MORE BREAKING NEWS: Knabe to change vote on sales tax

A press release from L.A. County Supervisor Don Knabe just popped up in my email basket. It's a keeper and it's below.

What this means is that if the sales tax increase goes to the ballot, it will be on the general ballot. But it's no sure thing it will be on the ballot because a state bill that is needed to authorize such an election is stuck in the State Senate while members haggle over what projects are included in the bill.

Nonetheless, this is a remarkable turn of events. According to the release, Knabe changed his mind after learning that having the sales tax on a separate ballot would cost the county an additional $10.3 million. Officials at the Supervisors' meeting on Tuesday, if my notes are correct, estimated the cost to be $2- to $3-million more.

Update, 2:22 p.m:

"The mayor thanks Supervisor Knabe for doing the right thing," said Matt Szabo, a spokesman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, in an email. "Regardless of the supervisor's position on the measure, he understands that playing games with the election process would only cost the taxpayers and burden the voters."

Here's the full text of the release:

KNABE TO CHANGE VOTE ON TRANSIT SALES TAX ISSUE

Los Angeles, August 7, 2008 – Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe has announced that at the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors, he will enter a motion to reconsider the Board’s previous vote on the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s (MTA) sales tax measure. Supervisor Knabe has also decided that at the time of the reconsideration he will change his vote from ‘no’ to ‘yes.’

Supervisor Knabe’s planned reconsideration and intention to change his vote effectively means that the MTA sales tax measure now has the three votes it needs to pass the Board of Supervisors and go before the voters as part of the consolidated November 2008 Presidential Election ballot, and not as a totally separate election.

This morning, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk informed the Board of Supervisors that the costs of a concurrent election, with the MTA sales tax appearing as a totally separate ballot in the November election, would cost taxpayers an additional $10.3 million. If the MTA measure were included as part of the main ballot, the cost would be $7.2 million, instead of the $17.5 million estimated for a separate ballot. 

Additionally, the MTA measure would have to be setup as a completely separate election that would be conducted on the same day as the November 4, 2008 general election. Polling places would require additional staffing and voters would get separate ballots, sample ballots and voter guides for both elections.

“I remain absolutely opposed to the MTA sales tax measure and I plan to spend my time and effort campaigning against it,” said Supervisor Knabe. “The plan is not equitable for all County residents and this is the wrong time to burden people with even higher taxes.”

“Although I am against the sales tax plan, I cannot in good conscience burden County residents with over $10 million in higher election costs. The taxpayers will have to pay for these costs, and that is something I will not allow to happen. Additionally, the separate ballots, voter guides, and other resources needed to conduct a separate election on the same day as the Presidential Election could cause unnecessary confusion and challenges for voters. This upcoming election is the most important in many years, and voters deserve better than a potential disaster at their polling place.”

--Steve Hymon

photo: Nico Smedley / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[johnny]

"You all are missing the point. The SGV will support a sales tax to help its projects, just not this one. Villaraigosa didn't bother to even consult with them on how the money would be divided to get their approval, and now wants that 20% of the County to vote for the sales tax? Dumb."

If you are refering to the MTA's corridor studies, it is true that none were conducted for the foothill extention of the gold line. However, the MTA did conduct an 'Eastside Phase II" study which considered whether to extend the Gold Line east from East LA to Whittier (part of the SGV). Furthermore, the foothill gold line will still recieve significant funding from the tax, despite not having the 'blessing' of sgv elected officials. What kind of perfect proposal are you waiting for? Did it occur to you that eliminating the Purple Line from the proposal would make it harder for you to win county money for the foothill extension? I live in Long Beach, 25 miles away from where the Purple Line extension would go. But I recognize that this is the single most important transportation project in the whole county, and I would gladly pay a modest sales tax to support it. Yet the SGV, 10 miles closer, recieves money for its line extension and still cries foul? If the tax passes, part of my money will go to supporting a Gold Line extension of marginal utility to me. Perhaps you are in a more privileged position than you seem to realize.

[transit booster]

Tommy stated

Now, years later, the Westside is whining that they don't have transit. Yet they fail to realize that they have gotten billions of dollars on 10 and 405 freeway improvements and expansion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been zero improvements on the 10 (SM) Freeway. It does not even have carpool lanes as the 210 and 10 Freeway does in the SGV. I believe you are heavily misinformed. As for the 405, it does not have carpool lanes yet finished on the Westside even though it does everywhere else along its length from the Valley to Orange County. The westside portion is just getting their carpool lanes right now despite this being the main gateway to LAX, one of the main drivers of the Southland economy. Seems to me if anything the Westside has come up short on this one.

