|
Post by wad on Jul 26, 2008 4:06:40 GMT -8
has anyone here said they wont vote yes on it? Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear if this sales tax measure fails. Remember, at worst, we're still committed to what is in the short- and long-range plans. It's not like the taxes are going to be repealed. This sales tax measure was hastily and sloppily implemented, and it is a 30-year, $40 billion pacifier that locks in future generations to a slapfight politicians had today. There's a better way it can be done, and we've seen some of it within the last year. Give the Sector Governance Councils the charter to determine the shape of how funding should be allocated in each of the councils. Let Metro staff work with the public to determine how money raised from the sectors should be spent within the sectors. At least this way, the public has a say in what gets built. Draw this process out over one year, even two. This way, people can see the progress of what projects or initiatives will go to the voters. The way Metro allowed this tax measure to go forward is an embarrassment. Much of the county has to acquiesce to the San Gabriel Valley, and achieving a consensus with the area's political delegation was tantamount to negotiating with psychopathic cartoon supervillains. What got lost in the whole process was why the Gold Line extension was downgraded: Its performance numbers were ugly. It's not even about the train anymore; it's about soothing a region's ego. I'd say, let the measure fail. If it does, we'll live another day. Better yet, if we have good ideas, let us be the agents of positive change.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 26, 2008 7:15:47 GMT -8
Campaigning against it would be the height of irresponsibility for themselves and the region. I sincerely hope they're bluffing and trying to get some sort of last minute compromise. Frankly, if they campaign against it and the bill fails, they can kiss the gold line goodbye. Why on earth would anyone fund such an inefficient line given the coming MTA budget shortfalls and given the SGV's apparent lack of interest in paying for it. it was my understanding that several of the cities served by this line actually raised money to help pay for it. but metro does not want to have to keep the line running after its built also, this is just one of several options announced to build a system the region requires. dont for get about the HOT lanes [which started this whole mess] and PPP What got lost in the whole process was why the Gold Line extension was downgraded: Its performance numbers were ugly. It's not even about the train anymore; it's about soothing a region's ego. ego soothing, yes that is. nothing to do with getting people out of there cars.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 26, 2008 9:52:34 GMT -8
Everybody needs to be ready for the libertarian/anti-tax avalanche against this. That LA Weekly article is only the beginning. Peter Gordon, from USC, is the classic go-to quote guy for claiming everything Metro does is wrong. Simon, don't mistake the appearance of a movement with a real movement. The libertarians have no real political constituency. Almost all of their political energy is expended in the Right Wing Information Apparatus (think tanks). That's not to say the sales tax is a sure bet. It's not. However, the opposition is about a meter wide and a centimeter deep. the trouble is, the world isn't divided up into "pro-transit" and "anti-transit" camps. just look at the Bottleneck Blog or any other news site that isn't specifically geared towards transit geeks or auto warriors. there's a huge group of people who don't know the difference between commuter rail, light rail and subways. these are the undecideds, the uncommitted people who know that Los Angeles has a traffic problem but maybe don't know what to do about it. or, they're elderly and convinced that they'll be dead before a solution is built. old people vote in huge numbers. in short, the anti-transit folks don't have to have a majority or even very strong numbers. all they have to do is use their "Right Wing Information Apparatus" to write up a dozen misleading commentaries in the Times or get their message out into the press. if they can convince enough people in the muddled middle that transit isn't the way to go... or at least that a sales tax isn't the way to fund it, they can win. they don't even need to win, they just need 34 percent.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 26, 2008 10:40:55 GMT -8
has anyone here said they wont vote yes on it? Personally, I wouldn't shed a tear if this sales tax measure fails. don't be a fool. this sales tax will help a lot, and it'll help us achieve our transit goals a lot faster than some convoluted plan to slow the process down so that the MTA can gather more input. There's a better way it can be done, and we've seen some of it within the last year. Give the Sector Governance Councils the charter to determine the shape of how funding should be allocated in each of the councils. Let Metro staff work with the public to determine how money raised from the sectors should be spent within the sectors. At least this way, the public has a say in what gets built. Draw this process out over one year, even two. This way, people can see the progress of what projects or initiatives will go to the voters. yeah, because recent experience shows that people want things to move slower and get done less quickly. they want this process to be drawn out longer than it needs to be so they can sit around in their cars for the next couple of years. **sarcasm mode off** you want more meetings, but why? so that the Bus Riders Union will have even more reasons to put on a circus? so that the pro and anti-subway forces will have more opportunities to yell at each other? or so that the monorail fanatics will have more chances to explain their ideas? because average commuters never attend public meetings, just the crazy ones do. normal people have more important things to do. The way Metro allowed this tax measure to go forward is an embarrassment. Much of the county has to acquiesce to the San Gabriel Valley, and achieving a consensus with the area's political delegation was tantamount to negotiating with psychopathic cartoon supervillains. What got lost in the whole process was why the Gold Line extension was downgraded: Its performance numbers were ugly. It's not even about the train anymore; it's about soothing a region's ego. I'd say, let the measure fail. If it does, we'll live another day. Better yet, if we have good ideas, let us be the agents of positive change. you're obviously willing to deny what the SGV wants; what I'm curious about is, are you willing to sacrifice the rest of the county for it? the San Gabriel Valley outmaneuvered us. they managed to gather up their resources, they built support, they did all the right things. they played the game instead of trying to change its rules. they won, Wad. but hey, you'd rather lose with dignity than make friends with the valley. that'll show them, right?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 26, 2008 15:21:48 GMT -8
