OC Blog

Orange County Republican Party NEUTRAL on Measure M

The first results are in from "Endorsement Night" at the Republican Central Committee, and the Orange County Republican Party has decided to stay neutral on Measure M.

As you know, the original recommendation from the Committee was to oppose Measure M.

However, in the vote tonight, the vote to adopt this position failed 23 to 42, far, far short of the two-thirds vote needed to adopt the committee recommendation.

Peter Godfrey, Councilman and Assemblyman-elect Mike Duvall, and Assemblyman Tod Spitzer spoke in favor of the party staying out of the fight, with Todd Spitzer speaking particularly eloquently about how Measure M frees OC Republican legislators from having to beg for crumbs from Sacramento.

Jeff

The Plan To Renew Measure M Is A Good Plan

Sunday I read Steve Greenhut’s editorial about the renewal of Measure M. I greatly admire Steve Greenhut. But I don’t agree with his editorial.

But Steve has a different job to do than I do. Steve can sit as an observer and express his point of view. He can articulate his standard of a “perfect” Measure M renewal. But our job, that of elected officials and in fact the voters of this county, must consider if we need to improve roads, highways and transit options, and how to pay for them. Steve can share his objections to our efforts at the OCTA, but I don’t hear that he completely disagrees with the idea and the importance of renewing Measure M.

I think that is progress! But I would also like to share why this is the best plan and why voters should approve this renewal effort this November.

First off, if you are a contrarian and oppose any funding for transportation from a sales tax, then just say so. You then have two choices, either find the money somewhere else or declare to all that no significant transportation improvements need to be made in the next two or three decades.

As I am not an acolyte of Jerry Brown and Adriana Gianturco, I have decided that we do need to invest in our infrastructure. And transportation is the most significant part of those infrastructure improvements.

I, too, wish that there were other, “easier” pots of gold to fund these improvements, like state or federal dollars, but there are not, at least not to the degree that this local sales tax provides. As a matter of fact, Proposition 1B on the ballot this fall is the largest transportation bond in the history of this country, and it will only bring a few hundreds of millions to Orange County highways, as opposed to over $4.5 billion for freeways from the renewed Measure M.

$200 million towards the improvements of the 91 freeway in the bonds is a far cry from the $1.6 billion from the Measure M renewal.

I believe that continuing the existing sales tax for transportation is the right thing to do. You will have to come to that conclusion for yourself. But if you do, then you must accept that we need to get a 2/3^rd vote of the Orange County electorate to do that.

And that is the task that the OCTA 2020 Committee set out to accomplish: the best and most complete Measure M renewal that could get a 2/3^rds vote of OC voters.

When discussing renewing Measure M, the question is often asked, is perfect the enemy of the good?

Well, I don’t quite buy that. I might have my version of a perfect measure. But that will not be the same as the “perfect” plan offered by Steve Greenhut, Supervisor Bill Campbell, Supervisor Chris Norby or nearly anyone else. We each have a “perfect”, most desired plan. But come on, we need the best plan where 2/3^rds of the Orange County voters can agree.

We need to accept the fact that in this Republican county, there are a lot of Democrats. Actually there are more Democrats than in any other county in this state, other than Los Angeles County. We need Democrat votes.

In this county there are many who have significant environmental interests. There are many voters who have significant business concerns. There are many who are members of and vote with unions. We need most of their votes too.

And we have many in this county who support transit. As a matter of fact, there are more voters in Orange County (according to a recent poll) who believe transit improvements are more important than freeway improvements to the long term transportation future for Orange County residents. And we need their votes as well.

If you accept the need for a Measure M renewal, then you need to accept that we need a broad coalition to pass this measure.

The proposed funding from the renewed Measure M will be spent this way: 43% for highway improvements, 32% to cities for streets and roads (with a majority of these dollars being given on a per capita basis) and 25% to transit (with the majority of funding going to senior bus discounts and expansion of the Metrolink system.)

This is the same formula, with just some minor tweaking, that was used under the original Measure M. The original Measure M brought about widening and improvements on every freeway in Orange County, and the renewed Measure M would do the same again.

Is it perfect? No. Is it my personal most “perfect” plan? No. But it is fair and it has a broad base of support and the opportunity to garner 2/3^rds support among voters.

Every member of the OCTA 2020 committee voted for this plan. Every member of the OCTA board of directors voted for this plan. Every member of the OC Board of Supervisors voted for this plan. And when presented to every OC city council, 166 council members out of 170 council members who voted, supported this plan.

Each and every one of these officials could make a change to make this plan more “perfect” to their personal desires. But each one of these officials knows that this is not intended on being a “personal” plan, but a countywide measure to benefit every member of the county.

Nothing is perfect. But planning for the future of  Orange County is necessary.

