Comments on: Proposition B1 Post-Mortem

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:43:45 +0000

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.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:01:01 +0000

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.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:00:05 +0000

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.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:59:16 +0000

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.)

By: End-Week Links: Closure « The Greater Marin

End-Week Links: Closure « The Greater Marin — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 08:03:11 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: JJJ

JJJ — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 05:27:11 +0000

2/3 is way too high. Even the senate, with their idiotic filibuster, is at 60%.

By: Drunk Engineer

Drunk Engineer — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 02:36:18 +0000

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.

By: iskandr

iskandr — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:56:10 +0000

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 $$.

By: Shane Phillips

Shane Phillips — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:19:43 +0000

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.

By: Robert Prinz

Robert Prinz — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:58:38 +0000

@ 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.