|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 20, 2007 11:52:50 GMT -8
And then people wonder why we have an inefficient mass transit system.... The Republicans (who initially proposed these transit cuts, I blame them WAY MORE than the Democrats, b/c they instigated this bs along w/ Schwarzenegger) can leave a lasting legacy (esp. Arnold will) that the Expo Line is delayed b/c of him. I hope Antonio does better, I see him as way more public transit friendly (albeit w/ the whole fare increase scuffle we just had). But, at least he cares about public transit and wants LA to have a mass transit system. How much longer can we survive on a road-based transportation system? This will impact development in downtown, Hollywood, etc.. b/c the alternatives (i.e. more rail transit) will not be there to get people from A to B, thus reliance on cars continues. And then a high density development project runs into trouble b/c of traffic concerns.
This is a huge ripple effect the GOVERNOR AND REPUBLICANS have caused. I know we've had many political talks here, but this time, it was the Right Wing Party that INITIATED and screwed it up for us.
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Jul 20, 2007 12:53:31 GMT -8
Antonio cares. So what...that and $2 gets you a burger at McDonalds. Antonio showed his brilliance and courage when he caved to the Transit Union. His legacy is his zipper.
If this is such a good project, and I strongly believe that it is, then let some brilliant Democrat in Sacramento find a way to pay for it. Saying they care doesn't mean crap.
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jul 20, 2007 13:04:37 GMT -8
Phase II of Expo should have federal funding. It is absurd that we did not get funding for Phase I, but that would have added 5 or more years to the starting of the project. We have the worst traffic in the nation, we have a right to the (half) full federal funding. I can't remember if they are seeking federal funding for phase II or not? Phase I will be built IMHO, but other projects will be in jeopardy like the orange line extension to the Chatsworth Metrolink Station.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 20, 2007 13:32:53 GMT -8
Expo authority is trying to get federal funding for Phase 2 and they are in the process of hiring a full-time Washington "lobbyist" for this purpose. But the long story short, we now have $330 million less for public transit -- that's half of Expo Phase 1. This will make things slower and more difficult, which are already very slow and difficult.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Jul 20, 2007 16:02:01 GMT -8
But do remember this kingsfan....Antonio re-started the 'subway to the sea' campaign. I see lots of potential for Antonio. And he got Metro to study the Harbor Subdivision, DTC, etc... That fare increase snafu was ridiculous, but Antonio did support an increase, just not so high.
Matter at hand: we need to get the public educated that ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER and REPUBLICANS screwed California out of mass transit. Can't we get the environmental agencies to help or do we need more studies of global warming?
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Jul 20, 2007 16:20:21 GMT -8
Yes he did, and for that I do give him credit, but how much courage or leadership did it take to propose a subway extension without ever discussing how to fund the subway extension ? IMO absolutely zero.
Yes we have been screwed out of meaningful public transit, but if you blame the Republicans only then you too are part of the problem and deserve the screwing you got.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 20, 2007 17:29:12 GMT -8
Although I have always acknowledged that the GOP is less mass transit-friendly than Democrats, this was really one of those times when the blame needs to be spread around. The Governor and the GOP insisted on a balanced budget, and the Democrats could have chosen to cut from education (which has roughly half the state budget) or from other priorities.
Did the Democratic Legislature tell the education lobby to give Expo priority, or put up their dukes like they did for freeway projects like the I-5 and I-405 projects? No. They made it clear that education was absolutely untouchable. The balanced budget therefore had to come from somewhere, and with the exception of Mike Feuer and a few others, the Assembly let mass transit take monster cuts and raced home.
At the federal level, I'll acknowledge that the Republican party is, by and large, lousy on mass transit. At the state level, we must acknowledge that the education lobby OWNS this state and doesn't have any legal or financial pressure to spend as carefully on education as it otherwise could.
Hence the slap in the face we got today. Blame Arnold, blame the GOP, blame the Democrats..and blame us for reelecting these bottom-feeders. A pox on all their houses!
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 20, 2007 18:24:39 GMT -8
My take is that these bottom-feeders neither care about education nor balancing the budget. They are just trying to look like they can hold their promise so that they will win/keep their votes.