you're obviously willing to deny what the SGV wants; what I'm curious about is, are you willing to sacrifice the rest of the county for it? the San Gabriel Valley outmaneuvered us. they managed to gather up their resources, they built support, they did all the right things. they played the game instead of trying to change its rules. they won, Wad. but hey, you'd rather lose with dignity than make friends with the valley. that'll show them, right? I don't think the SGV feels that they have won since they are going to campaign against the sales tax measure. Even if they are successful in that regard, they will not get their Gold Line extension. Not sure how that is winning.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by simon on Jul 26, 2008 17:29:05 GMT -8
I'd say, let the measure fail. If it does, we'll live another day. Better yet, if we have good ideas, let us be the agents of positive change. I disagree Wad. Sure, if this were a state with a sensible constitution, we could say "this bill is too screwed up, let's do it better," but instead we have a state political situation and system that basically only lets you raise money via sales tax and only lets you do it with a 2/3rds vote approval. In fact, virtually every way to raise money in this state requires a 2/3rds vote approval. That means you get very few shots to do something like this, and I think this year is our best chance for a decade. If this measure fails, there's not going to just be another way to get the money around the corner. The Purple line extension is in the long-range plan but there's no funding for it. The previous tax base is pretty used up at this point, and there certainly isn't going to be 30 billion dollars tumbling out of it anytime soon. I agree the sales tax bill was rushed and should have had the projects better planned and more realistically planned (not adjusting for inflation basically guarantees a third of the projects won't happen), but let's not throw away the good looking for the perfect. The Gold line is a waste of resources, but it's not a fatal waste, at least not in my opinion, and the subway to the sea is exactly what's needed to kickstart transit in this region and get millions more people into the system and ready to support even more expansion. I shudder to think what this county will look like in twenty years if a new transit revenue stream isn't opened up, and I hope I don't have to find out for sure.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 26, 2008 22:44:18 GMT -8
I don't think the SGV feels that they have won since they are going to campaign against the sales tax measure. Even if they are successful in that regard, they will not get their Gold Line extension. Not sure how that is winning. well, perhaps I overstated my case a bit, but I hope you at least get my point. they wouldn't even be at the table if they hadn't fought hard to be considered. and once they won the right to be included in the MTA's long range plans, they didn't stop. they continued pushing. was their approach wrong? the MTA would still be sitting on the Expo Line if it weren't for the very persistant grassroots efforts of Friends for Expo and others. as far as campaigning against the sales tax goes, I think we ought to consider that politicians are highly capable of making empty threats. I'd like to know if the mayors and city councils of the valley agree with Hilda Solis' position. I'd like to know if the citizens of SGV agree, and I'm curious to see if they actually do campaign against it. ( there's also other issues besides the Gold Line, such as the El Monte busway toll lanes, or the 710 freeway tunnel, which may complicate the issue. we're just assuming that this is just about the Gold Line. ) it reminds me of a sibling rivalry. right now "Gabriel" is acting like the annoying, spoiled little brother but guess what, they're still family. we still have to live with them. all dumb metaphors aside, we can't simply ignore the SGV. we can't change the sales tax measure. for all practical intents and purposes, we're all screwed if this doesn't pass because Sacramento isn't going to rescue us. so. the question is, how do we assure the SGV that it is in their best interest to support the sales tax?
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 27, 2008 5:54:22 GMT -8
the trouble is, the world isn't divided up into "pro-transit" and "anti-transit" camps. just look at the Bottleneck Blog or any other news site that isn't specifically geared towards transit geeks or auto warriors. You were the one who pointed out the threat of the likes of Peter Gordon and the L.A. Weekly, whose news division has become Jill Stewart's neocon hobby horse. As you've said, the world isn't divided up into the geeks and road warriors. For the undecided voters, these names don't matter. And they will. Journalism still operates on the Objectivity Model. And the Reasoners will mislead. The role of think tanks has not been to formulate policy or research; the Right Wing has used policy and research as a red herring to really experiment with new propaganda techniques and see what works with whom. So be it. What are some of the assets the pro-tax camp has? - The tax will be placed on the November ballot in a presidential election. This is when the conservative momentum is most diluted.