Tommy stated

Some of you think that we should tax the entire County to pay for the problems of the Westside--and you wonder why this thing is going to fail. The great majority of jobs in LA County are nowhere near the Westside, which is why a regional sales tax raised from everyone should go toward regional solutions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is saying this? There are more projects in the SGV under this measure than on the Westside. For example, the Gold Line extension, the Metrolink improvements, the 710 Tunnel project, the 605/10 Interchange. The Westside really just has the subway project, although the Expo project is here as well although that will be covered by Prop A and C money if this fails. Also, the Westside is the number one job center in SoCal with Downtown LA second, so I believe again you are heavily misinformed.

Again, as I posted earlier in this thread there seems to be complete misinformation being spread on the part of some people on this. Maybe some local leaders are spreading this misinformation to curry support for their local projects. I don't know, but people are not looking at the facts of the measure, which is very disappointing.

Please don't ignore the facts in making your comments.

[Tommy]

You all are missing the point. The SGV will support a sales tax to help its projects, just not this one. Villaraigosa didn't bother to even consult with them on how the money would be divided to get their approval, and now wants that 20% of the County to vote for the sales tax? Dumb.

You act like this is the only sales tax measure that will ever come before the County again. If this fails, it will come back next year and the year after until all parties are happy with the ballot measure. Other counties have experienced the same cycle.

How stupid is it to expect to get a 2/3rds vote at the ballot box and not get the blessing for the sales tax from the entire Eastern and Northern part of LA County which is 50% of the population?

I don't hear the SGV saying that there should be no subway, but I do hear the Westside saying there should be no Gold Line Extension. Parochialism cuts both ways, my friend. There can be enough money to make everyone happy, but that needs to be worked out ahead of time, not after the fact.

I am convinced that this measure will die in November, and the fault will be Villaraigosa's.

[Dan W.]

"a regional sales tax raised from everyone should go toward regional solutions."

----------------

The "fallacy" is that this measure will primarily benefit the westside at the expense of these poor suburban SGV taxpayers who don't receive anything for their money, despite already having Metrolink, the 10, 210, 60, 710, 605, all subsidized by Westsiders so the SGVregion can grow and develop. The SGV is hardly a victim.

The entire county will benefit from the Purple Line, not just the Westside. Many of those SGV commuters who use the 10, 60, 210, Metrolink and would use the Gold Line into Union Station/Downtown, are then going to jobs along Wilshire, Santa Monica and other points west -- hence the traffic going in both directions on the 10. It's not just a "westside problem". It's a regional economic and environmental issue in this corridor.

And, think of this. Without the sales tax, the Gold Line will not likely be extended to Montclair in our lifetimes. There are projects in this proposal that will benefit the whole county. It IS a regional approach.

I'm not even opposing the Gold Line. I realize its political inevitability. I think a new Metrolink line in the 210 corridor is more appropriate from a transit planning point of view. But, the Gold Line has political support, so be it. However, If you want the Gold Line and/or the Purple Line and/or billions in new bus service, then supporting this tax is smart. There is no alternative on offer. It may not be "perfect" for anyone, but its the best that could be put together under our dysfunctional system.

The political reality is that if this tax measure fails because the SGV politicians vote and campaign against it, there will be precious little support or resouces for extending the Gold Line to Montclair in our lifetimes.

This shouldn't even be this area versus that area. It is a region-wide approach. Your State Senators are ensuring that is the case.

[John von Kerczek]

Tommy,

In 2000, the Northern LA Basin (roughly the area from northeast LA and Downtown to the beach and Hollywood to South LA and Inglewood) contained approximately 2.4 million people living on 171 sq. miles of land at an average density of 14,000 people/square mile. Additionally, the southeastern industrial cities from Huntington Park to South Gate had a collective population of 375,000 living at densities of nearly 17,000/sq.mile.

In comparison, the San Gabriel Valley has apporximately 2 million people living on 374 sq. miles of land at an average density of just under 5,400 people/sq.mile.

There are areas of higher population density in the San Gabriel Valley, but they are concentrated around the 10 freeway (Alhambra, Monterey Park, Rosemead, El Monte), not by the 210 where the Foothill Extension would run. These areas would see not improvement in mobility from the Foothill Extension and would likely see their service actually undermined by the diversion of funds towards the wealthier Foothill cities to the north.

How's that for equity?

[HR]

Now Don needs to turn the corner and support this tax. I live in the southbay and want the green line extended to the airport!

[Tommy]

The reason why the Westside has no transit is solely the fault of its own elected representatives. You can thank Henry Waxman for blocking any progress of the Red Line out to Santa Monica, largely based on unfounded fears of the Westside that the 'wrong' type of person would be coming into their neighborhoods.

Now, years later, the Westside is whining that they don't have transit. Yet they fail to realize that they have gotten billions of dollars on 10 and 405 freeway improvements and expansion.

