The pols want more from your wallet | Tim Talk | Tim Hunt | |

Local Blogs

Tim Talk

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

About this blog: I am a native of Alameda County, grew up in Pleasanton and currently live in the house I grew up in that is more than 100 years old. I spent 39 years in the daily newspaper business and wrote a column for more than 25 years in add...  (More)

View all posts from Tim Hunt

The pols want more from your wallet

Uploaded: May 3, 2018

Check out your voter’s guide for the June 5 statewide primary that came in the mail this week and then grab your wallet.
Politicians, at the county, regional and statewide level, all want more of your money.
Heading the list is the feel-good $4.1 billion parks and water bond on the state ballot. Proponents argue that it’s been many years since the state passed a bond for parks and the laundry list of projects is worthy.
Opponents don’t debate that position, they point out the state’s precarious financial position and argue that it’s no time to take on more long-term debt that has the first call on the general fund.
The state’s balanced budget includes about a $12 billion rainy day reserve. Even a moderate recession would lower state revenues by about $60 billion over three years and quickly wipe out the reserve fund, forcing budget cuts.
There’s another consideration: the state’s under-funded pension liabilities. Those slowly ticking time bombs already are taking a greater share of municipal and state revenues and those expenses will continue to grow.
For the nine Bay Area counties, there’s Regional Measure 3 that would raise bridge fares (on other than the Golden Gate Bridge) by $3 over six years and index further increases to inflation. This program hits Alameda and Contra Costa county residents hard (they pay 49 percent of the bridge fares) and gives San Francisco and, particularly, Santa Clara counties what amounts to a free pass.
The fare increase is backed by business groups—the Bay Area Council and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group as well as politicians, labor and construction interests.
One of the benefits for East Bay commuters is the 300 new BART cars, but it would also build a new ferry terminal in San Francisco and expand the ferry system ($335 million), the clipper system as well as putting money into bike trails (these are connected to bridges?).
Last month, the East Bay Times ran an opinion piece by Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, who served in the state Assembly and Senate during the new Bay Bridge fiasco. It tripled in cost and the congressman has not forgotten it.
He wrote that he opposed the “highly flawed initiative born out of dysfunctional policy-making. Voters should reject it.”
There are many policy issues I disagree with DeSaulnier on, but he’s right on the money with this one. Politicians and business organizations have argued that, despite its flaws, it’s better to do something than nothing.
DeSaulnier sees it differently and so do I. East Bay commuters will pay about $700 more each year after the increases take effect.
The planned list of capital projects amounts to a transfer of wealth from East Bay commuters to the Silicon Valley, as DeSaulnier put it.
There are some planned benefits for the East Bay:
• Improvements to goods movement (think I-580 from 2-6 p.m.) for $160 million. This is a competitive grant program.
• Tri-Valley transit improvements ($100 million); Interstate 680/Highway 84 interchange rebuild in Sunol ($85 million); Interstates 880/680 connector in Fremont ($15 million)
• Funds for expanding the toll lanes on I-680 and I-580.
The very questionable expenditures include many in the North Bay: including Highway 29, HOV lanes on Highway 101 in Marin County and $40 million to extend the Sonoma-Marin light rail north of Santa Rosa. You can correctly ask what is the nexus to bridges?
It’s as bad in San Francisco and the South Bay. Topping the list is the Caltrain extension in downtown San Francisco ($325 and nothing to do with bridges) and the San Francisco muni fleet expansion ($140 million).
In the South Bay, it includes $375 million for BART to San Jose (no bridges involved here) as well as $230 million for the downtown San Jose Diridon transit station and expanding the light rail line to the new Eastridge BART station. Again, bridge connection?
There are worthwhile expenditures that are bridge related such as Highway 92 and Highway 101 interchange and projects Dumbarton corridor.
So, take DeSaulnier’s advice and just vote no.
As I have previously written, you could consider the same vote for Alameda County’s half-cent sales tax increase for low-income childcare and preschool. It’s the case of government thinking it can solve societal problems by throwing money at it. That’s Measure A on the June ballot. It would raise about $140 million annually.

Local Journalism.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by martin989977, a resident of Avignon,
on May 3, 2018 at 9:33 am

martin989977 is a registered user.

email suppot tollfree number
email customer support number
email customer support phone number
email tech support phone number
email technical support phone number
email customer service phone number
email customer care phone number
email antivirus support number
email antivirus tech support phone number
email support number
email support phone number

Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on May 3, 2018 at 12:16 pm

"It is the very error of the moon.
She comes more near the earth
than she was wont. And makes
men mad."

William shakespeare, Othello

Posted by DKHSK, a resident of Bridle Creek,
on May 4, 2018 at 8:50 am

DKHSK is a registered user.

"Interstate 880/680 connector in Fremont".

This is interesting if true. The current connectors are all surface streets: Auto Mall, Mission, or further down on Scott Creek, and you can't get to the freeway without passing through at least 3 stop lights on any of these streets.

Building a connector sure as heck would cost more than $15m, so I don't know what this allocation is for.

Regardless, if they managed to put in a adequate connector, this would clear up a lot of traffic in that area.

Posted by no more money, a resident of Downtown,
on May 9, 2018 at 8:55 am

My method for voting is getting easier. If the item cost money I vote no. No matter what the money is for. Enough of giving these liars more of our money until they fix the issues with the pensions.

Employees need to pay the full amount of the contributions. No more 3% at 50. No more COLAs for retired people. Any recipient of a pension that is paid for by CA taxpayers (PERS, STRS, etc) must be taxed by CA no matter where the recipient moves. Some states do not tax fixed benefit plans even though they have a state income tax. Some states have no income taxes at all. These retired firemen, cops, teachers, move to those states and collect tax free pensions that are paid for by those of us in CA. More likely they don't even actually "move", they rent a PO Box with a street address and claim that they "live" in that other state. And we taxpayers are on the hook to pay their escalating pensions for life.

Make public pension just like a 401(k). Employees contribute 100%, taxpayers are on the hook for nothing.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,639 views

Community foundations want to help local journalism survive
By Tim Hunt | 20 comments | 1,339 views

Pop open the beer at the holiday table
By Deborah Grossman | 1 comment | 492 views