How I’m voting for the environment on Nov. 7, 2006.
My vote on Prop 1B: No
Lemme start by saying that this was a toughie for me.
The orgs I like and support are not aligned. For ex, California League of Conservation Voters endorses 1B. The Sierra Club, however, sez no comment. And some transit groups, like the Bus Riders Union (PDF), sez no way.
Backing up: Prop 1B is basically a huge HUGE bill that includes all sortsa different transportation stuff — at the cost of $19.9 billion in state bonds. The prop includes everything from freeway improvements and upgrades to street and road repairs to bridge improvements to public transit expansions.
The controversy, as I can gather, has to do with how this big chunk of change is gonna be spent.
I’ll start with the naysayers. The Bus Riders Union (PDF) calls Prop 1B “the Highway Boondoggle and Toxic Tax” and “a corporate-driven environmental disaster.” Why? Sez BRU: “70% of the funding will go to highways and subsidize multinationals so they can move their goods and products from the ports; all the while Black, Brown and low-income communities are choked by the toxic emissions from auto and cargo truck traffic and massive emissions of greenhouse gases.”
Urban Habitat, an Oakland-Based non-profit, agrees (Thanks Marc, for the link). “40% goes to highways to promote sprawl and trade corridors to promote pollution,” the org sez. “Another 20% may be used for roads/highways depending on local agencies. That 60% for roads and highways and trains and increased pollution, especially in low-income fence-line neighborhoods.”
Urban Habitat contends that the money spent on roadway construction and improvement should come NOT from all Californians, but only the users of these roadways, via a fuel tax, vehicle license fees, weight user-fees, and container fees, for ex. The Environmental Health Coalition and Community Coalition for Environmental Justice and Action also agree.
I was a lil confused about exactly how much of the $19.9 billion goes to what. Luckily, the Legislative Analyst’s Office put the breakdown up online in a simple chart.
The skinny: $11.2 billion goes straight to improving highways and roads — arguably not so great. $4 billion goes directly to public transportation — arguably good. The rest of the money, at least in my view, is in a somewhat nebulous area. For ex, $1 billion goes towards reducing emissions at ports and stuff. Yes, lower emissions are good — but should taxpayers have to foot the bill, instead of the companies using these ports?
Thus, the issue’s a divided one. The ayes: Santa Monica City Council, League of Women Voters, and the Cali Democrats are pro Prop 1B.
The voter’s decision on this issue comes down to this question: Is the $4 billion coming to public transportation worth the $19.9 billion in bonds, which you, as a taxpayer, will help pay for?
And to complicate the question a little further, consider the fact that a “perfect” public transit bill’s unlikely to come along. Meaning that by voting no, you could v. well deny our state the much needed $4 billion for public transit for a long long time.
You already know I’m voting no. I think we can do better. Maybe I’m being overly optimistic here, but I think the green movement — and the public transit, anti-car movement — is building.
I mean, we have elections like every 6 months in Cali anyway. I think if we voters say no to Prop 1B — AND let our politicians know WHY — we can get a better prop with a larger percentage of money for public transit on our ballot.
Feel free to disagree in the comments — I’m still willing to be convinced or deconvinced.
Siel wrote:
Is the $4 billion coming to public transportation worth the $19.9 billion in bonds, which you, as a taxpayer, will help pay for?
The flipside of the issue is that by voting no, you are in the coalition of anti-government groups and the road lobby, who opposes the bonds because public transportation gets funding. The difference is, they have money and have a better chance of getting their way than your side.
I think if we voters say no to Prop 1B — AND let our politicians know WHY — we can get a better prop with a larger percentage of money for public transit on our ballot.
Any measure that’s defeated does not send a message. The “message” thing is chatter created by the media to work an angle. Fact is, this ballot proposition has brought out special interests from all over California and the country, and they may find backdoor support for their projects if this initiative fails.
This is also something the anti-government types don’t realize. You see in the statements of opposition that they recommend a no vote because the money needs to come from somewhere else. This faction equivocates when it says this, because they really want nothing to get done while pretending to be sincere to the bond supporters by holding out hope that something does get done. What really raises their ire is when, lo and behold, the legislature finds the money and projects get built.
Comment by Wad — October 13, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
Wad:
Just because we find ourselves in alliance with Reason Foundation and other libertarians isn’t a reason to take the converse position. In fact, when you have groups on opposite sides of the spectrum opposing the same bond, that should be a sign at exactly how bad it is.
Both the libertarians and progressive groups oppose it for similar reasons- put simply: this isn’t something that should be paid by taxpayers. The anti-government side believes that it should be built by private companies because the old (and still unproven) belief that the government is incompetent and unbridled capitalism/privatization produces better products. The progressive groups believe that funding a highway for shipping companies to move goods in and out of our state (with little to no profits going back into the General Fund) while harming the environment and residents of California is irresponsible.
The simple fact is this: if we spend $19.9 billion dollars and pay it back out of the general fund (plus interest), we will be using yours and my tax dollars which could have been spent on schools, hospitals, healthcare, parks, clean water, etc. rather than a bigger highways which promote pollution and further sprawl.