And for the record, Knabe does represent the SGV--he has Diamond Bar, Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights.

Dan W.'s claim that the SGV has gotten more than the Westside is a fallacy. First, the SGV has 2 million people--the Westside considerably fewer. So if the SGV does get more money, it's because it has more people and more needs, like, oh, I don't know the 60, 10, 210, 605, 57 and 710 freeways, as well as just starting the Gold Line into Pasadena. The claim that Metrolink serves the entire SGV is false also. There is no Metrolink service along the 210 corridor, which is why the Gold Line is so important for that area.

Some of you think that we should tax the entire County to pay for the problems of the Westside--and you wonder why this thing is going to fail. The great majority of jobs in LA County are nowhere near the Westside, which is why a regional sales tax raised from everyone should go toward regional solutions.

[transit booster]

Not sure why everyone is so focused on the subway with this measure? If people actually read its provisions, they will see that more funds go to the bus system than the subway, also more go to freeways than the subway.

If this fails, people need to realize that the MTA schedule for rail extensions reverts back to the Long Range Plan. That means the Expo Phase II will be next with the Crenshaw Line about 5-7 years after that and then the Downtown Connector about 5-7 years after that. Not sure how the SGV and the SFV benefit from that. The SFV might get some Orange Line improvements in the next 20 years, but that is about it. The SGV will not get a Gold Line extension of any sorts, because it has such poor ridership projections compared to the above mentioned projects. Any Metrolink improvements as far as more service would be doubtful as well due to lack of funds. I believe the SFV and the SGV have 2 Metrolink lines apiece. Anyone from those areas care to explain how this schedule benefits them?

[The Daily Bonus]

If you think that the Gold Line extension will only benefit those living on the West Side, you are entirely ignorant. Try riding the 720 Bus down to Santa Monica! The western part of Los Angeles is definitely more affluent, but they still require service industry workers. There are plenty of jobs that can become accessible to those living in East, South and Central Los Angeles. Think of the hotels, tourism, restaurants, etc. that could benefit from cheaper labor. Yes, initially there would be some upheaval, but why are we always thinking short term. What ever happened to sacrificing for a larger common good? I would gladly accept a 10% sales tax if it meant Los Angeles would implement a high tech rail system like they have in Europe or Asia! And, I am definitely in the lower income bracket as a recent college grad paying student loans.

[Tyson]

Why would it have to even be considered on a separate ballot? How about Knabe gets to keep his vote, and we the taxpayers put $0 toward this measure instead of the 7.2 million we now have to shell out.

[lsm]

Although I disagree with Mr. Knabe's opposition to the funding measure, I applaud his decision to support putting it on a consolidated ballot and allowing the people to choose. In addition to sparing us the expense of lawsuits and the confusion of separate ballots, his decision (if Sacramento also does the right thing) allows the people to speak directly on this vital issue. This is a ballot measure which requires at least two-thirds support to pass; attempting to thwart the will of two-thirds of the electorate is undemocratic and I continue to despise the two remaining supervisors who want to deprive the people of our voice.

[Jeremy R]

Great.

Let the voters decide

[Dan W.]

"Knabe is a traitor to the SGV, Major kudos go to Molina who saw that once again our Valley is getting the shaft from the MTA. It is apparent that the MTA does place any value on SGV issues and in return, you will see no support for a sales tax increase - no matter what ballot it ends up on."

-----------------------

Knabe represents the South Bay, not the SGV.

The SGV already has two Metrolink lines and carpool lanes, all subsidized by the Westside. How about some gratitude?

There is funding for part of the Gold, Green and Purple Lines in this measure, which will probably have to me matched by Federal funds to complete.

I see a rising transit tide as lifting all boats. The SGV will benefit enormously if this measure passes.

Given that the SGV has already received more than the Westside, it needs to stop whining.

It will obviously get both Gold Line extensions eventually.

[Scott Mercer]

SGV Resident:

Your valley is not "getting the shaft." The Gold Line Foothill extension is just low on the totem pole. It is not the most needed project we have by a long, long shot.

It's simply a matter of spending the money where it will do the most good for the county as whole.

You've got municipalities over there, SGVR. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and set up some city sales taxes in Azusa, Montclair, San DImas, LaVerne and Irwindale??? HUH???

Don't like more taxes? You SGV folks don't even have to do that. Just float some municipal bonds. Then, you really want your Gold Line extension, take some money out of YOUR OWN WALLET and invest in them!

But the subway to the sea is the backbone of the Metrorail system. It's a tragedy that it wasn't the very FIRST piece of the system built, but at least NOW we are trying to rectify that long and tortuous tale of woe.

Subway to the Sea yes! Gold Line to Montclair NO!

