264 NO 12,592 CD 15 64.4% * Joe Buscaino (Harbor Gateway/Wilmington/San Pedro) Metro Blue/Silver Lines METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHY J YES 28,189 NO 15,564
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Nov 12, 2012 23:14:13 GMT -8
As one who wanted a subway as well as the Expo line, only to see neither done properly, I was opposed to Prop R. I'm not sure how they could have been done any better under the circumstances. With regard to the Expo line specifically, as a transit system it would have been better completely elevated, which would have been unacceptable to nearby residents, or as a subway, which would have been cost prohibitive. Sometimes you have to compromise or nothing gets built. The NFSR is very wrong about this. For one thing, much of the ROW through their area is already trenched. Of the sections which are at grade, the ROW has been there for 147 years and everyone should be used to it. Except for major thoroughfares, most of the north-and-south streets don't cross the ROW, and for that matter there's a good reason you don't take Expo Boulevard when driving from Santa Monica to DTLA--too many interruptions and dangerous crossings of major boulevards without signals. As someone said in another thread, they bought houses near the train tracks and now they're surprised the tracks are going to be used. (Well, the ROW, anyhow). Maybe with Measure J we could have obtained additional funding up front for some additional grade separations. As it is, we now seem to be back to waiting another four years on this, at least, and that being the case I'd like to see them just push ahead with the plan. One small neighborhood should not be allowed to hold this up.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Nov 12, 2012 23:28:20 GMT -8
How long will it take to count the nearly "800,000 outstanding vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that had not been counted?" It appears the BRU has won, although Metro's "concession press release" spins this as an almost-win for them, since the measure garnered over 64%. I don't understand how everything can have been counted by this point. Didn't we have to wait until well into 2009 to learn whether Measure R had been approved or not? Granted there are fewer votes to count this time around, but still. The really troubling thing is that this might have been our last best chance. Today the IEA released a forecast by which the United States may well become the top oil producer by 2020, thanks to new extractive technologies such as fracking. We could be in for another generation of absurdly cheap gasoline, which is great if you need to fill up your SUV's tank but less than optimal for encouraging transit ridership and advocacy. Even congestion on the roads doesn't seem to deter people from driving; only high fuel prices make them really take notice and consider alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 13, 2012 9:52:54 GMT -8
How long will it take to count the nearly "800,000 outstanding vote-by-mail and provisional ballots that had not been counted?" It appears the BRU has won, although Metro's "concession press release" spins this as an almost-win for them, since the measure garnered over 64%. I don't understand how everything can have been counted by this point. Didn't we have to wait until well into 2009 to learn whether Measure R had been approved or not? Granted there are fewer votes to count this time around, but still. The really troubling thing is that this might have been our last best chance. Today the IEA released a forecast by which the United States may well become the top oil producer by 2020, thanks to new extractive technologies such as fracking. We could be in for another generation of absurdly cheap gasoline, which is great if you need to fill up your SUV's tank but less than optimal for encouraging transit ridership and advocacy. Even congestion on the roads doesn't seem to deter people from driving; only high fuel prices make them really take notice and consider alternatives. The count is not over for Measure J, but it is nearly impossible to make up a 2% deficit so in effect, Measure J is toast. Partly through our silly political bickering and trying to blame the President for gas prices, some Americans do incorrectly conflate lower energy prices with energy independence. They are two completely different things. Oil is a world product and dependent on world demand and world supply. Americans are going to pay the world price even if they are energy independent unless the government starts subsidizing gasoline purchases like they do in Venezuela and Iran. Furthermore, the recent boom in US production is due to things like fracking which require high prices to be cost effective. If oil is $30-$40 a barrel, US production would fall off a cliff, because a lot of it would become economically unviable. Canada is an energy exporter and has higher gas prices than we do partly as a result of taxes. High fuel prices are likely here to stay barring another world depression or sudden disruption in demand.
|
|
|
Post by pithecanthropus on Nov 13, 2012 13:18:42 GMT -8
City of Industry had the lowest support at 33.3% and West Hollywood had the highest at 81.4%. City of Industry had 7 voted yes and 14 voted no. What, twenty-one votes all told? What was this, an election or a grand jury indictment?
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Nov 13, 2012 14:40:22 GMT -8
City of Industry had the lowest support at 33.3% and West Hollywood had the highest at 81.4%. City of Industry had 7 voted yes and 14 voted no. What, twenty-one votes all told? What was this, an election or a grand jury indictment? The entire municipality is literally a city of industry. There are all but 220 residents in the entire town. The revenue per-person must be astronomical though. So pretty much just under 10% of the entire city voted.
|
|
|
Post by Elson on Nov 13, 2012 14:46:22 GMT -8
Measure R was called the day after the election. People went to bed thinking it didn't pass but by lunchtime the 2/3rds had been reached.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 13, 2012 15:45:40 GMT -8
Measure R was called the day after the election. People went to bed thinking it didn't pass but by lunchtime the 2/3rds had been reached. Depends when you went to bed that night. I stayed up late and Measure R was just slightly ahead when I went to bed, and I thought it passed although I didn't realize all the provisionals that still needed to be counted. The subsequent count over the next week or so made the margin a fair bit more comfortable and I think the end result was that it passed by a full 1%.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Nov 14, 2012 5:10:10 GMT -8
It appears the BRU has won Only if you go by Charlie Sheen's definition of winning.
|
|