The price of building highways is exorbitant, but after its done, developers build gated communities further away from cities. Then, your tax dollars pay for the electrification, sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Then, with the increased car trips, we pay for pollution mitigation. Now this $19.9 billion (plus interest) requires even more funds, all of which could have been used for necessary services that benefit everyone- rather than the individual car-owner and multi-national shipping corporations.
Comment by Marc — October 17, 2006 @ 9:25 am
Hey Wad — When I said we should “let our politicians know WHY” we’ve said no to 1B, I meant going BEYOND just voting no to then contact our politicians letting them know exactly why we voted no. I didn’t mean that just voting no in and of itself would send an adequate message.
I totally relate to the frustration of trying to get our public transportation funded adequately — and I totally agree that often, we do see groups that point to rather insignificant issues as a reason for trashing an overall good prop or bill. I mean, with prop 87, we have our governor saying the bill sucks for silly, oil-biz-loving reasons.
I guess I don’t think this bill is one of these. Yes, I really, REALLY want more money to go into public transportation. But you have to admit that what’s actually going to sustainable transportation’s just a miniscule part of the whole bill. And as Marc points out, allowing so much money to go towards building freeways and highways will cost taxpayers even MORE money than the billions already in this bill…
Comment by Siel — October 17, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
Marc and Siel, a couple of points:
1. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, sprawl will continue as is until some major factor makes it unattainable. A war with Iran will end sprawl more effectively than ballot measures, for instance. Also, a financial hiccup will put somewhere between a third to a half of American homeowners in utter ruin.
Otherwise, if the status quo continues, sprawl as we know it will continue because of economic conditions favorable to sprawl and American middle-class psychology. Sprawl, or master-planned communities, occurs because its cheaper to mass-produce communities for the developers. And it is the developers who build the infrastructure for the communities and turn it over to the cities. Increasingly, though, the master-planned communities are also homeowners associations that are shadow governments within their civic boundaries.
And much of the problem is with Americans, specifically, white middle-class Americans. They disproportionately sway markets to their tastes. And their tastes are a fear and loathing of urban areas and urbanity. We now have three generations of white Americans who grew up outside of cities and have no desire to reclaim them. The re-urbanizing and gentrification of urban cities is thanks to Generation Xers, but this is a generational peculiarity that will come and go once Generation Y and beyond start to exercise their sway on the market.
Also, if you are hoping to kill sprawl through environmentally conscious regulation, remember that sprawl is displaced, not destroyed. There’s no California sprawl versus Southwest sprawl versus Texas sprawl versus Southern sprawl. Just because we put a stop to it here doesn’t mean it’s OK in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Virginia, Georgia or the Carolinas. And people will follow sprawl where it is.
2. How can you be sure that if you unbundle the bunds as roads-only or transit-only, those would pass on their own? For instance, read the Orange County Register letters to the editor regarding the extension of Measure M, the sales tax for transportation usage.
At least 70 percent of the money goes to sustaining the single-occupant vehicle lifestyle. Yet, when you read the letters, most writers are outraged that public transit even exists. The biggest transit benefit is to provide clock headways for Metrolink, which will run 7-days a week for about 21 hours a day. Yet NONE of the Measure M money goes to expanding local bus service in Orange County. And the bus ridership has been growing at about 5 percent a year for the past decade. Yet OCTA deliberately omitted local bus operations to help Measure M pass.
3. Politicians, when deciding where the government largesse should go, do not look at voting patterns but campaign contributions. Start looking at politics like a business. Think of the Democrats and Republicans as influence brokerage firms, the Fidelity and Charles Schwab of public policy. Both parties know that incumbency alone ensures a 99% success rate in re-election, and both parties are organizations that have expenses and salaries to pay like any other business. Also, American political parties do not have programs like European governments, and political parties do not want members to be engaged in everyday activities. They want them to at least vote on election day and leave them the hell alone for the rest of the term.
California is fortunate, though, to have plebiscite powers of the initiative, referendum and recall. The best benefit of this process is that a vote is put before tens of millions of people with a clear conscience, who can vote on a project without having a direct financial interest in the outcome. Politicians cannot, since they take money from all sides of an issue.
What will be interesting is if the measures pass but do not get the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes. There is a majority, but tax funds have a special protection where no voters effectively vote twice.
4. The bigger problem with the measure if this passes is the fair share problem. Public transit-wise, L.A. and much of the Bay Area will come out as huge winners. The problem is that the smaller systems outside of Metro’s and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (that’s the Bay Area’s regional transit policy making authority) tentacles are going to see very little. Highways are a different story altogether. Because of environmental pressure and NIMBYism, these same counties are going to be starved of highway funds, and at best, these areas can hope for a few miles of carpool lanes. Much of the highway kitty goes to areas that have sprawl and love it, in other words, the inland counties.
Comment by Wad — October 20, 2006 @ 11:31 pm