[toby]

Right on Knabe. I am totally for the ballot because simply said, a subway line to the Sea is THE MOST IMPORTANT single transportation project in LA history.

And no, I'm not overstating it. It will take millions of cars off the road, be the backbone for future North-South Lines (Bus, Light rail, subway lines) and more importantly...

On a hot summer day, open the beaches to anybody with $2.50.

[Oscar]

Only benefit a small group of commuters?

It's the subway to the SEA!...we all want to go to the beach. From Watts to Montclair everyone would use the subway to get to the beach, which means, less time in traffic driving around trying to get a good parking space.

And more time enjoying that wonderful Southern California sun and weather while we still can.

This won't just be used by westsiders, it's for everyone.

Think of the economic possibilities, using the Subway to the Sea to convention planners to attract more tourism.

I would think this would help drive the economy from out of town visitors that would like to take mass transit to the beach.

Our beaches are a great natural resource that can drive tourism, I don't know how many tourists would want to take the Gold Line to Azuza.

[SGV resident]

Knabe is a traitor to the SGV, Major kudos go to Molina who saw that once again our Valley is getting the shaft from the MTA. It is apparent that the MTA does place any value on SGV issues and in return, you will see no support for a sales tax increase - no matter what ballot it ends up on.

[Dana Gabbard]

Kudos to Mr. Knabe. I always knew him to be congenial and give him credit for doing the right thing. The campaign on this measure is an opportunity to have an engaged discussion about our region and its future.

Will Molina have the good grace to also switch? I have to imagine if she sticks to her present course next year she'll be booed at the Gold Line eastside opening for treating it like a second-rate project with her ongoing whining about "we should have gotten a subway"...

[Spokker]

The Purple Line extension to Santa Monica is quite possibly one of the most important transit projects ever. Well, moreso than some painfully long Gold Line to Azusa that could be better served with improved Metrolink serivce.

[Igor Kagan]

The purple line extension will only benefit a small group of westside residents AND all the people who make the westside the biggest job center outside of downtown.

[Marc Caldwell]

The westside extension of the Purple Line is NOT going to only benefit a very small group of commuters to the West Side; it will benefit those of us who suffer on the Metro Rapid 720 as it tries to maintain itself as the only quick solution to and from the Westside. It will also benefit westside commuters who want an alternative downtown.

Mr. Franks, I invite you to look at the crowds throughout the day that the 720 packs in. These busses and its riders represent future Purple Line commuters. These are people who could be on the train and these busses would be off the streets.

I also invite you to become a regular commuter of the MTA as your comments are based on ignorance of rider usage, need and the opportunity the extension of the Purple Line brings to commuters throughout the County.

[Bart Reed]

Dan, you really need to see that other areas have actually gotten Transit and Road improvements. The SF Valley has a subway and the Orange line busway, plus two Metrolink lines. The San Gabriel Valley has the Foothill Gold Line, plus 2 Metrolink lines and the El Monte busway. The South Bay has the Green Line and the Harbor Transitway.

Now, where is one of the highest concentration of employment in Los Angeles County? Ah, where? Why, it is West Los Angeles. What Metrolink line? What rail line? As others have pointed out, there is something for everyone all over the County, and even the beggar holding the cup without rail and one or two freeways is still West LA. Many from other parts of the County want to continue our journey via rail to West LA.

And, please understand, it is the "Subway Towards the Sea", as there isn't enough money in Measure R to really get the Purple line west of Westwood. And nothing is regressive about a sales tax. It isn't included in rent or on food. Yeah, buy a car and you'll pay a little more, but the tax on average is $25 / yearly to the rest of us.

Knabe doesn't want to waste an additional $10 million. Many of us voters want a crack at voting Yes on Measure R this November without election or voting challenges.

[Dan W.]

"The Subway to the Sea is really only going to benefit a very small group of commuters to the West Side, but will be paid for by all of Los Angeles in the most regressive tax increase ever."

---------------

The group is will benefit will certainly not be "small". Downtown, Century City and Santa Monica are all big job centers. The people who commute TO the westside from elsewhere will benefit from it. The economic benefits will lift the county's economy for everyone. The improved environment will benefit everyone. It's not the only project in the bill, but it is the one that will bring the most benefits, and it won't just benefit people who live Downtown or on the Westside, it will benefit the much larger number of people who work downtown and on the westside too.

[Jason K.]

So basically he's saying that he was totally cool with wasting $2 to 3 million of our tax dollars, which is not cool with me.

[Jerard]

Sales tax for Transit means local sales tax for transit. Sacramento, teachers unions, SEIU workers can't take that away from us!

It also means Sales tax has exemptions on food, rent, utilities, transit purchases. The sales tax is now more progressive than regressive due to those little details.