- Metro is one of the largest employers in Los Angeles County, and most of its workers would support the tax. It is also heavily unionized, so it can count on organized labor's far more effective mobilization campaign.
- California voters have been quite generous with tax increases in the past few years. Many tax increase measures have successfully passed.
Also, this is about asking for more money? The other two sales taxes will still be in place. There's no referendum on those.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 27, 2008 6:22:51 GMT -8
yeah, because recent experience shows that people want things to move slower and get done less quickly. You want it done fast or done right? You can't have it both ways. Remember, this is Metro we are dealing with. It was only a decade ago that 2/3 of L.A. County voters told the agency it can no longer build subways. They will, anyway. It will be a decade before the projects funded by this tax will begin to bear fruit. First off, going to meetings in public is not a requirement. Metro accepts correspondence by telephone message, fax and e-mail. These are all counted the same, and they are considered a part of the public record. Second, you think these meetings are ineffective? In less than a year, a subway extension through West Hollywood went from an internet meme to a serious alternative that is meriting consideration to be built. In that same time, Metro narrowed the alternatives of the downtown connector to the options that will extend the Blue and Gold lines into downtown. Bus rapid transit and surface streetcars have been taken off the table. Third, we're actually at a point in history where the public is demanding more transit than Metro could possibly deliver. Our first rail projects were built in areas that had the least fierce opposition. Now we are at the point where we must decide which projects come first. Most importantly, creating a process of deliberation would help create an end run around the political morass. The problem is, you really do not want the Metro board to decide what projects get built. They have proven that they are incapable of understanding transit planning. If they can't smarten up to understand their responsibilities, they'll dumb down transit to the level they can grasp. So they'll all gather in a room like gangsters and divide the region up into territories that they'll control. What gets funded has nothing to do with need or productivity or equity; it has everything to do with preserving a political feud for 30 years and bending mobility around some really slipshod deal-making. I'd rather put the process in the hands of the customers who are paying for and using the system, and the people who have the data and the expertise to keep it running. If the San Gabriel Valley sector has a series of meetings, and the overwhelming support is for the Gold Line extension, then it should be built. At least let the public get a chance to determine how the money should be spent in their regions. The Metro board is not much smarter than rubber stamps, so the L.A. County residents should confine them to that role. Leave the planning of the system to the customers and the agency.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 27, 2008 9:47:41 GMT -8
I think that we should both recognize the self-defeating and childlike antics of some of those in the SGV, vs. more political posturing. I think that they ALL know that this is a wonderful opportunity to fast-track their dreams into reality.
Take a deep breath, everybody, and try to put yourself in other people's shoes and be diplomatic!
The SGV voted for Prop. 1B, but got nothing when it comes to the doling out of freeway funds and rail projects. The Westside got the I-405 freeway project, and the first phase of Expo (but that money was previously slated for the first phase of Expo and should have been doled out for the second phase of Expo or maybe the Azusa extension of the Gold Line).
The state and feds are screwing over the SGV waaaaay more than the county ever could, so perhaps we should talk up how the SGV really deserves to have its sales tax dollars doled more for its area (and for that matter, a policy that is needed for each region).
While I have some serious doubts as to the 80/320 million local/federal match being realistic and one that might delay federal support for Expo Phase 2 from occurring, I have the following philosophy:
1) Recognizing that the SGV got nailed worse than anyone by Prop. 1B allocations, we should have no contentions urging that the right percentage of money get devoted to each region, including the SGV.
2) Leaning on the state to stop raiding transportation funds for other budgetary priorities
3) Insisting that the next 5-7 federal cycle of transportation funding be devoted to creating (among other freeway and other projects) a full Ocean To The Eastern Regions (OTTER) rail project from the beach to Claremont
Only when we get the full OTTER rail (full Expo, Downtown Connector and Gold Line) will we ever realistically begin to get to the subway on Wilshire. We need to clear out all those light rail line projects ahead of the Wilshire subway, including the Crenshaw, Eastside and Downtown light rail projects, and insist on a full-service, complete Downtown Connector that is underground.
