[Carfreeliving] SPUR and Transportation Reform
Andrew Sullivan
andrew at sulli.org
Tue Mar 1 12:58:39 MST 2005
So you support service cuts if the downtown assessment doesn't happen?
Progressive rhetoric is nice and all, but it doesn't pay increased
health premiums for Muni employees or replace worn-out buses.
And do not forget Proposition 218, which allows property owners to veto
a special assessment with a majority of *assessed value.* (See
http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/
understanding_prop218_1296.html, and in particular this language:
Article XIII.D section 4 (e): "[...] The agency shall not impose an
assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists
if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition
to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the
assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted
according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected
property."
Do you think the Bay Guardian can convince the majority of affected
downtown property owners, by assessed value, NOT to reject the tax? A
broader coalition might be able to do it, but if it's just SF
"progressives," forget it.
Andrew
On Mar 1, 2005, at 11:39, Steve Jones wrote:
> Progressives would never accomplish anything in this town if they
> always felt constrained by this "realistic" defeatism. Nobody thought
> it was realistic to bring back district elections or take control of
> the board in 2000 or to seriously challenge Newsom's bid for mayor
> (even though a poorly funded, last minute campaign almost won) or to
> overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage (which our court case
> may very well do). Conservatives speak of being "realistic" in defense
> of the status quo. Progressives know that social change only comes
> from fighting for seemingly impossible goals like eliminating poverty,
> achieving peace, and ending the primacy of the automobile.
>
> Steven T. Jones
> City Editor
> San Francisco Bay Guardian
> (415) 487-2552
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:andrew at sulli.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:23 AM
> To: Steve Jones
> Cc: carfreeliving at livablecity.org; Joshua Hart
> Subject: Re: [Carfreeliving] SPUR and Transportation Reform
>
>
> We support a downtown assessment. But we are also realistic about its
> chances of passage. Do not forget Prop 218.
>
> On Mar 1, 2005, at 11:19, Steve Jones wrote:
>
>> We've been laying out specific budget proposals on our editorial page.
>> No need to recap here. But, yes, higher parking fees is a nice start,
>> and a downtown transit assessment district would be a good next step
>> if your allies weren't working so hard to kill it.
>>
>> Steven T. Jones
>> City Editor
>> San Francisco Bay Guardian
>> (415) 487-2552
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:andrew at sulli.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:08 AM
>> To: Steve Jones
>> Cc: carfreeliving at livablecity.org; Joshua Hart
>> Subject: Re: [Carfreeliving] SPUR and Transportation Reform
>>
>>
>> OK, so where are you going to find the money, Mr.
>> Stick-It-To-Downtown?
>> THIS fiscal year? Grandstanding is nice and all, but the bills have
>> to be paid. And I for one do NOT want the service cuts that would be
>> required to close the budget gap without the extra revenue.
>>
>> By the way, if you had been paying attention, you might have seen that
>> Rescue Muni was advocating for higher parking fees and fines to avoid
>> deferred maintenance and additional service cuts. This advocacy needs
>> to continue now that the budget is at the Board of Supervisors.
>> Supervisor Peskin has made noises about opposing higher parking fines
>> -
>> which would be disastrous for Muni if the board were to go that way.
>> Wildly unrealistic claims that somehow the budget can magically be
>> brought into balance with no service cuts OR fare increases do not
>> help
>> things, though they seem to be getting Richard Marquez some ink. (And
>> TWU, which is very oddly opposing more revenue to pay its members.)
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2005, at 11:00, Steve Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I know. And you also don't work for Muni, Newsom, or the Chamber, but
>>> you always seem to end up on their side.
>>>
>>> Steven T. Jones
>>> City Editor
>>> San Francisco Bay Guardian
>>> (415) 487-2552
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:andrew at sulli.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:52 AM
>>> To: Steve Jones
>>> Cc: carfreeliving at livablecity.org; Joshua Hart
>>> Subject: Re: [Carfreeliving] SPUR and Transportation Reform
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't work for SPUR.
>>> On Mar 1, 2005, at 10:43, Steve Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, that you're flaking for downtown.
>>>>
>>>> Steven T. Jones
>>>> City Editor
>>>> San Francisco Bay Guardian
>>>> (415) 487-2552
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:andrew at sulli.org]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:43 AM
>>>> To: Steve Jones
>>>> Cc: carfreeliving at livablecity.org; Joshua Hart
>>>> Subject: Re: [Carfreeliving] SPUR and Transportation Reform
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That SPUR can do math?
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 1, 2005, at 10:42, Steve Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why am I not surprised?
>>>>>
>>>>> Steven T. Jones
>>>>> City Editor
>>>>> San Francisco Bay Guardian
>>>>> (415) 487-2552
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Andrew Sullivan [mailto:andrew at sulli.org]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:34 AM
>>>>> To: Joshua Hart
>>>>> Cc: carfreeliving at livablecity.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Carfreeliving] SPUR and Transportation Reform
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think SPUR was just being realistic about the budget. They
>>>>> support
>>>>> alternative revenue sources for Muni (as does Rescue Muni, as do
>>>>> most
>>>>> other alt-transportation types) but they also understood that with
>>>>> a
>>>>> $57 million deficit there's no realistic way to make up the
>>>>> difference
>>>>> without a fare hike this fiscal year. Longer term revenue sources
>>>>> like
>>>>> sales tax, parking tax, downtown assessment, vehicle environmental
>>>>> impact fee, and congestion charging will NOT be implemented in time
>>>>> to
>>>>> address this year's deficit, and there's no extra money in the
>>>>> General
>>>>> Fund.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 1, 2005, at 10:29, Joshua Hart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Dave and all-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for setting up this valuable list. I have a question to
>>>>>> pose-
>>>>>> It seems like the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
>>>>>> Association has consistently been on the pro-car,
>>>>>> pro-development,
>>>>>> pro- downtown business, pro-wealth side of many issues lately.
>>>>>> Their
>>>>>> lonely stand in support of widening MLK in GG Park, and in support
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> yesterday's Muni fare increase clearly illustrates this bias.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question is- has SPUR always supported these policies? How
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> other pro-environment, pro-ped/ bike/ transit organizations dealt
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> this? (did SPUR's transportation committee actually vote to
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> Muni fare hike?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just wondering,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Chappell, president of the nonprofit think tank San Francisco
>>>>>> Planning and Urban Research Association, said Muni's three-pronged
>>>>>> budget was fair and should lead to more efficient transit service.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The social and economic health of San Francisco depends on a
>>>>>> strong
>>>>>> Muni, '' he said. "Your proposed budget has everyone sharing the
>>>>>> pain.
>>>>>> That is correct."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>> | __o SF BICYCLE COALITION ___
>>>>>> __0
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> | _`\<,_ Promoting the Bike
>>>>>> |___| _ \<,_ |
>>>>>> | (*)/ (*) for Everyday Transport
>>>>>> (*)+---(*)/ (*) |
>>>>>> | |
>>>>>> | 1095 Market St. #215 SF 94103 415.431.BIKE www.sfbike.org
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>>> Joshua Hart Program Director 415-431-2453 ext. 23
>>>>>> joshua at sfbike.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list to facilitate and
>>>>>> promote
>>>>>> car-free living in SF
>>>>>> To unsubscribe:
>>>>>> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
>>>>>> or, for all options, go to:
>>>>>> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>>>> carfreeliving_livablecity.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
>>>>> to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
>>>>> To unsubscribe:
>>>>> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
>>>>> or, for all options, go to:
>>>>> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>>> carfreeliving_livablecity.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the Carfreeliving
mailing list