Measure D Revived
A new blog called Politics Santa Barbara has begun posting...it's first issue is an announcement that Measure D has been revived. With a nom de blog of Juan De la Vina, it seems the anonymous blogging tradition continues....
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 8/02/2007 05:54:00 AM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
19 Comments:
In this age of Global Warm we need to do everyting we can to STOP Measure D!!!
Looks like the pro-transit/anti-concrete folks are starting to flex a little muscle. Since pro-transit votes are essential to Measure D passing, the pro-concrete folks (especially those who live north of the Santa Ynez Mountains) would be wise to take notice and start thinking about compromising on the 70% share for public works asphalt. If the transit people are disenfranchised from this process, Measure D is doomed.
Voters already said no.
NO NO NO NO
No more slick brochures from SBCAG trying to shove this down our throats!
Let's have a measure about maximum capacity on the South Coast instead.
There's no need to revisit Measure Deceit.
Do not see how "Global Warm" will be resolved by status-quo transportation systems. What is better for reducing climate warming, single-passenger cars stuck in gridlock traffic, or buses and trains and bikeways instead?
As for Reason, not to be confused with Rezone, when you or your hired help ride to bus to get somewhere, or when your car does **not** break an axle or blow a tire because the road surface is smooth, do you think the little Transportation Funding Faeries from the ether are the ones who pay for that road maintenance and make the repairs?
If you do not want to renew or even increase the sales tax, then how would YOU pay for these transportation expenses?
Are you hoping from a grant from Wendy P. McCaw?
No on Measure D. How about family planning and population control. Not roads and not cars.
its foolishness to believe retaining the 70/30 split means less being spent on alternative transportation programs/services. The south coast cities use a healthy percentage of their local share on alternatives. Oh and the last time I checked, buses use asphalt...
We need Measure D - stop the histrionics.
Cars are still cool, though I wish everyone would buy smaller ones. That alone would ease conjestion just by reducing their volume in mass on the roads and parking spaces. Let alone fuel consumption.
Think tall, buy small.
Instead of painting a stupid blue line, how can government incentivize the use of smaller, more fuel efficient cars?
Are the forces that "Killed the Electric Car" still that powerful? Detroit seems like it is on its last ropes lately. Can they squash small, feul efficient cars again?
Citizen Stringer asked: As for Reason, not to be confused with Rezone, when you or your hired help ride to bus to get somewhere, or when your car does **not** break an axle or blow a tire because the road surface is smooth, do you think the little Transportation Funding Faeries from the ether are the ones who pay for that road maintenance and make the repairs?
I would have the state to pay for the transportation projects out the myriad of other taxes that I pay. Let's see, there's a huge sales tax already, there's state income tax, there's the taxes and fees that I pay to license my car every year, property tax, on and on and on.
One big tendency of our culture, is the more you have, the more you use. Same behavior goes for government. No matter how much money we dole out, it gets spent.
Measure Deceit needs to go away. The voters have responded to the previously expensive campaign. The answer was/is NO. The fact that so much time and energy is being spent on placing it on the ballot AGAIN tells me that the folks behind it are NOT serving the community that has already spoken. If they are on government payroll in any way, they are wasting even more taxpayer money.
I agree with Voice of Reason.
I think the whole county should hold our collective breath, stomp our feet, and simply DEMAND that the State of California send back to the county $18 million per year, for the next 30 years, so the county then can pay for the transportation projects directly.
After all, the State Budget process works so well and nothing else is competing for those State funds nor ever will. We all simply will hope that a Republican State Senator from Butte County just understands how we all should Get Along and is not the single holdout for the supermajority needed to pass a State budget.
Seems like that "Reason" comment belongs under the "What About Cannabis" subject here at Blogabarbara.
Measure D is extortion. It's also argument staging. Take the oodles of taxes that I give you and use them properly. Don't hold a gun to our heads. Other states and counties etc don't have a Measure D and still manage to provide proper road maintenance. Why do we need an extra Measure for something that should already be taken care of.
I agree with Voice of Reason. Find the county people that are trying to reinstate Measure D, fire them, declaring them fiscal sinkholes and use that money to fix the roads.