When we talk things up this way, the SGV will come on board--they're envisioning another rape of their taxpayer funds to go to another region of the county, and while they're overreacting I'm not certain I blame them for at least some measure of paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 27, 2008 12:03:01 GMT -8
You were the one who pointed out the threat of the likes of Peter Gordon and the L.A. Weekly, whose news division has become Jill Stewart's neocon hobby horse. As you've said, the world isn't divided up into the geeks and road warriors. For the undecided voters, these names don't matter. Wad, sometimes I think you're deliberately not getting the point. as I said, the world isn't divided up into geeks and warriors. which means that they will be easier to manipulate, because while they are concerned about traffic, it doesn't necessarily mean that they know how to deal with it. no, the names Peter Gordon or James Moore won't mean anything to them, but here's the fun part. all of these anti-transit jerks have fancy titles like USC PROFESSOR OF or FOUNDATION or CONSULTANT attached to them. so by golly, they must know what they are talking about. between now and November, they'll praise suburban sprawl to the hilt, which will sound good to a lot of folks. they'll play up the heavily-white ridership of Metrolink and ignore the Blue Line. they'll talk about the unfairness of taxes. they'll talk about San Jose and ignore Portland, and find every possible misleading statistic they can find on transit. you see how this works? you don't have to be libertarian to vote against the sales tax, just stupid and uninformed. or, in the case of Wad, pigheaded, unwilling to compromise with the SGV and apparently holding out for some mythical populist revolution to come and save us from the Metro board. yeah, right.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 27, 2008 15:33:03 GMT -8
guys, the enemy is not the San Gabriel Valley and it's not all about the subway or the Gold Line while we're busy fighting each other, the Bus Riders Union, the Howard Jarvis nitwits, the Reason Foundation, all of the bruised and battered road warriors and the libertarian government haters are sharpening their knives and preparing to kill this sales tax measure! they are the enemy! so... do we want to bitch about not getting enough money, or do we want to fight for what money we can get?!! I'm with General James on this one! lets us rise up and plan some days working on this tax plan to get it passed! Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 28, 2008 5:33:28 GMT -8
Wad, sometimes I think you're deliberately not getting the point. Don't you dare say that I am not getting the point. I'm not making any assumptions about you. I don't know you well enough. Equally, how can you say that I am not getting it if you don't know me other than through this chat board? Much of acting involves looking the part. Peter Gordon is also the guy who famously said the Blue Line is going to be a ghost train. This was a man, who by schooling and professional experience, used the authority of his knowledge to make a prediction which he believed was certain. He made an educated guess. He ended up making the equivalent of an investment broker who shorted a stock only to see that its price had quadrupled. If Professor Gordon were a broker, he would have reduced his clients to penury. Fortunately, he's only a tenured professor and the only thing he lost was his credibility. He's jut far too proud to admit this, and he's smart enough to reframe his arguments to salvage his reputation. Second, you are again overstating the influence of people like him and the media that transmit the message. You are the one who said most people aren't hardcore geeks or warriors. Well, who reads the stories? The geeks and warriors. A tax is not going to change the voters' interest. Second, the undecided voter is less crucial in an up-or-down measure than it is when evaluating something qualitative, like a candidate. A yes/no measure has a greater degree of predictability, since larger trends are easier to plot. I've pointed out that trends would favor passage of the measure, so this tax hike is Metro's to lose. A presidential election, particularly the galvanizing effect of the Obama campaign, will bring a coattail effect. The anti-transit right has opinions, but no mobilization effort. The anti-transit right mostly preaches to the converted, but it's not growing its numbers. Organized labor, on the other hand, would favor this effort and it still can mobilize 1 to 3 additional voters for every union member. Also, high gas prices and traffic congestion are forcing most voters' hands. There is also the Roger Snoble effect. He was last the manager of DART in Dallas. If you think we face a challenge, Dallas is far more hostile to public transportation and has a far less productive system than Metro. Yet voters in the DART area agreed to tax themselves to expand their system, even though the light rail lines did not travel too far out of their downtown. If this passes, this will mark two large metropolitan transit systems that he has gotten to expand. He may end up being too rich for Metro's blood. You're directing stupid and uninformed at me? I'm probably more optimistic about this tax passing than you are. Also, if it fails, I take the view that the worst that will happen is nothing. The project that directly affects me is the subway to the sea. If it fails, I won't see it, but I will still have the Expo Line coming in several years. Plus, I will still have the subway and L.A.'s most frequent bus service in my neighborhood, which won't disappear. I am not unwilling to compromise. I am just unwilling to surrender. I am pro-transit, but I am also concerned when tax dollars are used as hush money. Look, when the transit agency that would get money and work from an added rail line thinks building said project is not such a hot idea, you had better be concerned. The Gold Line extension is a very expensive project with some very poor performance prospects. Ken Alpern raised an interesting point about the San Gabriel Valley being hosed in Proposition 1B funding, but it also seems the elected officials of the region are getting revenge on a different entity and region. As for the "mythic populist revolution," your shoddy snark doesn't comprehend that it would simply take the existing governance councils and the existing format of the corridor study and long range plan meetings -- which attracted unprecedented interest in transit, I might add -- and matches the money raised by the taxes with preferences by the community and Metro's planning and operations. People will know where the money will go, what they will get, and how much of it.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 28, 2008 6:01:03 GMT -8
Whether I agree or disagree with anything that either wad or any other poster makes on this discussion board, I would appreciate any silly name-calling to be withheld.