Project S: A Billion Dollar Blank Check

A centerpiece of the Measure M renewal plan is the Citizen’s Oversight Committee, tasked to ensure that funds are spent as promised in the accompanying expenditure plan. That feature was also part of the 1991 measure M, and evidently worked; at least I know of no claim that the funds were spent other than as promised.

But what if the plan did not specify how the funds were to be spent. Then “oversight” would be meaningless. Arguably, that is the case for “Project S” in the present Measure M Renewal.

Project S is described as “a competitive program for local jurisdictions to broaden the reach of the rail system to other activity centers and communities”. A billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) are allocated to this program.

The projects are to be judged and selected on a list of 11 criteria ranging from Traffic congestion relief, to Cost Effectiveness and a Long Term Operating Plan:

“These connections may include a variety of transit technologies such as conventional bus, bus rapid transit, or high capacity rail transit systems as long as they can be fully integrated and provide a seamless transition for the users”.

“No single project may be awarded all the funds under this project.”

The problem is, those are very broad, subjective criteria. For example consider the ill-fated CenterLine Light Rail System. It had been found and OCTA knew as long ago as the 1999 CenterLine EIR that it would actually make overall mobility and congestion worse due to the adverse impacts of its exclusive guideway on street traffic exceeding its beneficial ridership. Nevertheless CenterLine light rail continued to be advocated and represented to OC and to FTA as a cost effective mobility improvement up until the time of its defunding by FTA in November 2004 on the basis of “questionable” and “unacceptable” travel time and cost effectiveness estimates and subsequent “put-on-hold” action by the OCTA board in February 2005.

The “no single project” criterion could be simply resolved by minimal cooperation between two adjacent cities.

So there is little doubt that even projects so counterproductive and wasteful as CenterLine could be said to fit the criteria for Project S.

Does it make any sense to trust the same persons that would knowingly allow, supervise, and advocate such a counterproductive boondoggle with a billion dollar blank check?

And The Measure M Ballot Argument Signers Are...

The OC Business Council Indicator just came across the transom with this Measure M update (OCBC is on of the leading supporters for renewal of Measure M):

Measure M Update
The committee to renew Measure M recently filed a ballot argument to support the half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements in Orange County. Endorsers include: Thomas V. McKernan, President and CEO of the Automobile Club of Southern California; Reed Royalty, President of the Orange County Taxpayers Association; Marian Bergeson, Chair of the California Transportation Commission and former Orange County Senator; Denise Welch of the Orange County Chapter, American Association of Retired Persons; and Gary Brown of Orange County Coastkeepers. The committee will await to hear any opposition if any and will promptly respond to the arguments. Renewing Measure M is vital to keep up with Orange County's growing population.

A Poke in the Eye for Measure M

A must read for the OCTA Board, CEO Art Leahy and anyone pondering a generation's worth of renewal for this half-cent sales tax in the OCR's Orange Grove guest column this a.m. from Tustin engineer Jack Mallinckrodt: Measure M, as in miscalculation.

As we've said often enough in here, M as in money needs to go for P as in pavement.  Jack's got the numbers to support his assertion that one-quarter of a renewed Measure M should NOT be wasted on existing forms of mass transit (emphasis ours):

Our present congestion, nearly the worst in the nation, is a direct result of our road capacity shortfall, 56% as compared to the median congested US urban area. In the face of that huge shortfall the proposed plan affords a meager 7% increase in regional capacity, nowhere near enough to even keep up with the 39% OCTA projected traffic growth much less the existing shortfall. The OCTA plan proposes to spend about 11 billion. But the expenditure specification is grossly inefficient. The 1990 measure M built more than 278 lane-miles of new freeway capacity. With four times the anticipated revenue, the new plan proposes to build only 134 new lane-miles. That's eight times less bang-for-the-buck.

Why take 25% of M away from roadway?  OCTA's award-winning bus system is built out, yet the OCTA continues to force tweaks of it on us like Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).  Most of BRT's proposed routings duplicate the existing bus system -- there's no new frontier here, this bus system expansion, placing even more congestion on our existing roadways, is an overkill -- the "B" in BRT really means BLOAT.  The long-desired notion of traffic signal synchronization, a popular idea among many of the cities, continues to go nowhere with the Authority, when its benefit might outweigh any expanded and unjustified bus service -- BRT is actually the red-headed stepchild of the CenterLine and first requires signal synchronization to even work properly.

Jack also takes on one of our other favorite targets -- car pool lanes --  as the wastes of money these soccer mom segregators actually are with their "proportionately unreasonable expenditures on architecturally magnificent but low benefit HOV lane flyover connectors which cost ten times more per lane-mile."  We'll again point out that the badly needed widening of the 22 Freeway has only one new complete lane running from end-to-end -- an HOV lane, and there's NO funding in this project to build the unfortunately necessary flyovers to connect it to the 405, 5, 57 and 55 -- instead, it dumps its HOV traffic back into the lanes the rest of us are forced to use at three major choke points, including the Crush.

