UPDATE: The Times is wrong about how much it will cost taxpayers extra to put the transit tax on the ballot -- $3 million instead of $10 million, if the legislature goes along. Troy Anderson in the Daily News published later but got it right. Still, it's a blow to MTA's ability to sell a tax that robs most sections of the county for the advantage of the Westside.
In a stunning repudiation of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday refused to put the MTA's half cent sales tas hike on the November ballot.
Seen by many as a Westside traffic relief measure -- congestion caused by overdevelopment without infrastructure -- the tax was rejected on a 3-2 vote with Westsiders Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Burke for it and Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe and Gloria Molina opposed, the Times reported with an expanded explanation at Bottleneck Blog.
The San Fernando Valley, San Garbriel Valley and Gateway Cities represented by the three dissenters stood to get far less than a fair share of the $40 billion to be raised over 30 years with much of the money going to the mayor's "subway to the sea" or were lined up for improvements two decades down the road.
The MTA, which still faces a hurdle getting approval from the state legislature, could go to court or try to get on the ballot by paying $10 million for the cost of the election. But the fight will definitely be uphill given the supervisors rejection which will fuel opposition.
In a stunning repudiation of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday refused to put the MTA's half cent sales tas hike on the November ballot.
Seen by many as a Westside traffic relief measure -- congestion caused by overdevelopment without infrastructure -- the tax was rejected on a 3-2 vote with Westsiders Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Burke for it and Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe and Gloria Molina opposed, the Times reported with an expanded explanation at Bottleneck Blog.
The San Fernando Valley, San Garbriel Valley and Gateway Cities represented by the three dissenters stood to get far less than a fair share of the $40 billion to be raised over 30 years with much of the money going to the mayor's "subway to the sea" or were lined up for improvements two decades down the road.
The MTA, which still faces a hurdle getting approval from the state legislature, could go to court or try to get on the ballot by paying $10 million for the cost of the election. But the fight will definitely be uphill given the supervisors rejection which will fuel opposition.
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the Naitonal Enquirer.
Gloria to the mayor: "Screw you, Antonio, and your freaking subway to the sea."
I love it! I do believe that the only reason that the 3 Supervisors dissented is because they may be hearing the murmurs of S.L.A.P. Am I being a tad optimistic? Sure, but I also have a percentage in my favor that it is true. Throw the bums out is a regular refrain now. From the U.S. Congress to the electeds in local municipalities, the whispers become murmurs, the murmurs become letters to the editors of local publications, the letters become chants, the chants become shouts, and the shouts turn into votes. Oh, my heart beats faster in anticipation that the apathy is finally going to drown the electeds and we will see new faces and vote for people who was to "serve" the public who pays their way. (I need to calm now, and rejoin reality. And I am ever hopeful!)
LCStone
Meant to say: Oh, my heart beats faster in anticipation that the apathy is finally going to drown the electeds and we will see new faces and vote for people who WANT to "serve" the public who pays their way. (I need to calm now, and rejoin reality. And I am ever hopeful!)
LCStone
[still hopeful]
Wow!
Elected officials actually doing the RIGHT THING?
This could be the start of a beautiful thing.
That comment by Walter Moore shows why he's utterly unfit to even consider a job as "Mayor of L A," and is at best suited to be an NC Board member on the provincial council he belongs to. To laud this short-sighted alliance of two provincial, anti-city Republicans who see "L A" only from the point of view of their commuter communities (going through the westside in many cases, adding pollution, smog and health hazards with their oversized guzzlers), in alliance with "the Glorias" Molina/Romero etc. who are very left-leaning liberal, ethnocentric Latina pride types from the East Valley and have NOTHING in common otherwise, proves that Walter Moore is not worth a mention even from the Valley- centric and provincial Daily News.
I'm not necessarily for the tax, at least not until other issues can be resolved: would it be added to Arnold's proposed 1c tax, which he can add by fiat effect immediately, allegedly? What assurances are there that the state won't swipe this tax, like it has the last 2 years the "surplus gas tax" Bond measure voted on specifically for L A Transportation needs? But this motley crew of odd bedfellows of the most reactionary white rightwing and most free- spending left-Latinos only worry they're not "getting their fair share." Well, they're NOT contributing their "fair share" to alleviating the costs of pollution, smog, traffic congestion and wear-and-tear on roads and highways that they cause on the westside-Wilshire corridor, the entire West Coast's biggest conveyer of traffic from ACROSS THE REGION.
We should do like London and other European cities, even NYC with its tunnels and bridges: slap a "congestion drive-in fee" on them all ASAP. London's reducing its fee from $50/day to maybe $15, which sounds reasonable for these selfish commuter polluters to pay. (There are also stickers available for about $1500/year for those who don't drive in daily.) License plate readers at strategic entrances to the area can assess the fees as they do in Europe. The EU slaps an annual fee on cars who are from outside the EU who don't meet the strictest pollution controls, and gives them a period to come upto code. We must be sure to install license plate readers on all cars coming SOUTH to work along every single canyon in the city, from the S F Valley -- there's very little traffic in the other direction. This must be in addition to already-planned Congestion Fees/toll on former "freeways."
The very idea of "metro L A," which is the only part of L A comparable to other world class cities, instead of to Indianapolis or Cleveland, being subject to the parochial whims of this bunch of extremists at both ends of the political and social spectrum, and hopelessly clueless Walter Moore, shows why L A is as directionless as it's been for decades. They're the problem, definitely not the solution.