The Gold Line extension is a very serious debate that has two or more very solid and salient sides to it...but let's not shoot down any one of our repeat posters (especially one who has a pretty good track record, and probably one who is reflective of a sizeable segment of the general voting population as wad does).
Anyone who remembers the infamous postings of such trolls as "John" or "Diane Shapiro" would probably agree that a more civil tone to wad is in order.
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Jul 28, 2008 6:52:44 GMT -8
As you've said, the world isn't divided up into the geeks and road warriors. For the undecided voters, these names don't matter. You have a very good point here. Your average Joe on the street is not going to remember any names (unless they're linked to scandal, honestly) -- he is going to be swayed, quite frankly, by visual bombardment of propaganda. What I mean to say is that the way to get the measure passed is to put up billboards (like one on the 10: "For an extra 2ยข on that latte you're drinking, you could be zipping downtown on an air-conditioned subway car.") and television ads ("Gas is $4 a gallon; a trip on Metro is $1.25. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a train from Claremont to downtown?") Of course nobody has any budget for this -- but that's how to get the message out. Sniping at the various groups is counterproductive because it will just make the pro-transit lobby look disorganised and disjoint. I have to admit that I'm continually stunned by the success of Measure M down here in OC. Not just because they actually do what they say they're going to do, but because they've got a PR engine that really works. People are generally positive about Measure M (in a hugely red county).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 28, 2008 7:42:46 GMT -8
In the end, the performance of the Gold Line Foothill extension is less important than its value in getting the sales tax passed.
Having said that, the sales tax is already set up to provide funds to the Foothill extension. So what's the fuss about? That they didn't get enough?
|
|
|
Post by BRinSM on Jul 28, 2008 8:28:50 GMT -8
As you've said, the world isn't divided up into the geeks and road warriors. For the undecided voters, these names don't matter. You have a very good point here. Your average Joe on the street is not going to remember any names (unless they're linked to scandal, honestly) -- he is going to be swayed, quite frankly, by visual bombardment of propaganda. What I mean to say is that the way to get the measure passed is to put up billboards (like one on the 10: "For an extra 2ยข on that latte you're drinking, you could be zipping downtown on an air-conditioned subway car.") and television ads ("Gas is $4 a gallon; a trip on Metro is $1.25. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a train from Claremont to downtown?") Of course nobody has any budget for this -- but that's how to get the message out. Sniping at the various groups is counterproductive because it will just make the pro-transit lobby look disorganised and disjoint. I have to admit that I'm continually stunned by the success of Measure M down here in OC. Not just because they actually do what they say they're going to do, but because they've got a PR engine that really works. People are generally positive about Measure M (in a hugely red county). you'd think that with $30 - $40 billion on the line, the unions and contractors would be willing to dish out some cash for an advertising campaign.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 28, 2008 8:57:20 GMT -8
I think that we should both recognize the self-defeating and childlike antics of some of those in the SGV, vs. more political posturing. I think that they ALL know that this is a wonderful opportunity to fast-track their dreams into reality. Take a deep breath, everybody, and try to put yourself in other people's shoes and be diplomatic! The SGV voted for Prop. 1B, but got nothing when it comes to the doling out of freeway funds and rail projects. The Westside got the I-405 freeway project, and the first phase of Expo (but that money was previously slated for the first phase of Expo and should have been doled out for the second phase of Expo or maybe the Azusa extension of the Gold Line). The state and feds are screwing over the SGV waaaaay more than the county ever could, so perhaps we should talk up how the SGV really deserves to have its sales tax dollars doled more for its area (and for that matter, a policy that is needed for each region). While I have some serious doubts as to the 80/320 million local/federal match being realistic and one that might delay federal support for Expo Phase 2 from occurring, I have the following philosophy: 1) Recognizing that the SGV got nailed worse than anyone by Prop. 1B allocations, we should have no contentions urging that the right percentage of money get devoted to each region, including the SGV. 2) Leaning on the state to stop raiding transportation funds for other budgetary priorities 3) Insisting that the next 5-7 federal cycle of transportation funding be devoted to creating (among other freeway and other projects) a full Ocean To The Eastern Regions (OTTER) rail project from the beach to Claremont Only when we get the full OTTER rail (full Expo, Downtown Connector and Gold Line) will we ever realistically begin to get to the subway on Wilshire. We need to clear