The Mayor responds to today's sales tax vote

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa just released this letter he's sending to the County Board of Supervisors, who earlier today refused to put the half-cent sales tax for transit and road projects on the November ballot:

Honorable Supervisors:

I am writing to urge you to reconsider your vote today regarding the countywide
half cent transportation sales tax approved for the November 4, 2008 ballot by
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Board of
Directors last month. Specifically, I am urging that you place the MTA measure
on a consolidated ballot on November 4, 2008.

There is simply no legitimate basis for failing to consolidate the November ballot.
No matter how you cut it, the taxpayers and voters will be the ultimate losers if
the Board refuses to place the MTA measure on the general election ballot.

Either the taxpayers will be stuck with costly legal bills resulting from the MTA’s
litigation against the County on this matter, or the taxpayers will be on the hook
for an additional $3 million required to run a confusing dual-ballot election in
November - which would create a logistical nightmare certain to disenfranchise
untold thousands of County voters.

I think we all agree that our long-term transportation needs require significant
public investment in mass transit alternatives. The MTA sales tax measure is a
down payment toward the many transit and highway improvements this County
needs to support our economy, our environment, the needs of the transit
dependent and an overall high quality of life for the people we represent.

The people of Los Angeles County should have the right to decide for
themselves whether they want to invest in their future. And the most transparent
and cost-effective way to do that is through a consolidated November 4, 2008
ballot.

I am optimistic that you will reconsider your vote and consolidate the MTA
measure with November’s general election ballot.

Sincerely,

ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA
Mayor

Comments

[johnny]

Job density/daytime population really should be the PRIMARY factor in determining the placement of transit projects since, unlike residential centers, job centers guarantee that people will require transportation to and from these areas. Many of the people working on the Westside live somewhere in LA county, and this project would benefit them all. It's time for Antonovich, along with Knabe and "GloMo", to give up their tribal outlook on the proposal and see that Westside projects benefit them too. Furthermore, there is still plenty of money in the proposal that would go to their districts directly - the foothill gold line has been allocated a large chunk of money (at the expense of the downtown regional connector), and a Sepulveda Pass transit line would benefit the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys as well as the SFV. At the very least, let the general population vote on this tax instead of holding it hostage in a tyrannical 5 member supervisor board.

[Dan W.]

How would you define equity then? And how does that translate to a sales tax that EVERYONE has to pay? If your definition of equity is "let's tax everyone with a sales tax and then give it to the places with the greatest density", you are absolutely kidding yourself that this would pass.

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

Equity can be defined in many ways.

Where people live by itself isn't a very effective one for transportation planning. Perhaps a formula where half the money is distributed based on where people live (nighttime population) and half is distributed based on where people are going (daytime population). That factors ridership into the equation.

It is insane to spend money only based on where people live, because so relatively few people live Downtown, in Century City, or at LAX. What good is it to build light rail in low density suburbs only, if they cannot ultimately get to Downtown, Century City or LAX?

And, in Antonovich's districtm, the San Gabriel Valley and North County already have Metrolink trains. Westside has nothing and has been subsidizing that? How has that been equitable?

In any event, if the deal needs to include "equity" by some definition, that's fine. However, that isn't what Antonovich is proposing. Reasonable people riding the Gold Line to union station would then want the option to transfer to the Purple Line down Wilshire to Century City.

[Dan W.]

The one thing Antonovich said that I agree with is expanding the Board by 2 to 15 members, allowing two more subregions to be represented. That's makes sense.

However, that's not the same issue at hand.

[Dan W.]

How would you define equity then? And how does that translate to a sales tax that EVERYONE has to pay? If your definition of equity is "let's tax everyone with a sales tax and then give it to the places with the greatest density", you are absolutely kidding yourself that this would pass.

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

Well, equity certainly isn't by residential population by itself. Perhaps we should count the existing Metrolink service in his district as we decide what "equity" means.

Perhaps there is a formula that could be devised that would be politically feasible. Perhaps half the money could be distributed based on nighttime population (where people live) and half based on daytime population (where people work/shop/play/school). This would cover both where people are coming from and where people are going. That way there is funding to get to places that people are actually trying to get to (like Downtown and Century City and LAX) where few people actually live. Most people in the SGV who would use the Gold Line, aren't just going to Union Station. They would most likely needs to get somewhere on Wilshire or Santa Monica Blvd.

Everyone is the whole county, not just the Westside, will benefit from the Downtown Regional Connector and the Purple Line extension. Look at all the people traveling west on the 10-Fwy past downtown. The SGV Gold Line riders will benefit from being able to go west of Downtown too.

Antonovich's ridiculous letter displays no gratitude for the Metrolink service already in his district. Whatever he's selling, it isn't really "equity".