The REAL VOR Here!
We all need to stop whining and pass Measure D. If you don't like asphalt then you should like bike lanes and other components of "safe routes to schools" programs.
The very things many of you are complaining about, related to corporations running the country and such, are the way they are because Americans have somehow been indoctrinated into believing that paying less for things (including taxes) is a good thing.
As we're starting to see exemplified by all the contaminated products coming into the US from China (like this should be a big surprize to anyone) is because Americans don't want to pay even minimum wage for some poor slob to manufacture or grow the item.
We need to start taking responsibility for things and one golden opportunity for our community is Measure D. Locally generated tax dollars spent on local transportation projects. Plain and simple.
I am not quite sure why Anon. 5:55 believes it is foolish to believe that retaining the 70/30 split means spending less on public transportation. The 30% goes to regional projects, most of which are roadway maintenance and improvement. Most jurisdictions spend their shares of the 70% on roadway maintenance and improvement as well. What is left over for public transportation is very minimal in most jurisdictions (despite the City of Santa Barbara's considerable largess). It is true that buses require well-maintained roads just as much as cars do. However, it appears as if our unfortunate choice is, after filling pot holes, to either increase capacity or improve public transit. It would be nice to do both, but there just is not enough money to maintain the roads we have, increase roadway capacity, and increase public transportation service. If all interested parties do not reach a reasonable compromise on the division of the pie, there will be no pie to divide.
The only thing golden about this opportunity is more money going out of the hands of the taxpayers and into the pockets of government waste, in the form of double payments for transportation services.
This measure was shot down -- even after SBCAG spent $91K plus on trying to sell it. How about a refund instead?
Let's see ...that $91,000 divided amongst 400,000 county residents...that equals roughly $225 tax dollars for every man woman and child that SBCAG threw into the trashbin advertising the measure that failed.
Enough already.
Voice of Reason, you certainly have a passion that belies your nom de guerre but I am failing to understand the logic (or "reason" as it were) of your argument. If there were ample funds to achieve all the transportation infrastructure needs of the community, why would any politician or bureaucrat risk political suicide in the attempt to enact a tax on an electorate famously loath to tax itself? Most public works engineers that I have ever met are on the conservative Republican side of the political spectrum and one would be hard pressed to find a public works director in California that would agree that transportation infrastructure can be maintained without supplemental tax funding (a legacy of Prop. 13). To ignore this economic fact and reject a pittance of a sales tax all for the sake of some anti-tax ideological purity would be like cutting off one's nose to spite his face. We would save very little personal income and lose a great deal of public good.
voice of rezone
I won't poke fun at your calculation if you don't poke fun at my spelleing and tpyos.
Your libertarian common sense type arguments are great except they don't work because our transportation infrastructure has always been funded by raising taxes or selling bonds. Bonds are essentially taxes paid in the future. We must continue this funding scheme to maintain, rebuild and add capacity. BTW I am for maintenace, increasing capacity by adding 100% transit/alternatives.
I do think you probably are paying too much in taxes. Perhpas you have too many assest suchs as multiple homes in many counties or perhaps states or countries, 8 or so cars, monster trucks and motorcycles cluttering up your driveway situated down a private lane served off a nearly private road. I only use this description because there are so many people who feel victimized by our economics schemes that really are perpetrators rather than hapless victims they portrait themselves.
I know of many people that have points of view similar to yours. It seems everyone has ideas of just how much taxes should be, what the taxes should be spent on and how they are victimized. It is astounding to me at how these same people expect the infrastructure to keep them glamourously roaming the planet without really looking at the true costs. Do you really know what our true costs are?
donaldo,
Please don't confuse me (voice of rezon(e)) with the voice of reason person who I wholeheartedly disagree with.
Thanks.
VOR
voice of rezone.... My social error. I did mean to address>>> voice of reason<<< comments. Sorry
Vioce of Reason...I need to correct your math. $91,000.00 devided by 400,000 residents equals 22.7 cents per resident.
Perhaps many with the opinion of the burden of this tax are applying your mathmatical skills in evaluating it.
Post a Comment
<< Home