Reader comment(s!) of the day

Maybe I'm indecisive after an afternoon of wrestling my ancient computer into submission, but we have a tie. Since there is no such thing as extra innings on the comment board, I'm happy to offer up these two thoughts.

First, from Ingrid Peterson, who has been watching the proposal to put a half-cent sales tax on the November ballot. Ingrid wonders why no money would be spent on cycling: 

As much as we love mass transit, it is simply TIME for the METRO to acknowledge that BICYCLES are a viable mode of transportation.... Both to and from metro locations and all around town.

To this end, we are asking for 1% of this proposed $40 Billion dollar revenue, should this motion pass.

That's right, we have exactly ZERO funds allocated in this measure as it stands currently.

I wish I lived in Paris so bad right now. Now there's an up and coming bike friendly town!

I don't know if the sales tax revenues is the best funding source, but I do think that if local officials are serious about getting people on bikes they'll make a serious investment in bike infrastructure. By that I mean a variety of different bike routes and bike lanes and the little things that count -- such as bike racks at train stations.

The second comment comes from Bengford, who didn't believe my item about density maps and the root causes of traffic actually got to the root causes:

I think it is important to get at the root cause of why people have to drive so far to work in the first place and fixing that issue.  Has anyone considered the following:

People change jobs and locations - duh. People are stuck in their house and can't move due to Prop 13.
People therefore are stuck in traffic living too far from work. Creating more transportation options does not solve root cause of problem.

I chose to live closer to work and sold my house in Woodland Hills and bought comparable house in westside.  Same price house but instead of paying $2K a year in prop tax I pay $12K, a 500% increase.

There is a HUGE penalty of relocating closer to work. Reexamine Prop 13 and all the detrimental results or use tax $ to create incentives for those who relocate closer to job. Isn't this a better solution.

It's hard to quibble with this, although I suspect the average Westside home costs more than the average Woodland Hills home. But Bengford is right -- it's not easy moving in L.A. unless you time the real estate cycle right and make a killing on your place. Even then, you're likely paying more for the new house.

But I'm not sure that cutting property taxes is the solution.

It can also be argued that people who do stay put are getting a great deal on their property taxes thanks to Prop 13. For example, I bought my home five years ago. My neighbor bought his in the early 1970s and pays a fraction of the property taxes I pay -- our homes are on similar-sized lots, although his is slightly smaller.

He has been getting a great deal on his property taxes for years and probably isn't paying what he should, given the rise in the cost of government services. If he should ever move, shouldn't he have to pay at the rate the rest of us pay?

Food for thought. Or the comment board.

--Steve Hymon

Comments

[MCFergy]

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the server was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient needed money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

The question of money for bike improvements was discussed to death when the Feuer bill allowing Measure R was being drafted, Ingrid.

The reason there is no specific large amount of money for bicycle-related and pedestrian-related improvements is that most of such projects are not Metro projects, but are projects funded by the local return funds to cities and the County. Simply put, with the exception of something like the bikeway that parallels the Orange Line in the Valley, most bicycle-related projects are of such relatively small funding amounts -- and are rightfully controlled by the cities they are in -- that they would have been out of place in the project list for Measure R.

The cycling advocates can certainly make their statements on Thursday, but because these are local return projects, there isn't going to be a "bigger slice", and besides, the Measure R list is already in the ballot language and can't be changed now.

What I would suggest is that Ingrid and her compatriots advocate before the various City Councils and the County Board of Supervisors for an increase in these types of projects which they program the funds for. That would concentrate their voices where they really matter in terms of getting more such projects.

[Joseph Amasowomwan]

Contest against the President 4 years ago

Senator McCain said that Senator Barack Obama should have contested against the President 4 years ago. It is not true that he contested against President Bush and the Republicans decided that President Bush was better candidate. What has changed since then? Senator McCain is the same person he was then. It is more of the same.

[Ingrid Peterson]

Aw! Thanks!

I'll be at next week's MTA Board Meeting with a group of cycling advocates to ask for a small slice.

Although it seems a bit unlikely at this point, it is still worth the push. I personally would vote for the tax increase whether we get the 1% or not. LA needs to take any step it can towards mass transit.

However, I do believe it is a BIG mistake and sends exactly the wrong message to not include bike and ped projects into a plan that is supposed to be for everyone's benefit.

For a scant $60 million we could produce an excellent bikeway network here in L.A.

For pennies of that we could paint "Sharrows" on road all across town. Councilman Garcetti recently had no trouble whatsoever passing his motion for sharrows to the most bike-friendly City Council in history.

A pittance really, is what we are asking for...and might not even get.

So sad because bicycles provide solutions to key problems - congestion, pollution, global warming and health...