It’s important that the public read the full text.
For those who aren’t able to read it, some county residents have done it for us. Here is the result of the Peoples’ review of B1.
Section 2, Section 5
Extending current 1/2% sale tax which should expire in March of 2022, but won’t
Section 3, Section 3.F, Section 5, Section 7
No Sunset
(Sunset Clause: A statement added to the end of a measure which causes the act to "sunset," or become ineffective, after a certain date.)
Section 5
Additional Retail Tax of ½%
(Will this hinder small businesses, and therefore jobs?)
Section 3.C, Section 7
Excise Tax imposed on Storage
(Warehouse taxes? More taxes on small businesses?)
Section 13
Alameda County Transportation Commission (CTC) handles bonds up to $1,000,000,000
(Did we elect these people to this committee, or were they appointed?)
Section 15
Alameda CTC controls expenditures up to $800,000,000
(If we didn’t elect them, then who appointed them?)
Section 17
People who wish to contest B1 are LIMITED to six months. If they miss the 6 months, this bill will be forevermore “incontestable”.
(Should the people ever be restricted from questioning?)
Section 19
Expansion of Alameda CTC authority
(Can this county afford more government expansion of authority?)
Analysis by county council
“The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority merged to create the Commission in July of 2010. The Commission has the authority to increase the transactions and use tax upon approval by two- thirds of the votes”
(see link below – did you vote for any of these three groups?.....THEY WILL DECIDE which cities qualify to receive money)
In addition
to B1 full text, the 42 page "plan" automatically connects to B1 (see link below).
Page 2-9 Section “Bart to Livermore”
“The project-specific environmental process will include a detailed alternative assessment of all fundable and feasible alternatives, and be consistent with mandates, policies and guidance of federal, state, and regional agencies”
(high density housing)
Page 3-2 Section “Advisory Committees”
Four committees and in the last paragraph “ ‘Other Committees’…The Alameda CTC will establish other community and technical advisory committees...
(Did you vote for them? Do you know that committee members are paid [with our tax] money for each meeting they attend? Is there a limit to the number of committees one can belong? Who decides how much pay they receive?)
Please take a look at the full measure (including the "plan":
http://www.acgov.org/rov/documents/2012-11-06MeasureB1.pdf
Please watch for a review of other initiatives, in the next couple of weeks.
Even if you're not voting in a few weeks, you should still study what's on the ballot, as it will end up affecting you! http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/ If you can, VOTE November 6!
You have the luxury of paying $4 round trip on a bus, waiting for the bus, traveling an average of 8 mph in that bus. Sure sounds like a *WINNING*! idea from Talisa. Let's say you're driving to the Englander for a pint and you live 3 miles away, a quarter mile off of E.14. (not too out of the realm of possibility). Walk to bus stop: 5 minutes. Take 1R 3 miles: 22.5 minutes. Walk to Englander: 2 minutes. Total time in transit: 27.5 minutes, Cost: $2. Driving: 8 minutes. Cost: with an average mileage car of 22 mpg: $0.60. It costs more than 3 times as much money to take a 3 mile trip on the bus, and about 20 minutes more time. Paying yourself minimum wage yields a total cost differential of about $3.50 one way. Try again.
(the real David, not the "liberal" doppelganger who thinks he/she is being cute, but in reality is being rather stalker-ish--he/she now has 2 photos of me on their computer, and illiberal by trying to shut down posters he/she doesn't agree with and can't argue logically against).
In addition, B1 hands the money over to NON ELECTED groups to decide who to give it to. If you don't have the Mandated Housing they will NOT give you YOUR money. PLUS these same SELF APPOINTED boards are given control of $1Billion in bonds. Do you know that these board members are paid to go to each meeting? No wonder they keep creating more boards and appointing themselves.....It's a scam and they're using our money to "pay themselves". Why would we trust them with our money? Summarizing: A group of self appointed members pay themselves to take our money and may or may not give it back to us. WHAT??? B1??? VOTE NO!!!
