Town Square

Post a New Topic

Misleading Measure B1 Mailer

Original post made by curious, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2012

Yesterday I received in the mail an 8 page booklet supporting Measure B1. I found it to be very misleading in how the Measure is protrayed.

It states "by renewing our local sales tax and approving a new plan. . ." The Measure, if approved, DOUBLES the current 1/2% cent sales tax for transportation!! That's a bit more then just renewing the current sales tax. Further, renewing does not imply approving the tax FOREVER which is what this Measure does.

Further back in the booklet it states "We need B1 for good-paying jobs in Alameda County. . ." It should state this will provide jobs for unions as the county will require project labor agreements. This seems grossly unfair that non-union workers will be excluded from the opportunity to bid on projects funded by this tax.

Finally, I read the Measure and yes the projects sound good but i couldn't find anything guaranteeing that these projects would actually be completed.

I would like to know who is funding the Committee to Save Local Transportation Funding that paid for this mailer. I suspect the unions are probably contributing significant dollars as they stand to benefit.

I do believe that we need to continue to improve transportation but I find Measure B1 as its written flawed for a couple of reasona:

The tax should have an end date (sunset clause)
There should be a list of projects that will absolutely be completed rather then be at the whim of the politicians.

If this is such a great deal as folks like Cook-Kallio and DeMarcus claim, why do they need to send such a misleading mailer? I'm voting NO on Measure B1--rewrite the Measure with an end date and a list of pojects that WILL be completed and I'd be be happy to vote for it.

Comments (13)

Like this comment
Posted by local
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm

B1 is just an attempt for the politicians to get into your wallet and with no sunset date, they have no accountability. I do not support this measure and I will not support any candidate who supports this measure the way it is written. It is just a money-grab by the politicians to award lucrative contracts to their campaign supporters.

Like this comment
Posted by Chemist
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 15, 2012 at 8:42 am

I will be voting NO on B1, and I will definitely NOT vote for Cook-Kallio. One of the principal jobs of the City Council and Mayor is to represent the taxpayers during union negotiations. Cook-Kallio is in debt to the unions and cannot be trusted to represent the taxpayers. Her support for B1 is just one example.

Like this comment
Posted by More $ down the tubes
a resident of Livermore
on Oct 15, 2012 at 11:28 am

Someone finally noticed that the measure not only DOUBLES the so called transit sales tax, it also would make the current tax permanent- which it is not NOW.
The current tax, plus the current real estate tax is money that was supposed to help build the BART to Livermore.
Vote NO for permanent taxes.

Like this comment
Posted by Sick of Waiting
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2012 at 11:28 am

I'll be voting yes on B1.

Get the facts:

This will be the third time we've approved B1 in some form. Why shouldn't it be permanent? Do you foresee a time when we won't need transportation in the county? Are we all suddenly going to stop leaving our homes in 10 years? Clearly not.

And let's be honest-- it's not like funding from the state and federal government for these types of projects has been forthcoming in recent years. Our county is forced to pick up the slack and B1 does just that.

Read about it - Web Link

As for the specific list of projects, they're laid out in the 2012 Transportation Expenditure Plan. You can knock yourself out on the ACTC website for all the details - Web Link

The funding is allocated by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, which has overseen project funding the last two times we passed the measure. It's a public agency and it turns out they're audited by a public oversight committee--100 % completion rate on time or early. Sounds pretty reliable to me. Web Link

Frankly, it's about time they put something like B1 on the ballot. I'm sick of waiting in traffic. I'm sick of potholes. And I'm sick of using outdated public transportation to get to work. I'll be investing in Alameda County this election. I'll be voting YES on B1.

Like this comment
Posted by Sick of the spending
a resident of Livermore
on Oct 15, 2012 at 11:37 am

Concerning Sick of Waiting, you sound like good Union Stooge. This is nothing but a permanent tax hike so Sacramento can continue to spend money for the unions that put them in office. I will be voting no on B1 and on anything that will raise my taxes. It's still a problem with spending, no matter what they say. How about stopping this stupid cho cho train to nowhere, and use the money for something we need. Or just don't use it at all. or we could name that train the Union Return on Investment Railroad, that is all it is.

Like this comment
Posted by local
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2012 at 12:14 pm

"Sick of Waiting", if this is just "an extension" of what has already been done, why are we still waiting in traffic and have potholes everywhere?

I will be voting NO as there is no way I want my grandkids having to pay for something that I voted on. I want them to have a say on the tax. It is arrogant to feel we can make the best decisions for when our grandkids are making a living. If you want to look at our track record, look already what we are leaving them with the unfunded pension liabilities (our grandkids will be paying for the services we are getting now, plus they will be paying for the services they need), or our national debt.

In addition, I will be voting NO on any new tax right now until the governments do meaningful pension reform and stop spending money on useless projects like a bullet train to nowhere. Anything I add to my tax bill now will be used to perpetuate the problems we have today and are not addressing. We can't keep kicking the can down the street. It puts me in so much pain to see what we are leaving for future generations.

