A mostly quiet campaign so far for Measure R

It's been a big news week with the financial bailout before Congress, the Biden-Palin vice presidential debate and, on the local front, the release of more details about the Metrolink crash. Still, it's just 32 days until Election Day on Nov. 4 and the campaign for Measure R has been very quiet.

Measure R proposes to raise the sales tax by a half-cent in Los Angeles County for mass transit and road projects. Proponents say it would bring in $30 billion to $40 billion in revenue over the 30-year lifespan of the tax and that it's the best way to raise money for a number of projects, including a subway extension. The full list of projects can be seen at the Metro website.

Ace Smith, who is running the campaign, told me earlier today that the campaign will soon heat up, with the rollout of a campaign website -- perhaps by the end of next week -- and some television advertising later in the month.

The most interesting kernel Smith offered up was that polling done by the campaign indicates that there's enough support for Measure R to pass. I asked him if the support was evenly distributed throughout L.A. County and he said it was. "You don't get 66% unless you've got 66% everywhere," Smith said.

He also indicated that it was close -- support was over two-thirds, but not by much. Of course, it's always good to take a campaign's poll with a grain of salt. I don't know what questions were asked or how they were asked.

Metro, a.k.a. the MTA, had mailed one pamphlet about the campaign to 3.87 million addresses -- at a cost of just over $1 million -- but there are no plans to do any more. "The board back in July had approved spending the money, but because of concerns by board members we've stopped," said Metro spokesman Rick Jager.

The word "concerns" was his diplomatic way of saying that County Supervisor Gloria Molina expressed much displeasure over the mailings at the Metro board meeting last month. The next day Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wrote Metro a letter, saying the campaign -- which Smith is running -- will take care of expenses through campaign donations. (Thus far, none are posted on the state's Cal-Access website. The name of the committee is Yes on Measure R Los Angeles).

Metro continues to have considerable information on Measure R on its website, although some of the statements that leaned toward advocacy were stripped out last month. As far as organized opposition to the measure goes, I'm unaware of any campaign yet emerging. If I'm mistaken, please e-mail me.

Also, the arguments for and against Measure R are in the county's voter information guide that was mailed in the past week. I'm trying to get copies from the county registrar to post on the blog.

UPDATE, 4:12 p.m.: To see the for and against arguments, click here to go to the sample ballot section of the county registrar website. If you type in your address, you'll get to see a sample ballot.

The argument in favor of Measure R is signed by former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, L.A. County Business Federation CEO Tracy Rafter, LAPD Commissioner John Mack, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

Highlight: "We need more mass transit options that go to more places. Measure R will extend light rail and subway lines on our most congested corridors countywide and connect the system to LAX."

The argument against Measure R is signed by County Supervisors Gloria Molina and Mike Antonovich, Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard, Long Beach Councilman Gary DeLong and Sherman Oaks Homeowner Assn. President Richard Close.

Highlight: "Measure R was hastily assembled by a few politicians and narrow interests to secure pet transportation projects. They usurped local control, ignored comprehensive transportation planning and limited public input."

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[Kymberleigh Richards]

Income taxes can be even more easily raided by Sacramento than the existing sales tax on gasoline that is supposed to go to public transportation. There is no legal mechanism allowing Metro to levy a locally-controlled income tax.

And what you need to understand about bonds is that you have to have an income source earmarked for the repayment of same, or you can't issue them. Measure R sales taxes could be used to guarantee bonds for the projects listed, though.

Think it through: An argument against Measure R based upon a wish for an income tax or bond-based proposal is no argument at all.

[lsm]

Transit Supporter correctly points out that a sales tax is not ideal funding for transit investment. Unfortunately this is a classic example of, "The enemy of good is better." Income taxes or property taxes would be less regressive, gas taxes would pack an additional punch in promoting mass transit use and bonds would spread payments out over the multiple generations who will benefit. Unfortunately, we have no chance of enacting any of these other measures in the foreseeable future. This stark political reality stares in our faces. Also staring in our faces is our woeful neglect in investing in our transit infrastructure; even if we start today, we will be digging our way out of our transit mess for quiet a while. Waiting another couple of decades to cobble together even better funding so we can then get started is no longer a viable option.

As a general principle, I vote against regressive taxes. This particular sales tax, however, exempts groceries and shelter, making it much less regressive. Moreover, coupling it with transit fare freezes--particularly for seniors and students--makes it even more appealing. All that, coupled with the need to act now, makes me an enthusiastic supporter who will vote YES on Measure R.

[Transit supporter]

As much as I like transit, I am not sure that the funding methods (sales taxes) are appropriate means of funding a transportation system in a recession. Income taxes are better and bonds are probably even better: they don't proportionately bilk the poor as opposed to the rich. I recommend NO on R, but I DO recommend holding ONTO the transit plan, and putting forth a BETTER proposition next year, this time with an INCOME TAX or BOND based funding method.

[Paul]

I saw the pamphlet the MTA sent out. It was not compelling. It didn't even mention the subway to the sea or connecting the green line to LAX. It won't convince anyone.

[Todd K.]

Yes on Measure R campaign is going to lose unless they start moving. They are going to need 66% yes votes in L.A. county and are facing local politician opposition. Mayor V is dropping the ball again. This is sad. After all that struggle in getting it on the ballot, we don't have anybody to run a competant campaign.

[Ken Alpern]

I concur with Ism--and will any of these folks have problems voting for the funds this proposition creates when it comes times to extend the Foothill and Eastside Gold Lines, and when it comes time to connect these Gold Lines to the rest of the system with the Downtown Light Rail Connector?

I don't think so!

[lsm]

Molina, Antonovich, Bogaard, DeLong and Close lifted a page from Orwell in their rant against vitally needed Measure R. They--not the broad consensus of Measure R supporters--are the few politicians and narrow interests who are attempting to subvert a comprehensive, county-wide transportation plan developed with extensive public input. We must not allow their petty, parochial agendas to tear us apart and derail building the functional, integrated, county-wide transportation network we so urgently need. Say NO to these demagogues; vote YES on Measure R.