out all those light rail line projects ahead of the Wilshire subway, including the Crenshaw, Eastside and Downtown light rail projects, and insist on a full-service, complete Downtown Connector that is underground. When we talk things up this way, the SGV will come on board--they're envisioning another rape of their taxpayer funds to go to another region of the county, and while they're overreacting I'm not certain I blame them for at least some measure of paranoia. Ken, thanks for the background on how the SGV has come up short with the state. However, I disagree with a few of your points. Why should the subway wait to build more light rail lines, some of which are deemed to be marginal lines that will add little to the system as a whole? You make the case that the Purple Line should not be expanded, until a Santa Monica to Claremont line is built. Why should that be? One traveling from Claremont to Santa Monica would be much better off taking Metrolink and the Purple Line (about a 1 hour and 20 minute trip or so) vs. a Gold Line plus Expo Line trip even with the DTC (about a 2 hour and 15 minute trip) I estimated times here, but I think I am reasonably accurate. Light rail was never meant to be effective in traveling this type of distance and there will be few riders going from Claremont or even Azuza to the Westside as it is just not competitive with other means of transport. Also, the SGV doesn't seem very interested in the DTC. Remember they had more funds added for the Gold Line and it came out of the DTC, so I don't think dangling a Claremont to SM light rail line is having much effect. They just care about the line in the SGV. The DTC is just not valued much by them even though it should be. The beauty of the sales tax is that allows for both the Subway to the Sea and these light rail lines to proceed. I'm not sure why we need to pick one over the other all of a sudden. While I can see why the SGV state and congressional politicians played hard ball to benefit their area and their pet project line, I don't see why opposing the sales tax now does that much for them. It doesn't appear that they will ever get much if there is no sales tax as their projects just don't have the merit that other ones do in the long range plan. Maybe this is just sour grapes right now and they will come around and realize it is in their interests to support the tax.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 28, 2008 10:44:50 GMT -8
You raise some excellent points, masonite, but they need clarification and a response (which, if/when verified by Bart Reed who was at these hearings, might surprise you):
1) I do not favor a Santa Monica to Claremont OTTER rail (Ocean To The Eastern Regions) line prior to the Purple Line extension, but I do favor a Santa Monica to Azusa rail before extending the Purple Line--and when we do, I'm not sure we can afford anything more the first extension to La Cienega until the rest of the county is dealt with.
2) The current/future lineup for the LRTP is as follows: Expo, then Crenshaw (not sure what or how this project will look like), then Downtown Connector; the Azusa extension is ready to go, so for political balance we'll need that as well
3) Surprise!!! The SGV politicians consistently vote and articulate favorably for the Downtown Connector in ways we just don't see from Supervisor Yaroslavsky or even Mayor Villaraigosa (both of whom are much more likely to lionize the Wilshire subway). I do fear an incomplete, potentially surface-level Downtown Connector because we're too focused on the Wilshire subway.
I am praying that the immediate Eastside/Expo problems of the next two years will roust folks into creating the right Downtown Connector, but at this immediate time we are more likely to see the SGV folks (who've had their Pasadena Gold Line ridership hurt because of the lack of said Connector) appreciate and talk up the Connector than other politicians.
When we see Westside and Mid-City and even Eastside politicians start to lionize the correlations between a true Downtown network and ongoing Downtown development, I will breathe easier.
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 28, 2008 12:39:00 GMT -8
Why should the subway wait to build more light rail lines, some of which are deemed to be marginal lines that will add little to the system as a whole? the problem here, and a major talking point for the SGV is that the gold line extension is ready to build. all there designs / studies and what have you are ready. they just need the word to start building. the subway to the sea, how ever important, still does not even have a route. much less engineering drawings sitting around. the sgv is pissed that there waiting for metro to say "yes we will maintain the extension after it is built" only to have the project, at first, not even show up on the tier 1 of projects. add tolling to the mix and you see why people reacted the way they did
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jul 28, 2008 12:56:09 GMT -8
Can someone please explain why the Metro Gold Foothill people are not satisfied with the $735 million that is guaranteed to the Foothill project, in Section 16 of the ballot measure?
|
|
|
Post by jejozwik on Jul 28, 2008 13:07:27 GMT -8
Can someone please explain why the Metro Gold Foothill people are not satisfied with the $735 million that is guaranteed to the Foothill project, in Section 16 of the ballot measure? they dont read?
