As a lot of readers know, the Alameda County transportation sales tax measure (Proposition B1) came just a few hundred votes short of the necessary 2/3 super-majority needed to pass. A transportation measure in Los Angeles also failed by a slim margin. Predictably, this has led to calls to water-down the vote threshold for transportation sales tax measures. Senator Carol Liu has already introduced a constitutional amendment, SCA-4, that would lower the threshold to 55%.
Bicycle and transit advocates were obviously disappointed that B1 failed. The measure would have increased bike/ped funding in the county, and prevented further cuts to the local bus system. So should they get on board with a lower 55% threshold? I think that may be ill-advised.
The advantage of the 66% threshold is that it ensures all constituencies have a seat at the table. That was not the case in 1986, when only a simple majority was needed. The result was that bike/ped advocates were completely shut out. Transit riders didn’t do so well either. Here is a comparison of the simple-majority 1986 and super-majority 2002 measures:
Note that Alameda county surpassed 80% approval. Other urban counties have also been generally successful with local measures, despite the 2/3 requirement.
So what went wrong this time? In the case of Alameda, the county over-reached. Unlike past measures, Proposition B1 had a controversial provision making the tax permanent. Many voters were concerned that once the existing expenditure plan was completed, the county would continue collecting the tax in perpetuity without input from the voters.
Some have also argued that a 2/3 requirement is inherently un-democratic, because it gives greater weight to the “No” vote. That is nonsense for a number of reasons. For one thing, all democracies have built-in safeguards to protect minority interests. And the “Yes” campaigns have an unfair fundraising advantage from the developers and the road lobby.
Ok, but even if mistakes were made in 1986, surely planners have learned their lesson. This is the 21st century, and planners are more knowledgeable, and will use the 55% threshold responsibly, right? I’ve heard a surprising number of environmental advocates make that case. Well, anyone who believes that, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I’m sympathetic to your point, but can you elaborate on why you think transit became better in Alameda County after 2002? Aside from bike and ped projects, why is the chart on the right better? And any specific examples of projects/programs that was bad before 2002, but good afterwards (even if it was just something like increasing frequency and bus service)? Obviously capital projects in California have a way of not being great, but I’d like to hear more on this point, since you’re basically the only one making it (sadly…transit advocacy is a bit of an echo chamber).
Stephen,
As you can see in the charts, transit operations doubled. Para-transit increased by almost 10x.
There was also major changes the capital expenditures. I should have shown more clearly in the charts.
The capital funds went to highway and BART extension projects. The 1986 measure had massive highway spending, for really destructive highway expansion projects; i.e. Hayward Bypass and Hwy 84 Parkway (always a bad sign when highway projects use the words “bypass” or “parkway”). While the 2002 measure also had its share of dumb highway funding, the amounts were significantly less and mostly used on “improving” existing interchanges.
I will say that 2002 was a mixed result for transit riders. For example, it was supposed to fund a Dumbarton rail line, but those funds were “loaned” to BART (to cover their cost overruns). There was also supposed to be a BRT network, which never happened. And the doubling of transit operation funds was partly offset by cuts in other funding sources. The net result is that the 2002 measure gave transit users some increase in bus service, and two fairly useless BART extension projects.
Drunk Engineer: see comment below regarding Seattle. Your assessment of the situation is simply wrong. The difference between ’86 and now is public opinion, period.
[...] In Alameda County, a 2002 local transportation measure had to pass the two-thirds threshold at the ballot and included more funds for transit, biking, and walking than an earlier measure which only had to secure a simple majority. Image: Systemic Failure [...]
Safeguards for minority interests? Since when is not raising taxes a minority interest? As for fundraising, lots of stuff with more fundraising on one side only has to pass by majority vote.
@ BBnet3000: Agreed. If a 2/3rds supermajority is so important in order to allow all interests a seat at the bargaining table, then why do we only do it for sales tax increases?
The safeguard is actually in making sure bike/ped/transit-friendly officials are elected (which we have had better luck in accomplishing here in Alameda County recently) and in enacting city and countywide complete streets mandates which help ensure that all transpo spending is equitable.
I think calling the 2/3 requirement a good thing because it protects minority interests is missing the point. If we agreed that ANY changes should require 2/3 that’d be one thing, but instead it’s been specifically applied to tax increases. Not tax cuts, not spending, not anything else (except constitutional amendments). The only minority it reliably protects is Republicans.
Bingo. How about a requirement of 2/3 for tax CUTS? That would make about as much sense as the current 2/3 rule in California.
I voted for B 1 though firmly holding my nose. On balance not wasting $400 million on BART to Livermore makes failure okay. Time for AC, bike advocates, peds to try again with no freeway $$.
2/3 is way too high. Even the senate, with their idiotic filibuster, is at 60%.
[...] survey riders about whether to charge for parking based on demand. (SFist) … It might not be such a bad thing to keep the 2/3 requirement for transit taxes. (Systemic Failure) … More luxury apartments [...]
The change from the 1980s to the 2000s is all about SOCIAL change. Look at Seattle over a slightly longer period. In 1968, roads got more votes than rapid transit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_Thrust
Now, still in Seattle: In 2007, Roads and Transit failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_and_transit In 2008, “transit only” passed.
This is a sign that the public mood changed; in ’68, roads were more popular than trains, while in 2007-8, trains were more popular than roads.
I think Seattle is typical in this regard.
Allow for majority rule. (Incidentally, with majority rule, Forward Thrust’s transit measures would actually have passed in ’68, though only by a hair.)
Those highway projects from the 2007 measure won’t be going away. They are being re-packaged into a new highway plan, perhaps as a ballot measure.