Transit or traffic
There's a real chance to fix Muni -- but a simplistic downtown campaign for more parking and less government is trying to derail it
(This is page 7 of 7.)
culture.
"For us, in a way, Prop. A is the more important measure," Metcalf said. "We want to focus on making Muni better instead of fighting about parking. We didn't plan it this way, but the way it worked out, San Francisco is at a fork in the road. We can reinforce our transit-oriented urbanity or we can create a mainly car-dependent city that will look more like the rest of America."
( 2 comments | Comment on this article )
marcB on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 01:13 AM
Proposition A is a bad joke being perpetrated upon desperately and hopeful MUNI passengers. This proposition shifts a lot of power and money around but in return lacks any accountability or service standards, turns the negotiated salary cap into the minimum base for our under-performing MUNI workers and allows this reconstituted governing body the ability to issue bonds WITHOUT voter approval. Proposition A is a blank check. On top of that the pro A campaign has significantly lied about endorsements in its voter literature and now the campaign has been discovered to have violated state ethics and campaign laws by accepting illegal campaign contributions by corporate media conglomerate Clear Channel. Prop A author Aaron Peskin who controls the purse strings for the Prop A campaign fund has the gall to state that he was unaware of the $20,000 donation being made. Sure. If you are under the impression that Proposition A is anything more than a subterfuge to mask influence peddling and that Prop A will actually fix MUNI (of which I am a regular rider) you are sorely mistaken. This isn't MUNI reform this is a scam (and a major disappointment). Vote NO on Proposition A.
dave on Friday, November 2, 2007 at 01:15 PM
It must be days before an election because your post, Marc, is full of poll-tested sound bites rather than your normally thoughtful analysis. I can do the same, then I'll respond to your points.
Vote Yes on A because it is *real* Muni reform. It's comprehensive: it provides funding, labor reform, streamlines the city's transportation bureaucracy, and mandates the first ever practical department-level climate action plan. If you believe in transit, and want to avoid service cuts and fare increases in next year's budget, vote YES on Proposition A.
Now for the first real policy substance in these comments. Yes, Prop A shifts a lot of power and money around, and it's almost all good.
The money: all future revenue from parking garage and meter fees and fines will go to the MTA instead of the General Fund. This is $26 million now, and stands to be much more when the MTA figures out how to manage its garages better. It tightens up the allowable uses of those revenues, in fact, by specifying they must be used "to support the MTA's transit-related functions." Writing "this check" to the MTA is less of a blank check than allowing the money to stay in the general fund. You know that; you're just borrowing the whole "black check" rhetoric from Don Fisher's anti-Prop A mailer because it sounds good.
Labor: eliminating the cap on salaries provides management the chance to give the MTA's transit workforce the highest base wages in the country, in exchange for "giving back" some of the work rule bonus payments and impediments to discipline. (Muni workers get the highest portion of their pay in bonuses compared to other major transit agencies.) No work rule changes, no raise.
The power: Prop A puts the responsibility for transit and traffic fully into the MTA's hands where it belongs. Yes, the MTA isn't the nation's leader in transit-first planning and implementation, but neither is the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor. In one case I care about, bike lanes, the Board has been demonstrably better than the MTA so Prop A preserves the ability of the Board to institute bike lanes without MTA approval. Not speaking for SPUR, I would like to a different governance structure on the MTA Board, including some elections. I would also like to see a different governing structure at City Hall but that doesn't make me vote against improvements to the structure that fall short of my ideal (and that don't contradict it)!
Prop A is comprehensive, and therefore more complicated than a typical measure. Peskin deserves credit for being so thorough. Unfortunately that very thoroughness makes it easy for opponents to find something that some voter somewhere won't like, and pick at it a million times.
I hope voters appreciate comprehensive Muni reform and vote YES on A.
Vote Yes on A because it is *real* Muni reform. It's comprehensive: it provides funding, labor reform, streamlines the city's transportation bureaucracy, and mandates the first ever practical department-level climate action plan. If you believe in transit, and want to avoid service cuts and fare increases in next year's budget, vote YES on Proposition A.
Now for the first real policy substance in these comments. Yes, Prop A shifts a lot of power and money around, and it's almost all good.
The money: all future revenue from parking garage and meter fees and fines will go to the MTA instead of the General Fund. This is $26 million now, and stands to be much more when the MTA figures out how to manage its garages better. It tightens up the allowable uses of those revenues, in fact, by specifying they must be used "to support the MTA's transit-related functions." Writing "this check" to the MTA is less of a blank check than allowing the money to stay in the general fund. You know that; you're just borrowing the whole "black check" rhetoric from Don Fisher's anti-Prop A mailer because it sounds good.
Labor: eliminating the cap on salaries provides management the chance to give the MTA's transit workforce the highest base wages in the country, in exchange for "giving back" some of the work rule bonus payments and impediments to discipline. (Muni workers get the highest portion of their pay in bonuses compared to other major transit agencies.) No work rule changes, no raise.
The power: Prop A puts the responsibility for transit and traffic fully into the MTA's hands where it belongs. Yes, the MTA isn't the nation's leader in transit-first planning and implementation, but neither is the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor. In one case I care about, bike lanes, the Board has been demonstrably better than the MTA so Prop A preserves the ability of the Board to institute bike lanes without MTA approval. Not speaking for SPUR, I would like to a different governance structure on the MTA Board, including some elections. I would also like to see a different governing structure at City Hall but that doesn't make me vote against improvements to the structure that fall short of my ideal (and that don't contradict it)!
Prop A is comprehensive, and therefore more complicated than a typical measure. Peskin deserves credit for being so thorough. Unfortunately that very thoroughness makes it easy for opponents to find something that some voter somewhere won't like, and pick at it a million times.
I hope voters appreciate comprehensive Muni reform and vote YES on A.
Comment on: Transit or traffic
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
