The proposed sales tax for roads and transit, continued

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa this morning said that he would like to see voters in November consider a half-cent sales tax hike in Los Angeles County. It's not a done deal yet, but this is the first time that Villaraigosa has publicly said that he supports raising the tax, which is currently 8.25%.

I caught up with the mayor on the subway, which he was riding to North Hollywood for an Metropolitan Transportation Agency press conference on new rapid bus routes. He was his usual chatty self, talking with riders about their commutes and posing for photos. Several reporters were on hand and I finally got the chance to ask Villaraigosa if he could tell the passengers in the car if one day they'll be able to take the subway to the beach.

"We're going to need to pass a half-cent sales tax initiative if we want to build a subway to the sea," the mayor said.

No argument there. The project is estimated to cost $5 billion to $7 billion and so far there's no money for it.

He added: "I'm trying to get everybody on the same page in this county, which isn't always easy.... I'd like to get a sales tax initiative on the ballot, but we have to build a consensus on that first. I'm working on that as we speak."

He reiterated the same point at the news conference, when I asked him who the holdouts were. He provided me a toothy smile and declined to answer.

It is estimated that such an increase would raise $30 billion to $40 billion over the next three decades. In the world of highways and mass transit, that's not a ton of money -- the MTA says it has $60 billion worth of projects it would like to build in the county. But it would give L.A. County spending power it doesn't have and mean that the county wouldn't have to beg the state and federal government for transportation money.

The sales tax idea has been kicking around for months and I've been asking the mayor about it for months. He's been sidestepping the question, but recently some of his appointees to the MTA board have been indicating they support it -- a pretty good clue as to what Villaraigosa is thinking. While the mayor is just one politician in a sea of politicians in L.A. County, his support is crucial. He represents the largest city in the county, he's likely the best-known politician in the Southland and has the political and fundraising muscle to help run a campaign.

In a related development, a state bill, AB 2321 by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), that would allow the county to go to voters with a sales tax was approved by the state Senate's transportation committee on Tuesday on a 7-3 vote. The bill is being heard in the Senate's revenue and taxation committee today. The bill has already won approval from the Assembly.

Securing voter approval isn't likely to be easy. Voters approved similar increases in 1980 and 1990, and that money has helped fund some of the county's emerging transit system. An increase this year would raise the sales tax in nearly all of the county from 8.25% to 8.75% -- which tie the county with several other locales as having the highest sales tax in the state. Such an increase would also require approval of two-thirds of voters, a hurdle that is never easy to clear.

Two recent polls have been commissioned on the increase. The MTA, using the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, asked 1,400 likely voters if they would go for it and 63% said they would -- a number that jumped to 73% after respondents were told more.

Another poll, commissioned by an advocacy group that is for the sales tax and done by Goodwin Simon Victoria, found that 69% of voters would go for a sales tax increase on the condition it went to a slew of road-related improvements, as well as some mass transit projects.

Remember, these are polls. I tend to be skeptical -- polls are hardly foolproof. It's not over until it's over.

The MTA board -- on which Villaraigosa and four of his appointees sit -- is scheduled at its meeting tomorrow to vote on whether to draft language for the sales tax ballot measure. That, of course, will be a telling vote.

The board is also scheduled to consider the MTA's long-range plan. That has been the center of a feud between proponents of the Expo Line on the Westside and proponents of a Gold Line extension deeper into the San Gabriel Valley. Both sides want to ensure funding priority for their project. Both are leery of the others' project.

Villaraiogsa and other sources have indicated they probably won't vote on a plan tomorrow. Instead, they'll wait to see if the sales tax proposal makes it to the ballot. The thinking is there's no sense in voting on a plan when there could potentially be $30 billion or more of funding on the horizon.

Behind the scenes, all interested parties are scrambling for a slice of that pie now in exchange for supporting the sales tax. Presumptuous? Yes. And it may overlook the fact that a lot of money that should have been spent on mass transit over the years was diverted elsewhere by politicians. Whether voters trust them this time remains to be seen.

--Steve Hymon

photo: Steve Hymon / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Tom A.]

Morgan and John,

Boy, I'm impressed by how much you Westsiders seem to know about the SGV. Do you mind if I ask how many times you guys have actually visited (and no, attending the Rose Parade while you were still in diapers doesn't count)?

Do you honestly think people living along the I-210 corridor will drive all the way down to the I-10 corridor to the jump on the Metrolink San Berdoo line? Or that people living in Azusa or Glendora will spend an hour or more on the 210 or Foothill Blvd. in the morning, only to hop on the Gold Line in East Pasadena? Here's a hint: No! The main reason ridership figures for the existing segment of the Gold Line are so dismal compared to the other Metro Rail lines (and the Orange Line BRT) is because the people living east of the current terminus can't justify spending such a significant percentage of their commute in their cars, only to leave the privacy and relative comfort of their cars for a train; it is, quite simply, a turn-off for would be users.

Besides, there's been nary a peep of opposition toward the Gold Line in the SGV; if anything, it's been receiving enthusiastic support. But I guess every single Westsider wants the Expo Line built as planned, too. Oh, that's right; there IS some opposition for it! And did I mention all the paperwork for the Gold Line is already done and sitting on the shelf, awaiting funding?

Sorry to come across as bitter and combative, but I think I speak for my fellow 626ers (Disclaimer: Even though I'm living and working in Orange County, I still drive up to visit my folks and brother every few weeks.) when I say we've had it up to here with getting shafted by the City and the County in terms of transit dollars (and not just the Foothill Extension; our leaders had to fight like hell to get funding for reconfiguring the woefully outdated 10/605 interchange).