As a mass transit system, we can expect Metrolink to go no further in the County -- there's simply no place to expand and lay more track.  It's hardly the backbone the OCTA wishes we thought it was, and as we've previously written, it sucks an inordinately high subsidy (+$5 per ride) from some government account somewhere just to stay in business for its limited clientele.  Any notion of track expansion is ludicrous, and Huntington Beach's idea voiced at yesterday's OCTA meeting of using an railroad right-of-way from Stanton to almost reach their beach is simply ludicrous.  Time to put a fork in Metrolink -- it's done, and lacking any better ideas, M money is better spent on more asphalt and cement, the only commodity that the OCTA has a continuing shortage of.

We're never seen it said better -- Mallinckrodt's conclusion:

Under the proposed plan, county traffic congestion delays in 2030 are projected by OCTA to double as compared to present. That's worse traffic than ever experienced anywhere in the United States. We can and we must do much better than that.  This may well be our last chance for a generation. We had better get it right. Reject this plan for defeat, and insist that next year OCTA put forth a truly effective Measure M Extension plan for success, focused on systems and measures that have been proven to work.

Who'll Argue Against Measure M?

Apparently there is some wrangling going on over which anti-Measure M argument will be included in the sample ballot.

Bill Ward of Drivers for Highway Safety filed an anti-M ballot argument late Friday afternoon. Ward is one of five signers, who also include Garden Grove Councilman Mark Leyes, former Costa mesa Councilwoman Sandy Genis (who also signed the ballot argument against the original Measure M) and Larry Gilbert.

Standing directly behind Ward in line at the OC Registrar's was Jack Mallinckrodt (writer of today's anti-Measure M renewal op-ed in today's OCR), who minutes later also filed an anti-M renewal ballot argument. It also has five signers, I believe, although I don't know who they are.

So who's argument will make the sample ballot?

Here's what the California Elections Code section 9166 has to say:

9166.  If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any county measure is submitted to the county elections official within the time prescribed, the county elections official shall select one of the arguments in favor and one of the arguments against the measure for printing and distribution to the voters.  In selecting the argument the county elections official shall give preference and priority in the order named to the arguments of the following:

(a) The board of supervisors, or member or members of the board authorized by the board.

(b) The individual voter, or bona fide association of citizens, or combination of voters and associations, who are the bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure.

(c) Bona fide associations of citizens.

(d) Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.

Gee, that clears things up.

The Registrar is trying to hash this out and the County Counsel is apparently involved now, as well, trying to divine whether this section gives any clear guidance as to which ballot argument gets the nod. All things being equal, I think it would go to the argument that not only comes closest to meeting the above criteria but which was filed first.

We shall see.

Jeff Flint, John Lewis And Measure M

I saw this item in Martin Wisckol's Buzz column this morning:

Last year's battle over Proposition 172 funds found consultant Jeff Flint guiding county firefighters' effort to get some of that sales tax money and former Sen.John Lewis leading the county's campaign to keep the money flowing primarily to the Sheriff's Department.

In November, voters will decide whether to continue a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation projects. Flint is lead consultant on that and the former state senator for whom he once served as chief of staff – Lewis – is working for him.

Actually, the role reversal goes further. When John was elected to the state Senate in 1991, Jeff served as his first district director (although we didn't use that title in legislative D.O.s back then).

OCTA can be incredibly tone-deaf politically. With the notable exception of Monte Ward, the senior OCTA staff hasn't shown much grasp of Orange County's political dynamics or the fact that OC is a conservative county.

This is more than made up for in a Measure M renewal campaign team composed of Jeff Flint, John Lewis and Matt Holder. For starters, they are thinking political conservatives and have been active in the conservative movement for many years (in John Lewis' case, since the late 1960s) -- so they understand the conservative OC voter mind. That is crucial, since the effort to renew Measure M will be won or lost among conservative voters.

Just as importantly, they are committed conservatives who possess top-shelf campaign skills and experience  (the former often lack the latter). They understand Orange County and know how to win. I still think acheiving the two-thirds majority necessary for Measure M's renewal is a tall mountain to climb, but but if any consultant team can do it, it's this one.

M's Officially on the Ballot

To no one's surprise, Measure M is back and approved for the November ballot per Norberto Santana's afternoon post on the Register's website: Measure M transportation tax goes back on the ballot.  This half-cent sales tax extension is for 30 years, this time, not 20.  Norberto reports the vote was unanimous (was Campbell there?) -- of course, all five Supervisors are also OCTA Board members, with Mr. Campbell having been their last Chairman.