Building transportation infrastructure is for the adults of the future, which are the kids of today, just as education is for. They will be affected much much more when they grow up and they are stuck in a gridlocked city than they would be affected if they got 25 cents a day less from the state now for their education. They should enjoy the chewing gum the 25 cents can buy them today while they can.
|
|
|
Post by JamesFujita on Jul 20, 2007 18:29:17 GMT -8
ouch, this discussion is painful to read.....
I am, have been and always will be a mass transit supporter, especially where Los Angeles is concerned, but I would never, ever take my frustrations out on schools. that's a fast way to make enemies and needlessly antagonize people.
does our education system have problems? undoubtedly. there are teachers who can't or won't teach, parents who don't give a damn, students who don't care, outdated books in crappy classrooms, and the problem goes much deeper than not enough money or that the money is spent in the wrong areas. we should probably hold teachers to higher standards. okay, will that require more money or less money in the system? will true professionals accept teach salaries? should we try to have nationwide standardized tests if all it does is force teachers to teach how to pass the test? I don't know all the answers, I'm not an education expert.
Governor Schwarzenegger deserves a lot of blame for this fiasco, and our legislative Democrats also made mistakes. let's not forget the dwindling funds from the federal government, too. Antonio? no. you can't pin this one on him. this is a STATE issue, and the only power he has is to cheerlead for the city of Los Angeles- which, to his credit, he tries to do.
to be perfectly frank- and I'm skirting the "no politics" rule here- Proposition 13 led us down this path of continuous bond measures and never raising taxes. if we want things to change, we need leaders willing to raise taxes. too bad there aren't any among the current generation.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 20, 2007 18:54:03 GMT -8
Public schools are crap anyway, and I think that we can all agree. My wish is that one day we get rid of the public schools altogether and let private schools run the show. They work better and will save the state tons of money. I'd rather give parents a credit for taking their children to private school. This way, you get rid of a STRONG public teacher's union. Private schools can administer more effectively and will actually fire under preforming teachers.
That's just my dream. Public educations are worthless. State colleges could really use a reform too, we need to do what Mark Sanford did in South Carolina.
|
|
|
Post by JamesFujita on Jul 20, 2007 19:27:11 GMT -8
"private schools for all" is a variation on the "it would be cheaper to give poor people cars" argument. no thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 20, 2007 20:14:18 GMT -8
How is it a variation? And it's not cheaper to give poor people cars since it doesn't work. Public schools don't work, so why do we still have them?
|
|
|
Post by JamesFujita on Jul 20, 2007 20:32:56 GMT -8
name a government run, taxpayer-funded, bureaucratic institution with a poor reputation, unionized employees and a requirement to serve everyone:
a) LAUSD b) MTA c) both of the above
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 20, 2007 20:33:16 GMT -8
Let me try a different angle here. I am actually a believer in public and private schools (I've contributed to both, have a son in school and another child on the way), but question why the rigidity of 45-50% of the budget going to education--without any demands that it be spent well--must remain the paradigm of this state.
I maintain that the proposition which encoded nearly half the state budget to education was the worst thing that happened to this state since Prop. 13. Education, health care, transportation, safety/security, social services...they're ALL very important but will from time to time need more one year and then less in another.
To suggest that I decry that transportation must be dead last in the budget priority list is not to suggest that I have a problem with education. What I do have a problem with is an education lobby (and the lobby and the unions, DAMMIT, do NOT necessarily represent interests focused on children, education, or schools!) that annually places a gun at the heads of ANYONE who dares ask for flexibility and accountability for the otherwise-proper investment we place in education.
If we start spending stupidly on transportation, then I'd sure as heck want to stop that spending ASAP, and if the need were greater for levees, hospitals, schools, prisons, then as a person of integrity I'd demand flexibility from the transportation world in the same light that I'd want from the education world.
Arnold and Antonio both learned rather quickly how dangerous it was to ask the education lobby/unions for flexibility and accountability, and when the GOP demanded a balanced budget (I'm aware that that the GOP despises and loves to starve cities and mass transit, but I'm not certain that a balanced budget is an inappropriate request) the Democrats threw mass transit off the cliff.
Education unions and lobbies (which is NOT the same as the purer aspiration of educational improvement--I was educated in public schools and universities), simply put, are GOD in this state at this present time, and those wishing to provide a transportation infrastructure remain very weak at this immediate time.