Does that mean I'm not willing to compromise? No; surely there'd be a way where we could get the Gold Line built out to Azusa while you could get the Purple Line extended to, say, La Cienega. Then, when more funding became available, the subway could get built to Santa Monica and the Gold Line could be stretched to Montclair (the official planned terminus as of now) at more or less the same time.

Sharing isn't just for elementary school, ya know...

[Tony Fernandez]

Umm, maybe I'm crazy, but I'm pretty sure that Props A & C were used to give you the Green Line, Blue Line, Red Line, Gold Line, Orange Line, and many Rapid Bus Lines. This money was definitely not diverted and was used, but we need more because all of the money is secured until about 2030. If you want to get mad at anyone, get mad at the state. Locally, we are doing the job.

[M]

Until we know that the previous tax increases, bonds and who knows what other monies that were supposed to go to public transportation ARE actually going to it, I see no justification in raising the taxes once again. Asking people if they want more money spent on public transportation is completely different than actually getting the money and having it go towards those things.

I would love for the public transportation system to be expanded. It would allow me to get to places I can't get to easily right now because I refuse to drive there and I don't have 15 hours to try to cross Los Angeles. I would not love to be taxed further especially if the money will eventually go to some other project that is not public transportation. It may "only" add up to $25 a year, but if not all $25 is going to public transportation, it is deceitful and a complete waste.

[ngan]

Why does Steve put this last on the story?

"And it may overlook the fact that a lot of money that should have been spent on mass transit over the years was diverted elsewhere by politicians"

That fact should never be overlooked! And that fact should tell everyone to vote down any tax increase because it will happen again.

Shame on Steve for not making this a bigger issue and forcing the politicians to admit their wrongdoings before we give them any more money to waste.

How can anyone be in favor of a sales tax increase when "a lot of the money...was diverted elsewhere by the politicians"? No matter what laws/clauses we write into any initiatives, the politicians always find a way to divert the money elsewhere.

[Don]

Can I ask a question?

Didn't we pass props A & C to do this very thing? Why do we have to increase taxes again to pay for what we are already paying into....

[John Crandell]

In terms of density (population and building floor area), there is no comparison between the Wilshire Corridor and the San Gabriel Valley, period. Top priority needs to be given to the Wilshire Corridor subway.

[Morgan Wick]

Also, hand-in-hand with presenting a vision of LA's transit-oriented future, MTA should also tell voters that the sales-tax increase can pay for itself in improved economic growth.

[Beverly Hills resident]

Mayor Villaraigosa deserves great credit for his vision for a better city. Right now, traffic congestion costs the average person $2,000 a year, whereas a sales tax might cost only $25/year per person.

Thank you for your leadership, Mayor Villaraigosa!

[Morgan Wick]

Some advice for the MTA to maximize the chances of victory at the polls:
*Provide a comprehensive plan, not just on what the system will look like with a sales-tax increase, but of a hypothetical system in 2050 with further sales-tax increases, to mollify concerns you're chasing the politically expedient path instead of what will actually benefit the region.
*Provide mock-ups of LA's transit-oriented future, including clear highways, mock headlines proclaiming how non-congested and non-global-warming-contributing LA is, and the like.
*Don't say you're going to extend the Gold Line all the way to Ontario. If you want Ontario Airport to become LA's equivalent to Newark, build a commuter rail spur there, and improve bus service to Pomona Metrolink Station too. No need to induce a denser version of sprawl in the 210 corridor, because at least SOME of those people will take the freeway anyway, especially with a minimum of connections other than the Gold Line. Improve Metrolink San Bernardino Line service and frequency instead. In general, Metrolink should not be neglected. Keep in mind, SGV people don't like the Expo and Purple Lines because they take away money from their project - but Westsiders don't like the Foothill Extension because it's WRONG and a TERRIBLE IDEA. I challenge any Valley resident to give me one reason why we shouldn't build Expo and the SttS other than it takes away money from SGV. Yes, the SttS will be way more expensive than the Extention, but sometimes you have to make substantial investments for a brighter future and not let money get in the way of the best solution. More Westsiders will be turned off by the Foothill Extension than Valley residents will be turned off by Expo and SttS funding.
*I live in Seattle, a very transit-friendly city. In 1996, voters around here formed a regional transit agency that would provide commuter and light rail to the region. Last year there was a vote to expand the system - and it was defeated in part because roads piggybacked on it. Pro-road forces also voted against it because they didn't like the extension of light rail (which by that time had gone way over budget and not one segment was even open yet, and part of the proposed extension was something that was actually part of the 1996 ballot measure). LA may be different but the national zeitgeist appears to be pro-transit right now. Attempting a shotgun marriage of roads and transit may mollify some groups, but it could doom the measure to failure. Only buses like both road and transit investment; otherwise they are antithetical. If roads are excluded, MTA could distribute materials on induced demand to explain why.
*MTA REFORM! Rightly or wrongly, MTA is perceived as a bloated, slow, inefficient, bureaucratic agency. Why is it that every city and their mother has their own transit system in LA county, but there's only one city with one in Orange County (Laguna Beach)? Why do city-owned bus systems disappear when a city is served by Foothill Transit and not Metro? Opponents can spread horror stories about MTA inefficiency and could raise the specter of LA's equivalent of the Big Dig, and that could doom the ballot measure even if all the other advice is followed.