Post by James Fujita on Feb 6, 2008 14:18:58 GMT -8
well, if you haven't been paying attention to the election coverage (and what sort of transit advocate are you if you don't pay attention to elections?), it looks like Prop. 91 lost. it got about 40 percent of the total.
Prop. 91 was the "necessary unnecessary" transit measure that would have zipped up the loopholes left in Prop. 1A (which zipped up most of the loopholes in Prop. 42).
although the proposition lost, it still got the message across: despite the fact that the "backers" were telling voters to vote no on the measure, forty percent still said yes!
as the San Francisco Chronicle put it:
Both the advocates and opponents of Prop. 91 said Tuesday night the strong "yes" vote showed the fierce opposition the electorate has for diverting transportation funds."This initiative still sent a message: We do not like what you are doing with transportation funds. We do not want them diverted. And we will keep voting for things that keep you from diverting them," said Kymberleigh Richards, public and legislative affairs director for Southern California Transit Advocates, the lone advocate for the measure.
Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, said the strong "yes" vote "underscores the importance of this issue to most voters."
admittedly, I had my doubts about Prop. 91 because it looked like it could have unintended consequences: i.e., it still would be easier to raid transit funds than to raid highway funds. but I voted for it on the "we're not going to take it anymore" principle. but, if Prop. 91 had been law last year, we wouldn't have had the unfortunate but still legal budget raid.
forty percent isn't a victory, but it is quite good under the circumstances...
Prop. 91 was the "necessary unnecessary" transit measure that would have zipped up the loopholes left in Prop. 1A (which zipped up most of the loopholes in Prop. 42).
although the proposition lost, it still got the message across: despite the fact that the "backers" were telling voters to vote no on the measure, forty percent still said yes!
as the San Francisco Chronicle put it:
Both the advocates and opponents of Prop. 91 said Tuesday night the strong "yes" vote showed the fierce opposition the electorate has for diverting transportation funds."This initiative still sent a message: We do not like what you are doing with transportation funds. We do not want them diverted. And we will keep voting for things that keep you from diverting them," said Kymberleigh Richards, public and legislative affairs director for Southern California Transit Advocates, the lone advocate for the measure.
Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, said the strong "yes" vote "underscores the importance of this issue to most voters."
admittedly, I had my doubts about Prop. 91 because it looked like it could have unintended consequences: i.e., it still would be easier to raid transit funds than to raid highway funds. but I voted for it on the "we're not going to take it anymore" principle. but, if Prop. 91 had been law last year, we wouldn't have had the unfortunate but still legal budget raid.
forty percent isn't a victory, but it is quite good under the circumstances...