There is also no such thing as an "independent oversight committee". The committee is appointed by the elected officials and since they want the money to continue, they will remove anybody from the committee that does not agree with them. The only truly independent oversight committee is the voters at large.

Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 15, 2012 at 1:12 pm

@Sick of Waiting - seems like you read a lot. Try reading the Franchise Tax Board's history of sales tax increases. Most were added for highway maintenance. So there is money to fix potholes, its just that the state and county government choose to spend this money on other things.

MTC may have gotten projects built on schedule but that doesn't mean that they were built correctly or within budget. The Express Lane Toll road was to cost 20 million. So far almost 200 million has been spent. This project was to turn a profit. So far it has lost money. When BART was added to the Tri-Valley, a flyover buttress was added that could have supported flyover ramps for either southbound 680 or eastbound 580. MTC chose eastbound 580 which was so very wrong. MTC screwed up the 680/84 interchange so much that now a new interchange has to be built. CalTrans promised a HOV lane on northbound 680 going over Sunol grade in 2005. Because of the MTC's waste of money on the Express Lane, it will now be 2015 before this lane is built.

It seems that MTC has enough money for its pet projects (like riderless buses) but not any money to fix the deterioration of the freeways. At last count there were 56 slabs (entire slabs) of concrete that need to be replaced between Pleasanton/Sunol exit and Sunol exit on southbound 680. These slabs are so deteriorated that they have caused damage to cars, in one case over $2,200.

The MTC commission wastes taxpayer money, does not listen to commuter concerns, and supports projects which add to traffic congestion. Why on earth would you vote to give these idiots more of your hard earned money. Let CalTrans do what they do best and fire the fools at MTC.

BTW - Gary Richards (Mr. Roadshow) can get more done in a week on fixing roads and traffic problems than the MTC can in an entire year.

Like this comment
Posted by Spudly
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Oct 15, 2012 at 4:55 pm

Curious - If you run for city council, I will vote for you.

Thanks for the insight and the most offensive thing I see is the limiation for non union contractors to be able to bid on this upcoming work, if it gets funded.

Like this comment
Posted by More Taxes, Little for Freeways
a resident of Bonde Ranch
on Oct 15, 2012 at 5:23 pm

Every time my fellow voters get suckered into one of these tax increases, we get very little for the Freeway expansion and upgrades that we so desperately need.

Instead, far too much gets wasted on subsidized government "mass transit" projects. Bart exists to fuel the City of San Francisco's economy by getting workers from the safe and more affordable communities they live in to the S.F. megalopolis which hangs on to the jobs, but fails to provide safe streets, affordable housing, decent and safe schools, etc.

You want to ride Bart of the Bus, or High Speed rail? Great, but pay the full cost of it yourself, unless we expressly certify you as so poor as to need a taxpayer subsidy.

Like this comment
Posted by local
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2012 at 9:40 pm

We have spent all this money on BART and unless you get to a BART station in Pleasanton before 7:30am, you cannot find a parking place, making BART unusable for those who want to use it after the early morning crunch. Proving that the transportation people would rather have cars on the highways than fully utilize the BART system.

Like this comment
Posted by B-1 = a definate NO VOTE
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 15, 2012 at 10:47 pm

B-1 is a very slippery slope because if it passes we can expect more permanent taxes that will fund these (people?) that will spend more money faster - and that can include selling Bonds to raise quick cash, while sticking the taxpayers with huge interest debt for decades to come. B-1 not only doubles the current tax, makes it “permanent forever“, but also limit’s the amount of oversight that taxpayers already do not have.

Allowing fast & easy politicians to pick-pocket taxpayers in perpetuity can only be accomplished with the help of stupid & gullible taxpayers. This is a tax increase with out a CAP, Oversight, or a Sunset Clause.

Please Vote NO on B-1. B-1 is bad politics; Bad for tax payers. The politicians pushing this nonsense are CROOKS. The Contra Costa Times recommends a NO on B-1!

Like this comment
Posted by factchecker
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 16, 2012 at 9:22 am

Remember that DeMarcus running for City council & Cook-Kallio running for Mayor both strongly support this tax into perpetuity!! Imagine what kind of additional city taxes they could dream up if elected!!

Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 16, 2012 at 3:51 pm

To add to B-1 = a definate NO VOTE.... anything purchased by bonds takes twice the amount of money. 1/2 to pay for the project, 1/2 to pay for the interest on bond. So why would you vote for something where half your money will be wasted?

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

GE's re-organization reaches San Ramon digital headquarters
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 2,035 views

Sound and Fury over Vile and Slur-ry
By Tom Cushing | 77 comments | 1,230 views

New state housing requirements could affect Pleasanton
By Jeb Bing | 5 comments | 500 views