Ugh! What to say about last week’s big transit meeting?
Due to all the anticipation for it, I had a case of writer’s block the past few weeks. While the decision on the Long-Range Transit Plan is not exactly ideal, I’m relieved nonetheless that approval of it has been postponed for now rather than having it altered because of the arm-twisting tactics of San Gabriel Valley power players. Time is not on the Foothill proponents' side and the longer it is held up for public scrutiny, the more people will see it for the absurd gridlock-inducing real estate sop that it is. Also, the new November decision date means the Foothill Authority will miss this year's deadline to get all that promised federal money.
But even with their attempts to play hardball with transit funding, the politicians and developers pushing the Sprawl Line are positively sympathetic next to the Bus Riders Union. What few valid points the BRU made - the regressive nature of the sales tax, protests over cuts in bus service - were drowned out by maudlin pathos and absurd, reactionary assertions like the repeated claim that rail transit is being pushed by and will solely benefit upper-middle class white Westsiders.
The leaders of the BRU mirror the neighborhood activists that Steve Belmont, in Cities In Full, refers to as “saviors”: self-anointed activists who “derive their power from the disaffection of residents in urban America’s most distressed neighborhoods, where poverty rates are highest, homeownership rates are the lowest, and the politics of resentment and entitlement are most effective.” It’s fitting how the BRU’s goals dovetail so neatly with those of the homeowner aristocracy represented by HOAs like those in Cheviot Hills. After all, the BRU and those HOAs are just the flip sides of the same coin, but whereas the HOAs want to keep their neighborhoods exclusively affluent and white, the BRU wants to keep their constituency and their constituency’s neighborhoods exclusively poor and non-white. It would be a hell of a lot easier to take the BRU seriously if they were interested in contributing real solutions to our present transit crisis. Unfortunately, they instead seem more interested in haranguing everyone within earshot with the same self-righteous brow-beating aimed more towards affirming their leadership’s inherent sense of moral superiority than in getting LA - all of LA - moving.
So here’s a modest proposal: let’s exempt the entire BRU membership from the sales tax increase. However, once the Expo and the Purple lines are completed, all those snotty Westsiders who taxed themselves for the line will pay the standard fare, but those oppressed, downtrodden BRU members and supporters will have to pay $10 to use it. The money generated from their fares will be devoted solely to rail maintenance and extension in the Westside. In BRU-land it makes perfect sense! After all, since poor minorities would not be served by these rail projects (and, as a rule, don't ride rail at all), why should they complain about having to pay higher fares for lines they theoretically should never be using?
Monday, June 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Why does the BRU get a ten minute slot AND extra individual slots when there were groups that waited for hours to speak and were denied. The BRU speakers were repetitive and the group's position could have been delivered by one person speaking for one minute, allowing 15 other speakers from various organizations with different points of view to speak.
The BRU is just one advocacy group and there are many in Southern California. Southern California Transit Advocates managed to have one person speak for the allotted one minute.
Next time, no more special privileges for the BRU just because they are loud and demanding. They get one minute just like everyone else, OR, give equal time to other organizations such as Southern California Transit Advocates, The Transit Coalition and the Rail Riders Union.
The Gold Line Extension will never become as much of a political dead letter as you hope unless opponents (more organized than you, no offense) point out how it's not even the best way to serve the SGV and a brand new route closer to the 10 would be more effective and less sprawly. Otherwise proponents will keep calling opponents provincial Westside partisans. (Well, they might anyway, but without this some people might actually believe them.)
The political alternative to the Gold Line is something else equally or more attractive.
If expanded and improved Metrolink service were sold to the SGV instead, it would have to be done so in a way that makes them believe they are getting a service equally as good or better than the Gold Line.
Morgan: I guess I'm just relieved that immediate changes to the LRTP plan were averted. Obviously the SGV is flexing its muscle and will not be letting go of the Foothill Extension without concessions. And truthfully, the San Gabriel Valley does have needs of its own which I am not denying. I just wish Metro would take the lead and provide sensible alternatives, or better yet articulate and educate the public on a truly region-wide transportation and land-use strategy. I've provided my own alternative (which I will be updating shortly), Dan has provided his, Irwin provided his. These projects, not the Westside projects, are the ones we should be offering as alternatives to the Foothill.
The political alternative to the Gold Line is something else equally or more attractive.
Dan: That's exactly my understanding. I often say that it is easier to say "no" to something if you offer something to say "yes" to. (I'd love to see the BRU take this philosophy, but we're not dealing with a rational group there, now are we?)
I fully expect that the Mayor and the various state assembly and state senate people involved will rewrite the Gold Line portion of the sales tax bill to give the San Gabriel Valley groups more of what they want, guaranteed in writing.
No, this will not be ideal, but in my opinion it would absolutely be the right move politically. The state senate majority leader is from that area and has already said she won't vote for the current bill.
I don't think a gold line extension will be a waste of money, but the current version will be a very inefficient use of money. It's unavoidable at this point so I really hope they find the right bargain to get the SGV fully behind the sales tax. Just one region voting strongly against the referendum will kill it given the high 66% vote requirement.
I also would not be surprised if a similar deal is struck with almost every region whose officials complain. Frankly, I hope to hear about these deals in the next few weeks because if they don't happen, I'm betting the sales tax will be still-born on the ballot.
The danger, Simon, in rewriting the Feuer bill to benefit the Gold Line region politicos is that the bill already passed the Assembly and one of the two Senate committees that it needs to (and the second committee already approved it once before the amendment to remove the "urgency clause").
If you amend it at this point, you send it back through the committees of both houses of the Legislature and risk killing it entirely (remember, just as you believe there are some legislators who would vote for the bill if it was rewritten to favor the Gold Line, there are also those who would vote against it if it were thus rewritten).
I do not believe the SGV politicos understand that they risk killing the sales tax entirely with their insistence of things being done their way, and if we miss this opportunity to get the tax passed, it may be another decade before we get another chance.
Boy that's a great point Kym. My feeling from that though is that it would've been wise to put a few more goodie bags into the bill earlier then.
I know it's not the right way to spend the money, but if it gets put on the ballot over one area's strenuous objections, its chances go way down.
Post a Comment