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 28, 2008 17:09:43 GMT -8
Whether I agree or disagree with anything that either wad or any other poster makes on this discussion board, I would appreciate any silly name-calling to be withheld. The Gold Line extension is a very serious debate that has two or more very solid and salient sides to it...but let's not shoot down any one of our repeat posters (especially one who has a pretty good track record, and probably one who is reflective of a sizeable segment of the general voting population as wad does). Anyone who remembers the infamous postings of such trolls as "John" or "Diane Shapiro" would probably agree that a more civil tone to wad is in order. Ken, you make excellent points as always, but I think you undermine your own point when you compare Wad to a troll. I'm not convinced that Wad is trying to pick a fight, although he certainly did succeed in angering people (myself included). I don't believe I called Wad anything stronger than misinformed. I also said "don't be a fool" which I suppose could be interpreted as being a fool. Unfortunately on a message board it is easy to be misunderstood, especially when talking to certain people. This is probably how he managed to assume that I was referring to him specifically when I called those who listen to the likes of Peter Gordon "stupid" โ as far as Gordon is concerned, I think most of us on this board would consider that a truism I called Wad pigheaded, which is a strong way of saying "stubborn." I will not apologize for this, as his posts have shown a definate stubborn streak to them.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 28, 2008 22:08:56 GMT -8
You have a very good point here. Your average Joe on the street is not going to remember any names (unless they're linked to scandal, honestly) -- he is going to be swayed, quite frankly, by visual bombardment of propaganda. What I mean to say is that the way to get the measure passed is to put up billboards (like one on the 10: "For an extra 2ยข on that latte you're drinking, you could be zipping downtown on an air-conditioned subway car.") and television ads ("Gas is $4 a gallon; a trip on Metro is $1.25. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a train from Claremont to downtown?") Of course nobody has any budget for this -- but that's how to get the message out. Sniping at the various groups is counterproductive because it will just make the pro-transit lobby look disorganised and disjoint. I have to admit that I'm continually stunned by the success of Measure M down here in OC. Not just because they actually do what they say they're going to do, but because they've got a PR engine that really works. People are generally positive about Measure M (in a hugely red county). you'd think that with $30 - $40 billion on the line, the unions and contractors would be willing to dish out some cash for an advertising campaign. anything would help. although money can be a double-edged sword. imagine an ominous voice-over saying "the construction industry poured big bucks into," or "the transit unions want..." in any case, our job is multi-fold 1) explain to the voters why voting for this would be good for traffic โ and explain in as few words as possible. simple words. short sentances. TRANSIT GOOD. TRAFFIC BAD. 2) counterattack the anti-tax forces. 3) point out myths and legends of propaganda we have some strong potential allies, including the MTA itself and the politicians voted for this. billboards would be awesome, radio ads would be good, but we must not assume that we'll have as much money as we need ... or even more than the No on the Sales Tax crowd.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 28, 2008 22:31:08 GMT -8
James and wad and everyone else, what I wanted to say is that we've HAD trolls, and I don't see anyone posting as of late that can be classified as such.
Which is why if we disagree then perhaps you ought to go to the historical website and really get a good idea of what a troll really is.
I think we actually have quite a few really good posters, James and wad definitely included.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 29, 2008 2:15:22 GMT -8
Wad, sometimes I think you're deliberately not getting the point. Don't you dare say that I am not getting the point. I'm not making any assumptions about you. I don't know you well enough. Equally, how can you say that I am not getting it if you don't know me other than through this chat board? Wad, you are absolutely correct. I don't know you. I do know your posts, and all of my judgments are made on the basis of the content of your writing. If I am arguing with somebody in a chatboard, and if I see that his posts have gone off on tangents, or if he is choosing to ignore my basic points, or if he steals my points and throws them back at me as proof that I am wrong, then what other conclusion can I come to other than to assume that he has missed my point, either accidentally or on purpose? That, sir, is what I mean by "not getting the point." It has nothing to do with your overall ability to function properly as a human being in real life. It has everything to do with your posts, and that is all. I've lost track of the number of times that I made what I felt was a brilliant post, only to have somebody miss the point. (For example, I was trying to explain why I felt that the subway needed better identification, and somebody kept bringing up buses for some unknown reason. Well, I allowed myself to shout 'I don't care about buses,' which was misinterpreted as a general statement of belief. The other poster had missed my point completely.) It happens quite frequently on Internet chat boards, and more often than not, the culprit is somebody of above-average intelligence. part of the problem is that, on a message board we can have several separate conversations at once, and so therefore the points of one convo can accidentally get tossed into another one. also, people can make the honest mistake of attributing quotes to the wrong people. I was going to point out the exact moment where I felt that Wad Missed The Point in this specific instance, but I'm going to drop it. I'd rather move forward than rehash old arguments. (If you must know, re-read the posts about libertarians, Peter Gordon and whether or not they will have an effect on the election). But, I just wanted to reiterate: if you're going to be on a message board, be prepared for people to tell you bluntly that your ideas are wrong, or that you've argued your point in a dumb way or even that you've blundered. I may think your ideas are idiotic, but that's a long way from thinking you yourself are idiotic. (Unless, of course, you constantly and continuously come up with dumb ideas. Then I may reconsider...) That was longwinded, but I hope I made my point.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 29, 2008 3:49:13 GMT -8
I have to admit that I'm continually stunned by the success of Measure M down here in OC. Not just because they actually do what they say they're going to do, but because they've got a PR engine that really works. People are generally positive about Measure M (in a hugely red county). Two reasons why Measure M is so popular: 1. Enough of the tax goes into roads that the electorate would tolerate whatever transit spending is bundled. 2. No Measure M money goes into funding the OCTA local bus system. Measure M funds Orange County's Metrolink service and feeder buses.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 29, 2008 4:33:19 GMT -8
Well, James, I still have issues with some of the things you have said above, but I don't want this conversation start to become a flame war between us.