[Donny H]

How would you define equity then? And how does that translate to a sales tax that EVERYONE has to pay? If your definition of equity is "let's tax everyone with a sales tax and then give it to the places with the greatest density", you are absolutely kidding yourself that this would pass.

The Antonovich letter was a good one. This thing should go back to the drawing board if there's this much opposition to it.

[John von Kerczek]

Supervisor Antonovich,

1. Why should the Gold Line extension be the #1 priority for the County, when its projected ridership is very low and its FTA effectiveness score is well below that of other county projects?

2. What job centers will the extension serve? How much will this extension benefit the rest of the system and increase usage on other lines?

3. If population is the primary metric for ensuring balance in projects then does not working or daytime population matter at all? Should places like LAX and Century City which have few or no residents not have rail service even though hundreds of thousands of people try to access these destinations?

4. There are critics of this extension who feel it is a largely a pork barrel project for local developers since the line goes through areas which will have significant real estate development around it. How would you answer this?

(Question courtesy of commenter transit booster: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/four-congress-m.html#comment-124058394)

[Dan W.]

Antonovich's letter is horsehockey.

All "Equity" means to him is funds based on residential population. Meaning his residential district gets more money regardless of ridership.

According to Antonovich's proposal, downtown and Century City would get funds based upon the number of people who live in Century City and Downtown, not the number of people who work there or travel there. Some cities like Santa Monica have three times the daytime population as the nighttime population. I suspect most of Antonovich's cities have much smaller daytime than nighttime populations.

Antonovich doesn't take into account ridership or economic benefits to the whole county. The whole county will benefit from the improved economic opportunity and environmental quality that will come with the Purple Line extension from downtown to Century City to Santa Monica.

"Equity" sounds wonderful in theory, but the way Antonovich defines equity is anything but equitable.

The San Gabriel Valley already has carpool lanes and Metrolink which the westside helped subsidize. The Westside has nada. Precious little "equity" there.

[calwatch]

But where is the traffic congestion being generated? On a percentage of time wasted in traffic basis, the Westside Cities generate a heck of a lot more than 9% of the time wasted. Would finishing the Metropolitan Bypass (the only logical, costly transportation project for the Antelope Valley) help any? Antonovich keeps harping on the "drain to the sea", except that millions of people live and work within that Wilshire corridor, and taking 30 minutes to go the distance between Bundy and Westwood Boulevard like I did one recent Friday is definitely unacceptable. Antonovich has the luxury of a driver and an virtually unused freeway (the Glendale Freeway) to get to work. What's your solution for alleviating traffic congestion? More freeways? Creating a congestion pricing zone for the Westside that will simply force businesses to move to other states? Or your goofy monorail idea down the Ventura Freeway that you suggested 15 years ago (which, ironically, you ridiculed your predecessor Baxter Ward for before you got into office)?

While this measure isn't perfect, it is better than the alternative: Los Angeles stuck in traffic, a 40% fare increase in 2009 to fill the structural operating deficit, and Los Angeles losing its middle class to cities that have functional transportation systems (bus, rail, or freeway).

[Fifth_District]

The following is an open letter to Los Angeles City Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa from Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich in response to his letter requesting reconsideration of the Board of Supervisors vote to reject the MTA’s ½ cent proposal:

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:

Thank you for your letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors requesting reconsideration on the vote regarding the half-cent sales tax.

You are correct that our long-term transportation needs require significant public investment in transportation alternatives, including highway improvements, public-private partnerships, and other congestion relief measures (e.g., traffic signal synchronization, left/right turn arrows, inland intermodal freight transfer facilities, and regionalization of air traffic to LA/Palmdale and LA/Ontario Airports).

Your proposal was a reverse Robin Hood—taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich. The MTA’s grand 30-year half-cent sales tax measure failed to tackle these critical, regional issues facing the entire County. This proposal was poorly constructed, rushed through an inadequate and abbreviated process and ignored true regional collaboration. Moreover, the plan was stripped of amendments put forth by five MTA Board members to provide the equity necessary to protect the County taxpayers and build a regional transportation system.

You raised a concern about the disenfranchisement of voters in your letter. My vote against the sales tax proposal was precisely for that reason--this measure disenfranchises County voters and does not return their tax dollars in an equitable manner to invest in needed transportation infrastructure.

The Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys will get 5% of new project funding, but this subregion will expand to 11% of the County’s population in the next 30 years. The San Fernando Valley represents almost 15% of the County population, but at most it will receive 5% of the project funds, with two-thirds of that money tied up in a mythical 405 transit connector. The San Gabriel Valley and Gateway Cities will be shortchanged hundreds of millions of dollars in this proposal. Meanwhile the Westside Cities will receive 9% of the funding with only 2% of the County’s population. Also, billions of state and federal dollars the MTA will leverage from these new sales tax dollars are not guaranteed to be shared equally throughout the County.

