Here are three perspectives: for: http://www.yeson91.net/ against: http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0802/flyer.html http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/11/the_california_43.html My take on this is that increasing transportation outlays does not in any way guarantee transit funds, that such initiatives are an extremely blunt instrument through which to achieve mass transit goals, and that Prop 91 could result in actually amplifying undesirable road and highway construction. If we want to fund mass transit, we should put forward specific, targeted measures, which do so, not measures like Prop 91. cheers Eric susan vaughan wrote:
Hey Everyone,
Here's the link to February 5 propositions on the state ballot. Within is also a link to the Prop 91 text.
Sue
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008Primary
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara
I remember that Prop 42, passed several years ago, was to lock in a certain amount of revenues to fund transportation improvements -- including highway expansion. I'm almost certain that the SFGP did not support Prop 42. Prop 91 is supposed to be a corrective measure to close loop holes through which the legislature can divert those Prop 42 funds for purposes other than for transportation -- but the original proponents of Prop 91 (MArk Watts of Transportation California and Jim Earp of the California Alliance for Jobs -- do these sound like shill organizations for developers and highway construction firms to anyone else besides me?) are withdrawing their support because they say the loop holes were closed with the passage of Prop 1a. I would want to know more about these people and their "organizations" before I could make a decision. Sue Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote: Here are three perspectives: for: http://www.yeson91.net/ against: http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0802/flyer.html http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/11/the_california_43.html My take on this is that increasing transportation outlays does not in any way guarantee transit funds, that such initiatives are an extremely blunt instrument through which to achieve mass transit goals, and that Prop 91 could result in actually amplifying undesirable road and highway construction. If we want to fund mass transit, we should put forward specific, targeted measures, which do so, not measures like Prop 91. cheers Eric susan vaughan wrote:
Hey Everyone,
Here's the link to February 5 propositions on the state ballot. Within is also a link to the Prop 91 text.
Sue
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008Primary
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
And we are meeting on THursday evening, 7 p.m., correct? Sue Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote: Here are three perspectives: for: http://www.yeson91.net/ against: http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0802/flyer.html http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/11/the_california_43.html My take on this is that increasing transportation outlays does not in any way guarantee transit funds, that such initiatives are an extremely blunt instrument through which to achieve mass transit goals, and that Prop 91 could result in actually amplifying undesirable road and highway construction. If we want to fund mass transit, we should put forward specific, targeted measures, which do so, not measures like Prop 91. cheers Eric susan vaughan wrote:
Hey Everyone,
Here's the link to February 5 propositions on the state ballot. Within is also a link to the Prop 91 text.
Sue
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008Primary
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo --------------------------------- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Here's the link to Transportation California: http://www.transportationca.com/index.cfm Here's the link to the California Alliance for Jobs: http://www.rebuildca.org/ Sue Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote: Here are three perspectives: for: http://www.yeson91.net/ against: http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0802/flyer.html http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/11/the_california_43.html My take on this is that increasing transportation outlays does not in any way guarantee transit funds, that such initiatives are an extremely blunt instrument through which to achieve mass transit goals, and that Prop 91 could result in actually amplifying undesirable road and highway construction. If we want to fund mass transit, we should put forward specific, targeted measures, which do so, not measures like Prop 91. cheers Eric susan vaughan wrote:
Hey Everyone,
Here's the link to February 5 propositions on the state ballot. Within is also a link to the Prop 91 text.
Sue
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008Primary
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
I can't find records of how the SFGP endorsed on 42, but GPAC opposed it: http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article1.cfm?archiveDate=02-09-02&storyID... I assume we probably did also, for the same reasons. We supported Prop 1A, based on our key value of Decentralization-- the idea was to keep the Governor from stealing local transpo funds (for pothole repair) for state spending. The current "loopholes" the 91 supporters refer to allow the governor, with the support of the legislature, to borrow against dedicated transpo funds for other purposes for up to 3 years. The Prop 42 money is only 20% public transit, and the rest is mostly for highways. I think the SFGP should support diversion of these funds for education, health care, or other higher priority spending needs if our elected officials think it necessary. Does anybody have concerns about opposing 91, with a message similar to what I wrote above? If not, I don't thik we need to meet in person. Most people said they couldn't meet this week, so I think we could get more input from people on the list. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
I think John-Marc has pretty much summed it up. I am going to be tied up by work and can't meet tomorrow. And with even the proponents suggesting a 'No' vote, we shouldn't put ourselves out over this one. Let's meet in January. I have no concerns about proposing a 'No' on 91 position based on my and John-Marc's comments. The California Alliance for Jobs is a big money donor for initiatives that is a tool for big construction corporations and unions. In short - they want to build highways, and the towns and cities that inevitably pop up, after construction of such highways.. cheers Eric John-Marc Chandonia wrote:
I can't find records of how the SFGP endorsed on 42, but GPAC opposed it:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article1.cfm?archiveDate=02-09-02&storyID...
I assume we probably did also, for the same reasons.
We supported Prop 1A, based on our key value of Decentralization-- the idea was to keep the Governor from stealing local transpo funds (for pothole repair) for state spending.
The current "loopholes" the 91 supporters refer to allow the governor, with the support of the legislature, to borrow against dedicated transpo funds for other purposes for up to 3 years. The Prop 42 money is only 20% public transit, and the rest is mostly for highways. I think the SFGP should support diversion of these funds for education, health care, or other higher priority spending needs if our elected officials think it necessary.
Does anybody have concerns about opposing 91, with a message similar to what I wrote above? If not, I don't thik we need to meet in person. Most people said they couldn't meet this week, so I think we could get more input from people on the list.
JMC
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara
I'm fine with this. We need to present this position to the CIWG on Jan. 7, right? Sue Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> wrote: I think John-Marc has pretty much summed it up. I am going to be tied up by work and can't meet tomorrow. And with even the proponents suggesting a 'No' vote, we shouldn't put ourselves out over this one. Let's meet in January. I have no concerns about proposing a 'No' on 91 position based on my and John-Marc's comments. The California Alliance for Jobs is a big money donor for initiatives that is a tool for big construction corporations and unions. In short - they want to build highways, and the towns and cities that inevitably pop up, after construction of such highways.. cheers Eric John-Marc Chandonia wrote:
I can't find records of how the SFGP endorsed on 42, but GPAC opposed it:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article1.cfm?archiveDate=02-09-02&storyID...
I assume we probably did also, for the same reasons.
We supported Prop 1A, based on our key value of Decentralization-- the idea was to keep the Governor from stealing local transpo funds (for pothole repair) for state spending.
The current "loopholes" the 91 supporters refer to allow the governor, with the support of the legislature, to borrow against dedicated transpo funds for other purposes for up to 3 years. The Prop 42 money is only 20% public transit, and the rest is mostly for highways. I think the SFGP should support diversion of these funds for education, health care, or other higher priority spending needs if our elected officials think it necessary.
Does anybody have concerns about opposing 91, with a message similar to what I wrote above? If not, I don't thik we need to meet in person. Most people said they couldn't meet this week, so I think we could get more input from people on the list.
JMC
-- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." Che Guevara --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:17:53AM -0800, susan vaughan wrote:
I'm fine with this. We need to present this position to the CIWG on Jan. 7, right?
Not CIWG; Jan 7 will be the actual endorsement GM. I'll wait a few days to see if anybody on this list has concerns about recommending a NO on 91 endorsement (or other points we should be sure to make in our endorsement text), then write up draft language to present to the GM. JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc@sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/
participants (3)
-
Eric Brooks -
John-Marc Chandonia -
susan vaughan