It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 20, 2007 20:36:23 GMT -8
On a related note, I think I'd have a problem with mandating 45-50% of the state budget be devoted to transportation as well. I think a lot of legislators are privately recognizing how lopsided our state budget process has become by devoting so much of our budget to any one priority.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Fernandez on Jul 20, 2007 20:48:53 GMT -8
That is exactly what I am saying. I'm fine with spending money for education, but we are not spending it wisely. For some reason, we put a ton of money in and we are not getting a good return on the investment. There is an alternative to public education, and many parents take that alternative. If more took that alternative, then we would have more money and be able to spend less on education. It is a huge drain, and frankly, I blame teacher's union which are stopping us from firing bad teachers and forcing us to pay them well.
Education needs a big reform, and it will not happen until people realize how much money the schools are getting compared to other priorities. People get so uptight at any mention of the children.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Jul 20, 2007 23:28:37 GMT -8
How is it a variation? And it's not cheaper to give poor people cars since it doesn't work. Public schools don't work, so why do we still have them? Harm reduction.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 20, 2007 23:47:25 GMT -8
Ken is right. The crucial thing about any budget is not really how much money is allocated or spent but how the money is spent. In the case of education budget, significant amount of money is wasted due to poor planning. Give the schools more money and all they will do, for example, will be to replace two-year-old computers with brand-new ones.
For the transportation budget, it was completely different. How the money would be spent was well-planned. Not only that but it was also promised -- "CTC has awarded Expo $315 million." Even more there was Proposition 1A that passed, which made it impossible for the gas tax to be spent on closing the deficit (unless it is repayed in three years).
They should be held liable for the promises they broke, and they should probably be held accountable for public deception and misconduct. They are claiming that they are using the gas-tax money to close the budget deficit for transportation and fund school buses. It is a scam!
Why are they doing this? This has nothing to with supporting education or closing the deficit. They are only after votes. And they disregarded Proposition 1A just to achieve votes -- something they should be held accountable for. People should wake up and realize what these folks in Sacramento, both Democrat and Republican, really are.
|
|
|
Post by JamesFujita on Jul 20, 2007 23:52:05 GMT -8
tony: private schools need public schools in order to thrive. how is that? because private schools can pick and choose the students they want. the students they don't want- the troublemakers, the low grades, the low IQs or the slackers- end up in public schools. ken: you make some good points, and I agree that waste needs to be cut from any institution. as to anybody else reading this: I hope you will abandon all notion of taking funds from education to pay for transit. please. I'm sorry, but you're tilting at windmills. that's not a strategy for funding the Red Line or the Blue Line or any other rail line, it is a recipe for disaster. it's not just the unions, but all of the soccer moms and the poor families who can't afford a private school that will fight you. we are all much better off fighting for our fair share of federal funding or fighting for a more equitable dividing up of the highway/ rail/ airport funds or fighting for gas tax increases or fighting for the next bond measure. VOTE for people who support transit. VOTE for people who have strong fiscal sense, VOTE against "no new taxes" types, VOTE against "cut everything" types. EDIT: p.s. for goodness sakes, the education lobby isn't some evil force that must be stopped. there's no take over the world plan at UTLA HQ. they're just a bunch of teachers, most of whom are just trying to do their jobs (my mother was a teacher, so watch what you say about them ;D) remember, in politics, we all end up using the same evil tactics. as in, letter writing, phone calls, rallies, political donations, etc. if they're stronger than we are, its probably because there's so much more of them than us. we lost this battle, but we don't have to lose our heads about it.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 21, 2007 0:50:32 GMT -8
as to anybody else reading this: I hope you will abandon all notion of taking funds from education to pay for transit. please. You should also tell this to 77% of all the voters, who voted yes on Proposition 1A, which prohibits using gas tax to fund anything but transportation.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 21, 2007 1:31:48 GMT -8
You should also tell this to 77% of all the voters, who voted yes on Proposition 1A, which prohibits using gas tax to fund anything but transportation. a lovely sentiment, Gokhan, and I sympathize; except that 77 percent of the voters didn't vote specifically for mass transit and 77 percent of the voters aren't Transit Coalition members, as much as I wish they were. they voted for transportation, which is a far cry from voting for transit. they voted for gas tax money going towards highways and fixing potholes and all sort of transportation. Prop. 1A closed a loophole, but it left a big loophole wide open. if you took a poll, mass transit might be high on people's priorities list, but it probably wouldn't be #1 for 77 percent of the voting public. sorry to be a sourpuss, but if transportation were so damned important 77 percent of the voters, jails or canals or public safety or libraries or something would have gotten the shaft. show me the army composed of that 77 percent of the voters who voted for Prop. 1A, or even the 61 perecent who voted for Prop. 1B, prepared to march on Sacramento to demand restoring that funding and I would gladly offer them my support, but as it were, it is getting late and I should be off to bed.
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 21, 2007 6:17:51 GMT -8
James, I've never doubted your transit advocacy, but I remind you that school construction bonds were also approved in the Prop. 1 series. By your line of reasoning, the transportation lobby (which obviously isn't as potent as the education lobby) should try to take these school bonds away to pay for freeway, road or any other project as it sees fit.
The Expo Line is as close to a freeway as it gets, and I don't understand why you don't decry the immorality of this money grab. Had education shared in the pain in any way, shape or form, then I would understand. Transportation--in particular, mass transit, took all the hits.
My mother was a teacher, too, but when you promise the public something you really need to be honest and follow through with that promise.
I again want to advise you that education advocates are more often than not opposed (privately, of course) against those running the education lobby. Even Mayor Villaraigosa tried to reform the LAUSD with the private agreement of the teachers unions, because most teachers would not buy into the tactics and policies of their "leaders".
|
|
|
Post by kingsfan on Jul 21, 2007 7:04:09 GMT -8
"VOTE against "no new taxes" types, VOTE against "cut everything" types"
Well this is exactly why the average Californian is against new taxes. They vote for an enoumous bond package (increased Government spending) and in the end some people are still not satisfied and insist that we need even more taxes.
Please tell us, when does it end ? When every penny you make goes to the Government ? When everybody is exactly the same, broke and unmotivated ? Has anyone in Sacramento ever demonstrated that there is a limit to their greed, even once ?
And please stop with the Prop 13 nonsense. Every single statistic in the world proves that property taxes in California have continued to increase, far, far, far beyond the growth in population and inflation.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Jul 21, 2007 7:51:11 GMT -8
James, I've never doubted your transit advocacy, but I remind you that school construction bonds were also approved in the Prop. 1 series. By your line of reasoning, the transportation lobby (which obviously isn't as potent as the education lobby) should try to take these school bonds away to pay for freeway, road or any other project as it sees fit. "by my line of reasoning?" let me see if I can summarize my points: 1) mass transit is important goes without saying. 2) education is important also, goes without saying 3) education may very well be more important than transit this is probably a sore sticking point with some of our fellows on this board, and I may have de-emphasized this point to some degree, but the truth is (IMHO) that education is one of the foundations of civilization, whereas transit is just one of the vital functions of a civilization. I suspect that most people that you will run across agree with point #3, which is why I stated earlier that transit can never win a head-on battle against education. under the circumstances, I really don't see how this outcome should be a shock or a surprise to anyone. I can't say that I necessarily agree with the way things turned out, and I think there could have been better alternatives. BUT those better alternatives were clearly beyond the reach of our legislators and our governor. they were all working under time constraints; they were all working within the confines of a system which frankly, encourages antagonism between the legislature and the governor. raising taxes would have pissed off people. cutting education would have pissed off people. they took the path of least resistance. you will argue that education has wasted the funds that it has been given, and I will nod in agreement. but that is beside the point, insofar as getting a budget passed is concerned. put another way: if you're hurling towards a cliff, the fact that you haven't changed your oil in over 10,000 miles hardly makes a difference.both Prop. 1A and Prop. 1B contained loopholes allowing for funds to be borrowed if deemed necessary. is that immoral? maybe. illegal, regrettably no. in short, we never really had a chance to win this fight. I accept that. I'm not entirely happy about it, but I accept it. shikata ga nai.as much as I enjoy rehashing the same arguments over and over, we need to move forward. political payback would be sweet, but not really necessary. advocating radical changes to the system? a good idea, but a difficult uphill road. reminding voters that transit is still an option? doable. reminding the legislature that every penny that they borrow from transportation has to be paid back in full and with interest? very doable. I could yammer on all day, but regrettably I have things I need to do and places to go. (no, seriously, I do)
|
|
|
Post by whitmanlam on Jul 21, 2007 8:22:47 GMT -8
I would agree with James IF it was a choice between Transit and Education. It is not that simple at all. They take money from transit because it's an easy target for politicians. With little protest from the community.