I am well prepared for you or anyone else to attack my ideas. I will sum up my position on the sales tax measure. You and anyone else are more than welcome to rebut these statements.
I think the sales tax increase is terribly flawed for two reasons: It was hastily passed to get on the November ballot in hopes of an easy pass, and the actions of the San Gabriel Valley politicians to shake down much of the county for unreasonable demands poisons the chance of getting meaningful projects out of this tax measure.
The corrosive effects of the San Gabriel Valley will mean every region in the county is now going to be pleading that they are short-changed -- South Bay, San Fernando Valley, Gateway Cities and even Los Angeles and the Westside cities. Everyone being short-changed is a mathematical impossibility. Some regions will be donors while others will be takers. Or, worthy projects will have to be stripped to fund unworthy projects to correct the perception of "feeling short-changed." So you know who is going to end up screwed? The people who live or commute within the Westside/Central sector. It will be punished for its productivity.
So we don't even know where the money is coming from, and we don't have an equitable allocation mechanism set up for distributing funds. It would be equitable to say that every region will be guaranteed to get back sales tax funds that were generated within its region. Example: the San Gabriel Valley would produce about $500 million in receipts a year. It would then have to divide that money among its desired projects. The big problem is that this constraint will not allow it to come close to funding what it wants. It is not going to blow its bounty on the Gold Line if it must choose it between buses, highways and road projects.
There was no time given to evaluate what projects should be funded. Instead, the politicians have set out to commit a 30 year tax to get the most implausible projects funded because the revenue stream opened up for them. The political log rolling does not match up anything with existing or projected transit needs.
Instead, much of these problems could have been solved by what was described as a "mythic populist revolt." Take at least one year to solicit community input and give projects a preliminary evaluation. Break down the projects into the five Sector Governance Councils. Solicit input from the community on what projects should be funded, and how much of their regional allocation should go between capital, operations, roads and local return. Run these meetings in the format of the Westside Corridor, Downtown Connector or Long Range Plan Meetings that have taken place in 2007 and 2008. Once a project list is finalized, then it goes on the ballot.
This would mean the tax money reflects the desires of the community, and very few surprises when the ballot measure is presented. Also, a slower time to evaluate means that the expensive capital projects would have a better cost and time schedule.
|
|
|
Post by dasubergeek on Jul 29, 2008 5:58:06 GMT -8
you'd think that with $30 - $40 billion on the line, the unions and contractors would be willing to dish out some cash for an advertising campaign. anything would help. although money can be a double-edged sword. imagine an ominous voice-over saying "the construction industry poured big bucks into," or "the transit unions want..." in any case, our job is multi-fold 1) explain to the voters why voting for this would be good for traffic โ and explain in as few words as possible. simple words. short sentances. TRANSIT GOOD. TRAFFIC BAD. 2) counterattack the anti-tax forces. 3) point out myths and legends of propaganda we have some strong potential allies, including the MTA itself and the politicians voted for this. billboards would be awesome, radio ads would be good, but we must not assume that we'll have as much money as we need ... or even more than the No on the Sales Tax crowd. Ultimately -- sadly -- it comes down to who is most in front of voters. They're going to go to vote for President (where their vote matters not even a little bit) and then stay to vote on the ballot measures because, hey, they're already in the booth. Then they're going to pick whatever had the most advertising instead of thinking about the issue. You won't convince the "no on everything" people -- they're a write-off from the get-go -- and you won't convince the Howard Jarvis people because, well, "slow down, ocean, slow down." But the vast bulk are going to go with what they have in their heads -- and the way to get into their heads is to bombard them. Everyone complains about the zillions of ads (remember the Indian casino measures recently and the props 98/99 business last time?) but the fact of the matter is that for all teh complaining they work. It does, as you say, take money. With any luck there will be money and, if not, then you just have to think strategically -- billboards are cheaper than TV ads; newspaper space is cheaper than TV time, etc.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 29, 2008 6:05:17 GMT -8
Well, I still think that--flaws and all, it's best to proceed with this sales tax. While I am aware that it might fail this time around, it still has the chance to succeed in another year.
The right ads and business/labor support, and the ability of Sacramento to keep it's mitts off local monies is key for it to survive.
I don't believe that the cost of gasoline or traffic will ever make this problem go away, however, so I remain confident that time is on our side.
|
|