Roderick is reporting at LA Observed that the Times story got it wrong:
Or not: I'm told by an aide to a Supervisor that the Times' web story played it wrong — that the vote today only decided whether to consolidate what are technically separate elections on Nov. 8. "Voters WILL still vote on the sales tax issue. It will just be a separate ballot that voters will get during the same election," says the aide. "This was all clearly explained at the meeting today."
More rants from the poster who overuses the "provincial, anti-city Republicans" phrase. Of course, I don't concur. We'll probably get the subway to the sea in the future, but it is not affordable at this time. True, a subway to the westside would provide an additional, useful backbone/trunk path for our LA's public transit system. But it certainly wouldn't alleviate pressing traffic problems in the near term, except for a small few. There are other more pressing problems that must be addressed first.
The metro/busline concept for Los Angeles public transportation is flawed and aimed at the conveniencing the rich. Taxing users on the freeways, with toll lanes, inflating gas prices, and the intentional traffic worsening practices by CALTRANS have increased our traffic problems and added regressive taxes onto us. The crisis was worsened by these leaders and they'll only solve it with their selfish interests in mind. Their planner's intent is to push/force the average Angeleno primarily into bus usage, which will always be uncomfortable, unsafe, and time consuming. Why should we subsidize effectively a dual transportation system, cars for the wealthy and buses for the others, for the convenience of the rich?
SoCal needs to keep it's car culture. We need to focus on promoting a carpooling culture with energy efficient cars. With it's 300-360 sunshine days/year and the potential for solar/electric transportation, it can be cultivated into an efficient, effective system. If the leaders were truthful, they'd say it can be so.
This goes beyond those antique public transit systems in New York, London, and Mumbai.
Don't listen to the rants of that Villaraigosa shill poster. If we fail to maintain our freeway system along with our California culture, it will be lost forever. OPPOSE FREEWAY TOLL ROADS!!!
Nice "plan" you have there, 5:16. If only you had any idea you ludicrous virtually every statement is: Sure, the subway through the densest corridor is the only logical route, but don't consider it now since if we continue to do nothing as for past decades, maybe a miracle will happen and we'll get all the money at once and it will be completed faster; we must address "more pressing problems first" (but sue the city over every such attempt, like the modified Pico-Olympic Plan, to make sure surface traffic stays miserable so you can keep griping and obstructing everything); "The metro/ busline concept... "is aimed at conveniencing the rich" (now, that's a doozy); "Taxing users on the freeways...have increased our traffic problems" (okay...). Your brilliant plan is for SoCal to "keep its car culture" but "focus on promoting a carpool culture" (which tolls encourage).
And then some idiotic conclusion about the "antique public transit systems in New York, London and Mumbai." Only an untraveled nitwit who's trying too hard to sound cosmopolitan would throw Mumbai in with the other two, instead of say, the newer and oft-noted efficient systems in Tokyo, Hong Kong or Singapore (which LA's would better resemble -- have you even seen the existing Red Line?) New York and London's tubes are old and often dirty -- though NYC's cleaned up a lot, and London's is quite servicable and far the fastest way to get around rush hour -- but if you've ever tried to take a taxi 10 blocks and can't get more than a block per light, you'll see what we need to avoid by putting mass transit into the most congested areas now.
I'm not trying to convince YOU, you're hopelessly clueless -- just noting some of your nonsense.
"provincial, anti-city Republicans" hater, sling mud all you want. Delay the subway to the sea one year or two. It'll make no difference in our overall traffic problems. What will change things are immediately promoting carpooling, as it should be. Change several freeway lanes to mutiperson carpooling and make a real immediate difference.
Turning Pico and Olympic into one way streets, essentially pseudo freeways, is just moving the problem from one group to another. You create a new flow of traffic for commuters but will ruin businesses on that route. That's obviously not acceptable.
Why read your posts. They're a worthless batch of meaningless insults. Open your eyes and see the innovative solution for LA. We don't need to open lanes up for the wealthy. Your Villaraigosa Boys' solutions are just a rehash of a third world, overpopulated, trashbin cities. Let the masses take the dirty buses while the wealthy ride in style. The residents of LA are not going to be allow that here.
10:43, Your last para shows where you're coming from at last, literally and figuratively: the only mass transit systems and socio-economic comparisons you know, and are making, are to your own Third- World homeland, which sounds like Mexico City and environs. (And hence the gratuitously incongruous Mumbai toss-in -- you imagine it as closer to what you know.) No wonder you're so without a mental GPS about LA.
Take a taxi in LA? We don't need taxis in LA. Go back to New York and take Bratton with you. New York and Mumbai are very densely populated, very unlike LA. Leave your taxis over there. If you agree with the pathetic Villaraigosa-like planners and expect LA to resemble New York then you'll have the majority of current residents opposing you.
BTW, it's obvious by the eagerness of Greuel and Perry's endorsement of new taxi privileges that these two pathetic Councilmembers also wish that New York serve as a pattern for LA's transportation development. Very sorry pattern indeed.
It appears the City Council and DWP General Manager David Nahai made a premature assessment regarding the cause of the explosion, electrical cable vs. methane gas, at Westchester in order to justify the rate increases. I encourage everyone to view the video listed below and come up with your own conclusion.
“KNBC Investigation: Tragedy at Westchester
July 29, 2008
Paul Moyer reports.”
http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=280861
hello dear sir, andar here. i enjoy post of yours very much so. i am agree to you. good day.