It seems too that a reasonable amount of whining -- on the Register's part, Larry Gilbert's and ours -- also caused some level of sensibility in how M is going to be marketed.  Santana writes, emphasis ours,

Supporters of the initiative are already fundraising to garner campaign funds to advocate on its behalf. The Committee to Renew Measure M is expected to disclose its first fundraising tallies next week.  By law, no public funds can be used to campaign for such ballot measures, although entities such as the Orange County Transportation Authority has maintained many advertisements touting the advantages of Measure M dollars in the past.  Despite the broad support for the road building tax, organizers acknowledge they face a strenuous campaign because of the two-thirds vote need to renew the levy. The original Measure M passed in 1990 with 54 percent.

Whether or not M deserves renewal IS UP TO US -- and not an OCTA advertising campaign which is clearly inappropriate and unlawful.  If it hasn't already happened, it's time for the signs to come down and the bus wraps to be used for real ad revenue generation as they were intended.  Measure M needs renewal on its own merits and past accomplishments (like all those car pool lanes), and needn't be shoved up our exit ramps.

We're going to be very curious about the composition of any "Committee to Renew" and expect that such a grand constituency will include a lot of OCTA vendors like Parsons Brinckerhoff.  They need identification, with concise reporting of the amount of money they're kicking in to such an effort.

UPDATE -- From the LA Times story this morning,

On Monday, the Orange County Transportation Authority approved the plan, which has won support from the Automobile Club of Southern California, the Orange County League of Cities and environmental groups. So far it has drawn no opposition.  Calling itself the Committee to Renew Measure M, the coalition has formed a political action committee and plans to raise campaign money.  Organizers said the campaign would include town hall meetings, direct mail and possibly radio and television spots.

The Orange County Business Council also supports M; in fact, it was their Stan Oftale who gave the OCTA a thumbs up "audit" (no conflict there, Oftale is a past OCTA Chairman).

We'd like to hear from Reed Royalty and the OC Taxpayers Association on this.  (See Comments).

UPDATE -- Coverage from CBS and AP: Board Places Transportation Tax Measure On Ballot.  In part from Todd Spitzer on M's big 2/3rds hurdle,

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, said the measure will need two-thirds voter approval to pass.  "Obviously, that's a very significant burden to obtain," Spitzer said. "And so it's absolutely incumbent on OCTA and those who support what we’re doing to show the proper stewardship of the Measure M dollars in its first generation, which we're almost concluding, and then explain to the voters how the money is going to be appropriately spent in the future.  "If we wait for the state of California to solve the transportation situation and address mobility issues, we'll be waiting forever," he added. "If we relied on the state we'd be in in absolute gridlock."

Wanted: Lobbyist Help with Measure M Funding in Orange County

That is the headline from this Craig's List posting, forwarded to me by faithful reader and fellow blogger Recycled Cholo:

Reply to: hopperbus@hotmail.com
Date: 2006-06-09, 1:15PM PDT

Hello

The O.C. Hopper is the only Newport Beach City Approved Transporation Service with permits of its kind. Our original permit allowed us the hours from 6pm to 2:30 am. Our permit has been expanded from 7am to 2:30 am. However, four months ago, two other investors, Sabrina Dagostino and David muller wanted to expand The O.C. Hopper with myself and my father to all day, thus creating The O.C. CRuiser for day and The O.C. Hopper for the night. My father and I had purchased 4 new buses for The O.C. Cruiser as well as designed the new look, "The Woody Look." My father and I had been working on the new comapny for about three months all day without pay. On May 5, 2006, Sabrina Dagostion and David Muller decided out of the blue they no longer and wanted us involved and stole all our ideas. We found out that they were meeting with city councilmen, Keith Curry, behind our back. There whole purpose is to try and get the Measure M Funding from the city. My father and I beleive we have every right to that funding as well. We are look for some one to lobby the city for us and get behind our company. If you can offer your services, it would be greatly appreciated. Please email back.

Thank you,
Kaylen Morrison

As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating."

Getting Ready To Rumble On Measure M

From today's OC Business Council Indicator E-Update:

A political action committee to Renew Measure M is in the formative stages, if you would like to get involved in shaping Orange County's transportation future, call Tiffany at Schubert Flint Public Affairs (714) 774 5460 or Stan Oftelie at the OCBC (949) 794 7213.

Clearly, all the organizational muscle and money will be behind the Renew Measure M effort -- and they'll need it in order to achieve the 2/3 majority necessary for renewal. With the possible exception of OC Supervisor-elect John Moorlach, I don't think there is a single high-profile OC political leader who will oppose the renewal of M as it is written.