Why the hell should anybody outside Redding (the hot, dusty, dump overrun with farm workers that's not worth visiting.) pay to create a tourist attraction for you?
Local attractions should be paid for by local money. If the benefit can't be seen there then the project should'nt be funded.
The bay bridge should be funded by the state in a minimalist fashion (keeping 80 running is'nt local). Making it a tourist attraction is up to the locals.
Why the hell should anybody outside Redding (the hot, dusty, dump overrun with farm workers that's not worth visiting.) pay to create a tourist attraction for you? They shouldn't.
Local attractions should be paid for by local money. If the benefit can't be seen there then the project should'nt be funded.
Please re-read Post 13 before you misconstrue what I have written:
All the costs should be paid out of tolls. In NO case should the State be involved at all except to arrange the financing for the amount necessary to build a minimialist bridge on the grounds of earthquake repair. Anything beyond that benefits the Bay Area alone and should be funded locally.
I can't for the life of me see how you would disagree with that.