This current measure is steeped in a cynical political calculation that the November presidential election turnout, the tangible Countywide frustration with traffic problems and the desperation to do something would be enough to win a two-thirds majority, even if the proposed sales tax measure was against the best interests of the County voters.

There is a path forward that provides a successful solution, but it requires your leadership as Chairman of the MTA Board, your faith in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building with the full MTA Board, and your trust in the voices of the subregional areas of Los Angeles County.

It is my hope that you will consider the following course of action:

1. Withdraw the sales tax measure from the November 2008 ballot;

2. Engage each of the subregional Council of Governments (COGs) on the principle of equity underpinning the sales tax proposal and discuss project lists, funding amounts, funding schedules, protections and operational issues;

3. Develop a new sales tax proposal based on input and broad countywide consensus from each city, unincorporated community, COG and MTA Board member; and

4. When this process achieves countywide consensus, place the measure on the Spring 2009 ballot.

By following this course of action, the MTA Board can present a stronger, better, equitable and consensus-based vision for the expenditure of billions of County taxpayer dollars that actually has a chance of being approved by the County voters.

It is clear that this sales tax measure would never have been so fatally flawed if the MTA Board had additional representation from the subregions in Los Angeles County. You need to support the expansion of the MTA Board to include two new representatives from the subregions so that critical decisions like these are made in a truly collaborative manner in the future. In particular, the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys—the fastest growing region of the County—need their own seat at the table.

Sincerely,

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH
Supervisor

[Paul]

For once, I agree with Villaraigosa. Nice job with this letter.

[Tony Fernandez]

"The Mayor and the Westside politicians and entities that concocted this ill-conceived and inadequate measure have no one but themselves to blame for trying to ram-rod this thing through."

Oh no, the SGV politicians are absolutely blameless aren't they. They've been absolutely perfect and willing to compromise.

The only thing that this squabbling has accomplished is pushing more road projects on the list of items. What a waste of money. What's even more a waste of money is the County BS (short for board of supervisors of course) trying to push this onto a separate ballot because of pettiness.

If the people don't want it, then let them vote on it. BUT JUST GIVE US THE CHANCE TO VOTE ON IT!

[Damien Goodmon]

The Mayor and the Westside politicians and entities that concocted this ill-conceived and inadequate measure have no one but themselves to blame for trying to ram-rod this thing through.

[BOB2]

The irony is that while the County Transportation Sales Tax appear to be on its last legs, the High Speed Rail bonds may make it to the ballot in November. MTA has paid not one bit of attention to the HS bonds, and is likely to get nothing from them, if they pass. The CHSRA is dominated by Northern California, and the agencies in Southern California have all been asleep on this one. As a result almost all of these funds would likely be spent up North?

The Sales Tax effort was poorly put together, in too much haste, without the incluusion of input rom key stakeholders. It fails to deal with the fact that the MTA is dysfunctional and needs some basic structural reforms. No one should applaud the County Supervisors either, expecially those who are grandstanding over this issue for pure pork.

Now, the Sale Tax appears to be all but dead, iin Sacramento, And, if it survives, it will now be unlikely to pass the 2/3 threshold.

Maybe the Mayor needs to spend more time on his day job, working on relationship building to improve his ability to lead the MTA? And, not so much time on travel and other peoples campaigns? Maybe a tranist deputy who doesn't drive a Hummer, and actually understands transportation issues might help, too?

[T]

In what kind of delusional world does the vote of three entrenched, politically-motivated, short-sighted supervisors mean "60 percent of the county" doesn't support this measure? GloMo is not the voice of the people.

[Simon]

His letter is right that this is a completely petty gesture by the supervisors. Why cost the county millions of dollars needlessly?

The big mistake now seems to have been not getting the sales tax plan moving earlier so these negotiations could've been handled by now. These supervisors are voting against something in a very stupid, childish way and for hypocritical reasons. Essentially, they all want bigger checks. This is just such a self-destructive way to go about it.

I may be a powerless citizen, but I'm not going to forget this. I expect it from the Republicans but Molina should recognize how badly the entire county needs these projects. They think they're going to just get to pass a different sales tax in a year or two. I think they're wrong. I think they just cost Southern California ten years desperately needed investment and we're all going to be paying the price so long as we live here.

[Donny H.]

Antonio, how could you pass a sales tax measure at MTA if you didn't have 60% of the County supporting it? If three supervisors are against it, it's doomed to fail anyways.