It's not $7, it's $9, one way, as the other person has to pay $2 fare too. Why don't you take a cab instead? $18 dollars round-trip. You can buy a pitcher of beer at the Englander with the money you save by driving. Or you can take a cab. Why do you want to force me to pay for an expensive bus you just "prefer" to take? How about you pay for my gas? That's nice you were talking about BART to Livermore, which is actually an even larger waste of money. --take that money and expand the freeways. The BART extension will not get anywhere close to the number of riders needed to justify it. I was talking about AC Transit, which consumes the largest share of this proposed tax hike. (read my post). Then you make fun of me for thinking about money. As the saying goes, "How do you think a man like me got to be a man like me?" Yeah, I'm cheap, but that's how you save. You can keep on wasting money for no reason other than your "feelings," or you can stop wasting money and use it for something more productive. Or even enjoyable. It's not even that hard to add it up--$4 bus fare for two, one way, or less than a buck in gas, never mind the time wasted in a bus. Hmmm.
Here's what the League of Women Voters of the Bay Area has written about the Transportation 2035 Plan: The League of Women Voters of the Bay Area commends the Transportation 2035 Plan for giving emphasis to • a regional land use vision for the whole Bay Area • transit-oriented development, with affordable, accessible development near transit stations • connectivity between regional transportation systems, with local access to major lines • transportation services to those most dependent on transit—young, seniors, and the disabled. • action on climate protection.
Bottom line: CITIZENS LOSE--BUREAUCRATS WIN Vote NO on MEASURE B1
Notify(ing) all potential buyers that the property they are occupying has air quality risks and educate them in the proper use of any installed air filtration. Why would the government approve and fund housing, at and below market levels, in an area that has dangerous air levels? Which population should be forced to live in an environment where they must rely on high efficiency air filters (and the landlords’ diligence in maintaining the filters) and avoid opening windows, walks, or any outdoor activity? What does it say about a government that tries to protect the environment at the cost of the people with fewest housing options? Unfortunately, Prop B1with its perpetuity tax offers to nurture good ideas into similar Frankenstein mandates.
It just so happens that they back nearly every single proposal backed by Democrats, etc? Are you absolutely sure you don't want to buy a bridge from me? I have several...
http://www.iclei.org/documents/Global/WSPublist05-05_01.pdf More to come
Come back with a plan that actually improves the roads, and is not just a sop to ACTransit's pension funds.
Let me make something very clear. I was being polite. Even though I disagree with people on opinion and politics I am mature enough to not take it personal. So up until the point someone makes it personal I can be polite and courteous with anyone. Now if you want to be immature and assume any female who is nice to you likes you then go ahead and add that belief to the bubble you call your world. If this is the wacky kind of immature thinking you do, then no wonder you have the political opinions you pollute patch with. And if you think me correcting you is more *proof* to you that you're right then you are the one who is disturbing. Completely hopeless and juvenile. Yet another one of your *WINNING!* thoughts
Give up your single occupancy car for the single occupancy bus. There's the cost. Empty and/or almost empty buses. Buses DON'T pay for themselves. In fact, they completely waste money. If they were filled most of the time, maybe they could pay for themselves, but they are NEVER filled (at least outside the metropolitan areas) and OFTEN there are NO passengers, AND most of the time there are one or two riders. David, Please do the math on that. I'm far from a math whiz and appreciate someone who can do that for me. Let's take the personal expense out of the equation and put in the expense to the public. How much does an empty bus cost us taxpayers per hour? We, even, might use a half full bus load (that would be a shocking amount of passengers in the suburbs) as an example. If you add the driver's salary, their benefits and other employee expenses = my goodness. Of course, then you multiply that expense times all the other buses in the given city X the time factor. There are a few other factors to take into consideration, but let's start with this. THANKS David.
ACTransit's fare recovery (the percentage of operating costs, not counting capital costs) is around 40% (public information). That means our taxes pay for 60% of its operating budget--fuel, maintenance, drivers. Additional taxes (bonds) pay for the actual buses. Conversely gas taxes pay for most of the roads. Not all, and that's because cars have gotten both more efficient and because no one has jobs to drive to, nor money to drive to go shopping.