This makes a lot of sense to me - at least at first glance. Jerry Path
[Original Message] From: Eric Brooks <brookse32@netscape.net> To: susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan@yahoo.com>; Don Eichelberger <done@ispwest.com>; <transpo@sfgreens.org> Date: 4/7/2006 12:11:30 PM Subject: [Transpo] Transpo Group Responsibilities & Energy Working Group
Hi Sue, Don and all (Sue and Don, please forward to the SF TWG and EWG email lists),
If we were to combine the Transportation and Energy working groups, I would be able to devote more personal time to the new Transportation & Energy (or Energy & Transportation) working group, and could probably handle being a semi-active co-chair (as long as someone else can take on a more dedicated lead chair responsibility).
To me this makes sense for two reasons -
1 - Energy and transportation issues are so closely related that they should be worked out in symphony with eachother. This is made obvious by the recent key involved work Transportation has been doing on Peak Oil.
2 - The Energy Working Group is pretty small in number and we are finding we are having a lot of three person meetings just to update eachother on energy issues.
If we get really loaded with tasks, we can always break into work groups to deal with them.
Cheers,
Eric Brooks
susan_e_vaughan@juno.com wrote:
Please note these things that the Board of Supervisors and the Assembly are working on related to transit. Someone else is going to have to take on all the things that I've been doing as co-chair of the TWG because I'm taking a leave of absence to do GROW stuff until we get another co-chair for GROW or until, ideally, we bring Markl Barnes back to active involvement in the party (and back to his post as co-chair of GROW with Micheas).
Sue
Please note: forwarded message attached
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Alert To New Transit Legislation From: Eric Brooks <brookse32@netscape.net> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:15:06 -0700 To: susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan@yahoo.com>
To: susan vaughan <susan_e_vaughan@yahoo.com>
X-Apparently-To: susan_e_vaughan@yahoo.com via 66.163.178.181; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:15:04 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [68.142.198.204] Authentication-Results: mta368.mail.mud.yahoo.com from=netscape.net; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) Received: from 68.142.198.204 (HELO smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.204) by mta368.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:15:03 -0700 Received: (qmail 33729 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2006 05:15:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.155?) (sfgreens@sbcglobal.net@70.231.158.165 with plain) by smtp105.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Apr 2006 05:15:03 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <20060406052500.2075.qmail@web34512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20060406052500.2075.qmail@web34512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4455 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Sue, I was watching last week's Board of Supes meeting and noticed two items which I thought you'd want to know about. During 'Roll call for Introductions' Jake McGoldrick introduced: 1) A resolution supporting AB 2873 which will allow municipalities to raise and additional 1/4 % on sales taxes to fund local transportation programs. (See - [1]http://assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm ) 2) A call to the Legislative Analysts office to explore what would be necessary to legislate a $25 Muni Fast Pass for all young people of age 18 through 24. Cheers, Eric Brooks susan vaughan wrote:
Again, my responses follow your points.
Sue
_______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo