How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008
My vote on Prop 91: No
The no vote on this should be a no brainer, since the people who put the measure on the ballot in the first place are now urging you to vote no.
Why? Prop 1A, which passed in 2006, basically takes care of the issues that this measure tries to achieve — which is to prevent the state from siphoning off transportation money for the state’s general fund. (Incidentally, I voted against Prop 1A because the measure didn’t seem to promise much for public transit. It passed overwhelmingly without me.).
The measure, by and large, appears dead — except for at MetroRiderLA, where calwatch and others are pushing for a yes vote, arguing that Prop 91 will close even more loopholes than Prop 1A. However, what I gather from the analysis is that Prop 91 would close one loophole but open another huge loophole with negative consequences for public transit. I go into more detail on this in my comment on MetroRiderLA. Unless I hear back from the supporters at MetroRiderLA to convince me my current understanding is incorrect, I’m voting no.
Photo by andropolis
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Crossposted from MetroRiderLA:
Actually, you are. The LAO’s analysis is incorrect and others, including transit agencies, have a different opinion. LA County Public Works (which, in addition to running the flood control system and a few roads, also runs a fledgling bus system in the unincorporated area) said, to quote:
At the same time, the LAO indicates this
measure may be interpreted to allow public transit funds, which are not part of the TIF, to
be loaned to the General Fund with no express time limitation for repayment, which may
make the availabiliy of these funds for public transit less stable. The Department of Public
Works (DPW) concur with the LAO’s interpretation, and states that LAO’s assessment that
this measure may make the availabilty of public transit funds less stable is not a result of
Proposition 91 if passed, but it is due to existing law which does not protect public transit
funds from being loaned to the General Fund.
http://lacounty.info/omd/q1_2008/cms1_081662.pdf
So with all due respect, this isn’t as easy an issue as you have made it. A transit operator’s board (the County Board of Supervisors) voted to support the measure. Vote YES.
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Dude, that doesn’t even conflict with what I said! First of all, the DPW says it CONCURS with the LAO, NOT that it has “a different opinion,” as you wrote. The DWP merely points out that Prop 91 alone is not to blame, as it’s the problematic existing laws that’re muddying up the issue.
Basically, Prop 91 makes it tougher to siphon off the money from the transportation investment fund, while not tightening up the restrictions on the public transportation account. This means that while at the moment, the general fund can still use loopholes to tap into both funds, if 91 passes, it’ll only be able to tap into the public transportation account. Basically, highway money would get more protection under prop 91, while the public transport money would get no additional protection — thereby making it more vulnerable.
So yes, it’s the existing law that allows the general fund to borrow from the state transportation funds that is the root of the problem, but fixing the loophole for freeway money while not fixing the one for public transportation money is not an acceptable solution, IMHO.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I’ll have to disagree and say that roads benefit transit too, and vice versa. It is short sighted to think that improvements in local streets won’t help transit, or that $61 million in LA County unincorporated funds potentially missing if Proposition 91 fails won’t hurt transit riders as well (since that money in the road fund goes for road resurfacing, crosswalks, traffic signals, etc. which help all users in the road right of way… remember that most new local streets nowadays in LA County are paid for by developers anyway). I hate this knee jerk attitude that “roads bad, transit good” which you are claiming, and closing one loophole will indirectly help the other, not hurt transit users. But to each their own and I am disappointed in your opposition.
February 4th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I agree that buses also do use roads, obviously. But your comment elides the issues I raised altogether. My point was that the passage of prop 91 would tighten restrictions on siphoning off the transportation investment fund, while leaving the public transportation account as vulnerable as it already is (and potentially more vulnerable, since the TIF can no longer be tapped as easily for the general fund, thus leaving the PTA as the only transit-related fund to be tapped).
Your argument on your MetroRiderLA post — and your comments on that post, not only failed to mention the issues I raised but worked to obscure them. You argued that Prop 91 simply closes loopholes, without mentioning the fact that the prop closes loopholes ONLY for the TIF.
While I’m sure that MetroRiderLA readers and writers recognize that improved roads would benefit Metro buses, I also believe most MetroRiderLA readers and writers would agree that such improvements would benefit individual drivers much more than they do transit riders. The costs of the improvements, of course, would weigh as heavily on transit riders as they do on drivers.
At this point, your basically arguing that despite the fact that Prop 91 might siphon off public transit funds, we should still vote for it because it would improve roads. Never in your argument do you point out that the improvements will benefit individual drivers much more than they do public transit takers.
I’ve never said that roads are bad — after all, buses drive on roads, and I take those all the time! I’ve said that I’m against the expansion of freeways, and that I’m against funds going towards that effort.
Prop 91’s already a dead issue, so perhaps arguing this is a bit of a moot point. Still, I’m both puzzled and disappointed by your effort to obfuscate the issue, clouding the facts while pretending to clarify the measure for MetroRiderLA readers. I don’t know what your background or history is, and I have no idea why you’re in support of this bizarre measure or what you might have to gain from it. But more than anything, if what you really think we’ll get out of Prop 91 is simply better roads that’ll mostly benefit drivers, I’m confused as to why you’re going into great lengths to promote the measure on a blog that’s concerned with benefiting transit riders.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
(crossposted on metroriderla.com) I find it bizarre that you are now attacking my motives (I’ve posted on metroriderLA for quite some time) and I’m not going far off the reservation… SO.CA.TA has taken a position on this, and for good reason. And Prop 91 never siphoned off all PTA funds (that’s not what the strikethrough did). Would you like it if your motives were questioned? Then please read what you see and step back before you question mine.
In any case, you should be glad that 91 is failing, but I am glad that, despite virtually no campaign for the measure and the overwhelming newspaper and popular consensus against, it’s still getting 45% of the vote, more than a measure (92) which actually had a campaign for and against.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I find it interesting that you are no longer even addressing my arguments — or defending your own — on Prop 91.
Of course Prop 91 never siphoned off all PTA funds — It’s not even passing, let alone taking effect to siphon off any funds. I actually don’t understand large parts of your comment (what does “I’m not going far off the reservation” or “please read what you see” mean? I have no idea what “reservation” you’re talking about, or how I’m not reading what I see….). In any case, I’m glad the measure’s failing.