I may not be able to make it. FYI we have not officially concluded the vote but it has unanimous approval to date. For review and discussion. Mato Ska The EcoAction Committee considers the importance of the water resource a critical priority in this election year and every year after. The Green Party advocates for the future well-being of generations to come by actively working to implement the necessary legislation, electing the committed candidates and establishing the required administrative and political measures in every state. We actively work in accordance with our Key Values to make the changes needed to empower the people to make the decisions regarding the water resource that impact on their daily lives. We want: * to work together with our neighbors in making decisions that recognize the stake that future generations have in those decisions; (Future Focus) * to make plans that care for our water resources in ways that recognize our dependence on a finite supply of fresh water respect the integrity of ecosystems and the natural patterns of water and to recognize the impact of decisions on surface, ground and oceanic waters; (Ecological Wisdom) * to recognize that we share our world with other peoples who are impacted by the policies of the US in the World Bank and support the rights of indigenous peoples and other nations to assure their ability to survive and access clean, affordable water resources and maintain their traditional cultures; (Personal and Global Responsibility) * to assure accountability on the part of those making decisions on water use by having them be elected officials representing the community of varied users, water specialists, the environment and the water companies directly accountable to local people; (Grassroots Democracy) *to acknowledge the diversity of plant and animal life dependent on long-enduring ecosystems and to recognize the planetary importance of water systems on all life; (Respect for Diversity) * to prevent the usurpation of public rights by privatization and multi-national corporations and maintain local public control of water resource planning and management; (Decentralization) * to make affordable drinking water available to everyone in the bio-region as a priority, recognizing that access to such water is a basic human right and include the impacts on impoverished neighborhoods, rural communities and family farmers of water policy decisions; (Social Justice) * and to integrate local policies regarding water conservation, re-use, land use and urban planning within the parameters of the existing regional renewable supplies of water, and maintain a working relation between urban economic development with local rural agriculture. (Community-based Economics and Economic Justice) The National Committee of the Green Party of the United States and its affiliated state parties will work to educate candidates, engage the public in supporting positive legislation at all levels of government and unite with public officials in implementing the changes needed to realize these goals. The impacts of climate change necessarily need to be included in water policies. The reforms needed take political changes and reforms in our water management systems. It will take updating of water laws to address changing populations and local priorities. It will take a political party and its candidates to educate the public of the crisis that has already been demonstrated from Maine to Florida to the South West and California. There is no time, and no water, to waste. We propose that state parties review this resolution and consider its implications locally and within their respective states. We invite input into any part of it prior to an introduction sponsored by any state to the National Committee. It is our hope to provide an initial template that states may sharpen and review with their local organizations, other states and the EcoAction Committee. This resolution when approved will be posted prior to its introduction on the NC list for circulation and review by affiliated state parties. It is an action proposal and not an amendment to the Platform. Part of that action is the internal education and dialogue generated before its introduction as an NC Resolution. Another part of it is to discuss policy as it relates to our general work surrounding the water resource and review differences as they exist and to formulate a proposal that addresses concerns. Finally, a review of priorities of work in this area can be established by state parties as they are relevant to local conditions. ----------------------------------------
From: dave@livablecity.org To: brookse32@aim.com Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:27:22 -0700 CC: sustainability@sfgreens.org; active@sfgreens.org; transpo@sfgreens.org Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Important! Joint Transpo/Sustainability Working Group, Thu June 26, 6:30pm
I can't attend this meeting because it's my family night, but I have these comments:
1. The proposed fare hikes are for July 2009, not sooner. That's not imminent. The price of parking and the price of parking violations will rise sooner than fares. And single ride fares will not rise one penny. Really low-income folks who cannot afford the full cost of a monthly pass and therefore pay the single ride fare will be affected by this increase only by experiencing better service. Other really low- income folks who scrape together $45 will benefit from an expanded low- income fast pass discount which is part of the deal with the MTA.
At $55, the monthly pass will be ...
... an appropriate amount relative to the single ride fare (about 37 times -- which is the discount for a monthly pass that is unlikely to cause people to switch to paying the single ride fare and thereby slow the system down and discourage ridership).
... a great deal cheaper than most comparable transit systems (NYC=81, AC Transit = 70 or 116, LA=75, for examples), and
... at the high end of its historical price in constant dollars (see the attached chart), but less than its peak of $54.09 in 2007 dollars (which is at least $57 in 2009 dollars).
Local, urban transit should be free, but paid for by taxing the rich. Until we figure that out, appropriate fare increases to provide the funding necessary to provide reliable transit service should be supported, especially when those fare increases are not likely to discourage ridership and come after increases to car costs. I would respect a principled decision by the SFGP to oppose any and all fare increases, including "reasonable" ones, but I strongly believe this is a reasonable fare increase and should be supported.
2. I don't have much to say in writing about the mayor's proposed ballot measure. I'm happy to talk with anyone personally about it. I will say this: the SFCTA is one of the best functioning agencies in the city. And, I'll forward separately an email I wrote much earlier about the two agencies, for your edification.
Have fun!
Dave