Billions of dollars are being wasted every year on pork barrel projects, redundant bureaucracy, salary and pension hikes, and prisons.
Yes, prisons are being built to lock up non violent drug users. Instead of drug treatment, and job training, they want to lock every one up for a maximum time. And the Prison Guard's union is the most powerful lobby in California. They crafted the so-called 3 Strikes laws that make life sentences mandatory for petty crimes. Our prisons are bursting at the seams because we fail to provide an education, jobs and a future for people. The State even tried to ship inmates from overcrowded prisons to out of state, where the costs savings would be 30% lower... The prison guards union blocked that too.
Taking money from transit like it was candy from a baby. Why can't they find other sources to take money from ?? Our piggy bank system is flawed...
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jul 21, 2007 10:12:15 GMT -8
The basic problem isn't funding education vs. transit, but rather that public transportation really has no lobby or interest group behind it, even it largely benefits everyone through cleaner air, reduced congestion, etc... The question should be why wasn't the $1.3B taken from highways instead of just transit.
Also, we have a fundamental problem in that we keep passing transportation bonds, but every year we have less funds to pay back those bond funds, because the gas tax is not indexed to inflation and thus its purchasing power decreases every year. Something has to give and it is always public transit.
We need some real leadership in Sacramento to raise the gas tax (or at least keep indexed to inflation) to build infrastructure in the State like high speed rail and mass transit at the local levels at the same time discouraging excessive oil use, which harms the environment, and contributes to global warming, congestion, terrorism, the country's stunning trade deficit of which oil makes up a huge portion, America's world foes acting up like Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, Iran, etc...
We live in a different world and we have Hummer driving governor who takes all this credit for being an environmentalist, but kills worthy projects and goals at every turn he gets. The $1.3 Billion should have come from highways. Just one lane on the 405 for a few miles is going to cost $1 Billion, but no one seems to think that is too expensive. Our priorities are clearly messed up.
|
|
|
Post by Gokhan on Jul 21, 2007 11:31:14 GMT -8
You should also tell this to 77% of all the voters, who voted yes on Proposition 1A, which prohibits using gas tax to fund anything but transportation. a lovely sentiment, Gokhan, and I sympathize; except that 77 percent of the voters didn't vote specifically for mass transit and 77 percent of the voters aren't Transit Coalition members, as much as I wish they were. they voted for transportation, which is a far cry from voting for transit. they voted for gas tax money going towards highways and fixing potholes and all sort of transportation. Prop. 1A closed a loophole, but it left a big loophole wide open. They are not even using the $1.3 billion from the transportation account (gas-tax account) for highways. They have made a stupid explanation like they will buy school buses with this money; therefore, it is not really going to education but indeed going to transportation. It doesn't make sense that they need 15,000 school buses all of a sudden. I think it is a scam.
|
|
|
Post by JerardWright on Jul 21, 2007 12:02:48 GMT -8
Just out of curiosity, I'm surprised that our Mayor or his transportation Deputy hasn't said anything about this. Especially considering he "lobbied" to get these funds into the Prop ballots.
Is anyone else on this board wondering the same thing?
Maybe he has too much on his mind right now like how to save face from his moral infadelity. But I know if I was the mayor I would be spinning that around and use these cut threats as an opportunity to turn things around.
His silence on this is rather deafening right now.
|
|
|
Post by roadtrainer on Jul 24, 2007 16:01:58 GMT -8
Dr.Alpern: ;DWhat we need to do is get the Transit Advocates together of this state and push for ""Üntouchable Transit funds""! Just like at the schools (which are in a runaway state anyway!). We need to get everybody on board including the BRU(yikes!), The more the better. No more raiding Transit Dollars! All monies have to be paid back! Those evil Democrats and evil Republicians ( hows that Mr fujita?) sold transit projects out for the sake of Lobbyists. It is time to raise up a sleeping giant and get "r"done! Sincerely The Roadtrainer
|
|
|
Post by kenalpern on Jul 24, 2007 19:57:11 GMT -8
I agree, and we need to make it clear that the state needs to pay back the transit dollars and that absconding with transit dollars has political consequences that must NOT be repeated.
I'm hoping we can use grassroots outrage to our advantage, politically.
|
|