Transportation reform next on state's agenda (environmental reform, toll roads, housing)

Oakland Tribune ^ | 02/13/2005 | Sean Holstege

[farmfriend]

bttt

[farmfriend]

bttt

[calcowgirl]

Ping! Here we go!

[farmfriend]

hahaha, two bumps for the price of one.

[calcowgirl]

This one is loaded, huh?

[farmfriend]

Lock and load.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Just curious, do you have any views on the proposal for new tollways?

[cgbg]

Sprawl is caused by the obscene housing prices in California metro areas.

I really don't see that issue being seriously addressed in our lifetime.

I am retiring to West Texas. :-)

[calcowgirl]

Tollways are increased taxes.

From what I've seen, current budgets have continued to bypass Proposition 42 funding of transportation (and are planning to do so for the next two years, according to the proposed "spending control" measure). It leaves us with highways in need of repair and is prohibiting the investment in new infrastructure.

The people of California have been consistently paying taxes to fulfill transportion needs. Unfortunately, Sacramento has continued to divert those funds to other social programs.

Now, they are going to make you pay again.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Well I can understand the problem with diversion of transportation funds. But are you sure that if there were no diversions, there would still be enough money to cover highway needs? Because if not, either:

1) the roads don't get built
2) increase taxes are needed for roadbuilding
3) toll financing provides a way to privatize roadbuilding and get them (and the users) to fund it instead of a tax increase (confiscation without choice.) However it is important that the state put the risk of default on the toll builder.

Perhaps hard to calculate given that so much money is diverted to transit(which almost never covers its operating costs), but I guess that was mentioned on the prop. initiative (though percentages or amounts likely were not, correct?) But I bet the diversions to non-transportation programs sure weren't ever mentioned on the ballot.

[Savage Beast]

I think toll roads are a good idea, considering the impossibility of bringing true sanity to the state government.

As for the Bay Bridge--I guess they're just going to let it collapse like an accordion again. I'm sure that's better than withholding the monthly stipends from the San Francisco shopping-cart set.

[Carry_Okie]

This is Sustainable Development, brought to you by the United Nations, written by communists from Santa Cruz.

Apparently, Arnold is all for it.

[stopem]

Well tollways would definitely bring in enough money to take care of the budget problem for centuries with all the people on the roads out there (at least in so.cal).

And maybe than you all will get a taxcut. Sounds like you all need one bad.

[umgud]

CA need more roads and more lanes. Toll or not, it matters not. I can't think of anyplace where a new project can overcome the enviro's and the NIMBY crowd. CA roadbuilding days are over.

[BobL]

I'm not sure which part of California you're from, but Southern California's experience with toll roads was such a disaster that Tom McClintock (one of the only REAL Republicans left in that state), went from being a huge supporter of toll roads (particularly private ones) to a huge opponent - once he saw how the drivers and the state got shafted.

Checkout the LA Times article just less than halfway down on this site (and accept my apologies for using a left-wing site, but it's certainly better than having to pay to use the LA Times archive to retrieve it). The article was written in 2002, and, at the time, it was essentially an obituary on toll roads for California. So, trust your instincts on this, you're right.

http://bicycleaustin.info/rogerbaker/tollroad-failure.html


As an update on the above article, the Orange County Toll Roads are now charging right around 20 cents per mile, and have very little traffic (no coincidence there </sarcasm>), while the SR-91 (Riverside Freeway) toll lanes now charge 70 cents per mile at peak hours.

Arnold may not directly raise your taxes, but it will get ugly out there if you don't have copious amounts of cash (to borrow a California term).

[hedgetrimmer]

Smart growth warehouses people, it doesn't improve the housing supply per se because someone has to subsidize all the smart growth housing they are building. Usually its the private individual who unknowingly buys a house for his neighbor when the cost is shifted to the price he is paying for his home. And they don't even get to pick the person they are buying the house for, the government does. Don't you think that gives the government way too much power over what is supposed to be a free market for housing?

If people knew how much smart growth was really costing America, they would revolt!

We have a smart growth development going in, in Santa Cruz County that will be 300 apartments, 700 sq feet with no kitchen. They will share a communal kitchen.

This is right in line with the UNs biodiversity treaty. It says if they are to allow us to stay an industrialized society, only a billion people should be allowed on the planet. If we want to keep our friends and family alive, we have to revert to a peasant society-- no kitchens is very medieval, doncha think"
****
Posted by hedgetrimmer to pbrown
On News/Activism 02/04/2005 10:48:14 PM PST · 420 of 784


The Global Biodiversity treaty has already decided how many humans should be allowed to live on the planet.

1.An agricultural society - "in which most human beings are
peasants ... should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people..."

2.An industrialized world society - "at the North American standard of living ... would be 1 billion."

3.Semi-industrialized society - As the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.

[hedgetrimmer]

McPeak said, noting that along the proposed route cities are 60,000 units short of their fair share of housing.

What the heck is this woman talking about? What the heck happened to the free market? The state can't decide how many houses should be built and who should live in them and who should pay for them, unless you are talking about the Soviet Union, but the USSR is supposed to be dead, isn't it?

[hedgetrimmer]

Sprawl is caused by the obscene housing prices in California metro areas is caused by government controlling the housing market through smart growth, shifting the cost of buying "affordable housing" to the price an individual pays for his home, so-called growth limits that force infill development and uncomfortable densities in industrial and business districts, the list goes on and on.

Go ahead and move to texas, but if your town ever gets a "visioning team" to tell you how to "preserve your open space" you will lose your town too.

[DoughtyOne]

You've heard of governor Moonbeam. If Schwarzenegger keeps it up, he's going to be known as governor Lowbeam.