Anyway, with the current victory of gaining approval from the Senate Appropriations committee, now is an opportune time to look at the political landscape in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately, even with this tentative victory, we are still in the unenviable position for asking 2/3rds of LA County voters to voluntarily tax themselves for much needed transit investment.
I've come up with a preliminary list of what I see as working against the sales tax measure. I'd appreciate any feedback on what you think should be added or taken off, or your perspective on the road ahead. For now, let's make this thread about assessments of obstacles and opponents. We can talk about strategies, advantages, and arguments we can make in a later post. For now I just want to take an inventory of what we face in support of this measure.
Here's what I've come up with:
- Opposition of County Supervisors Gloria Molina and Antonovich who are perptuating:
- False claims of a lack of equity for the San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys as well as the South Bay
- Potential US Congressional opposition from David Dreier, Grace Napolitano, Gary Miller and Hilda Solis
- Opposition from the BRU on grounds of an incoherent race and class baiting anti-rail argument
- Opposition of anti-tax ideologues like the Howard Jarvis Foundation and the Sherman Oaks Homeowners association
- Opposition from the press
- An economy in recession
- Competing sales tax measures this election
- Distrust that funds will be raided like previous funds either to fund other transit projects or to balance the state budget
- Distrust of the MTA due to prior abuses, mismanagement, and overspending
- The state budget crisis and the Governor’s subsequent veto threat
- Intra-regional resentments and hostility being exploited by opponents (see #2)
- A regional growth machine and political aparati oriented more towards suburban expansion rather than urban reinvestment & revitalization
- General public that is ill-informed about public transportation specifically and urban issues in general
- Long-term demonization of liberalism and policies and programs (like public transportation) that are associated with it
7 comments:
Don't forget the automobile-entitled who pine for the days of yore with cheap gasoline, low congestion, the entitlement to drive and park anytime, anyplace, anywhere with the assumption that everyone else will do the same. These people intuitively realize that the famed car culture lifestyle is in continual decline in quality and a sales measure to raise money for transit reminds them that there is no time machine going back.
17. All of the above and more leading to a plan so convoluted, road-centric, bike-and-pedestrian hostile, and laden with pork like the Foothill Extention I'm actually lukewarm about it and I'm a trifle surprised you aren't as well.
(I'm tempted to list our general, and outrageous, lack of voting in this country meaning transit measures actually have to be timed for high-turnout elections like this one, so urgency ends up trumping getting it right. LA should be able to wait only one year, not two or four or a lifetime.)
Couldn't you thin of any legitimate reasons?
Okay, recession is listed but what about straight economics? Is an 8.75% sales tax an investment in better transportation? LA ain't an island anymore. I bet I can name one of the biggest supporters; the
Thousand Oaks Auto Mall. The point is that's too high. it doesn't matter where the money is intended to go. all that matters is that such high tax rates drive out the very economic base you intend to tax.
I live in a different county, go ahead but do it with full understanding of the long term consequences.
Dan: I guess I'd put that under #14. Entitlement and habit are a big part of it and, like a lot of the obstacles on this list, probably won't be overcome by the election, but it is a reality.
Morgan: I don't like to play the pragmatist card, but this really is the best we're going to get for now. Also, it took decades to create LA's current built environment, and it will take as long or longer for the next form to emerge. I really think this is the beginning of a decades long shift and walk-back away from the post-War urban policies that brought us to where we are right now.
Rob: I highly doubt that the major employers of LA County will be moving out to Thousand Oaks because of a 1/2 cent sales tax hike. Who exactly is going to subsidize the freeways and infrastructure of this 21st century Thousand Oaks expansion on the scale that the Feds and the state of California did in the previous century? That era is gone. If LA County commits to this type of major public transit infrastructure investment, that’s the direction where the development will gravitate towards, especially in the context of rising energy and building material prices.
But that has always been the standard libertarian bogeyman - that taxes are inherently bad for the economy and inevitably drive business away. As Rob at CA High Speed Rail Blog so succinctly puts it:
That's only true if you assume that the taxes vanish into a black hole, never to emerge in any form again. But with the HSR bonds, as with other mass transit proposals like SMART or the LA Metro sales tax, that's just not so. High speed rail will produce immediate and long-term economic benefits while saving Californians money.
While a high sales tax rate isn’t exactly a major selling point for a region, it is hardly the sole determinant of a region's fate, particularly a metropolis the size of LA. In fact, the status quo poses a much greater threat to the region’s economic health than any tax hike.
Rob: I highly doubt that the major employers of LA County will be moving out to Thousand Oaks because of a 1/2 cent sales tax hike.
Of course not. We are discussing "on the margins." The correct question is whether enough businesses will bee done just over the line to adversely impact the expected revenue.
Who exactly is going to subsidize the freeways and infrastructure of this 21st century Thousand Oaks expansion on the scale that the Feds and the state of California did in the previous century?
The same people who paid and are paying for it now. Roads use mostly pays for itself. It used to more than pay for itself.
That era is gone. If LA County commits to this type of major public transit infrastructure investment, that’s the direction where the development will gravitate towards, especially in the context of rising energy and building material prices.
Major? Isn't that a bit optimistic? Props A and C are being consumed by operating costs as it is. You expect a different result this time?
But that has always been the standard libertarian bogeyman - that taxes are inherently bad for the economy and inevitably drive business away.
That's just name calling and guilt by association. Nobody is throwing around social justice liberal socialist monikers. You need to stick to the issue I raised, whether one of the highest sales taxes in the nation will actually generate as much revenue as expected. That's an econometric analysis not some political position talking point.
While a high sales tax rate isn’t exactly a major selling point for a region, it is hardly the sole determinant of a region's fate,...
Agreed. LA has so much going for it this is but a cog in the machine. Still, it is a cog.
Previous sales tax hikes did not produce the kind of commerce flight "at the margins" that Rob described. Did a lot of LA business move to OC because the lower sales tax rate there now? The car dealerships in Cerritos seems to be doing well despite being right across the river from the low sales tax heaven of OC. On the contrary, if LA end up having superior transit system, isn't that a real incentive for employers to move to LA vis-a-vie neighboring counties like Ventura or OC? The sales tax hike is not a zero sum game so don't reduce it down to a give and take analysis.
irwin said...
Previous sales tax hikes did not produce the kind of commerce flight "at the margins" that Rob described.
Of course this happened. You need only look at job growth figures for the last 10, 20 or 40 years to see that there is an absolute correlation between tax rates and corporate (re)location.
Post a Comment