We've all heard the classic stories about the one-light towns out there that keep the books balanced by keeping the police busy writing tickets.
We don't usually think of these rural towns as models of a transparent and progressive administration. That's why we shouldn't adopt these kinds of "gotcha" revenue-generating tactics here in San Francisco by turning our entire city into a parking trap.
Unfortunately, just this past week the San Francisco's Municipal Transit Authority announced its plans to instruct our already hard-working traffic officers to increase the number of parking tickets they issue. The revenue from parking tickets - which MTA had projected to be right around $99 million - has fallen short. So now they are setting higher quotas to raise additional revenue.
We certainly do need more revenue in San Francisco. And one of the city agencies that needs additional funding the most is the Municipal Railway. But we need to make sure this new revenue is generated in a way that is fair to all and in a fashion that takes into account a person's ability to pay.
What's wrong with the new MTA parking ticket quotas is that they are the exact opposite - they are essentially a tax lottery, with the unlucky paying more than the lucky. They are unfair, with taxpayers fortunate enough to own garages (usually the wealthier homeowners) less affected than those who do not (usually the less-wealthy renters). And at their core, they are regressive, with the very poor paying just as much as the very rich.
As Assessor-Recorder in San Francisco, my job is to make sure we have a fair property tax system. And I have not been shy about taking on some powerful players - like big banks and other politically connected institutions when I thought they were not paying what they owed. Along with a number of others I have also helped form Close the Loophole - a statewide organization dedicated to reforming Proposition 13 so that commercial property owners start to pay their fair share.
These new revenue sources have several important things in common - they take into account the ability to pay and they are assessed in a predictable fashion. Property taxes, assessed fairly, are progressive in the truest sense because the more expensive the property the higher the revenue generated. And when a person buys or transfers property, they can predict what taxes they owe.
San Francisco has been seeing a healthy debate recently about progressive values. Let's extend this debate to discussing the many problems with regressive and random revenue generation.
We already have some of the nation's most expensive tickets. And pity to the person who has his or her car towed - the fees can quickly soar to $500 and above. I have been deeply involved in the movement to fight unfair foreclosures, and I know that $500 for many families is the difference between staying in their homes and eviction.
What has crept into this debate is some sense that people are to "blame" for driving and if they get tickets, then they simply should give up their cars or be more careful.
Certainly, we do not want to tolerate violations of our parking laws. And we do want to continue to pursue a city policy that draws people out of their cars with better public transit, smarter planning and walkable and bikeable streets. But enforcement should be based on safety - not new revenue. And, we need to understand that given the state of our Municipal Railway right now, some people simply must drive.
The parent with two kids at two different schools is going to have trouble on a bicycle. People with mobility issues sometimes need to drive. And most of us know others who have no other real choice - like the janitor who reports to work at 7:00PM. These San Franciscans deserve a tax system that is fair and progressive - not a random lottery that targets them to raise revenue.
Let's certainly raise more revenue. But let's do it in a way that reflects our progressive values - with a progressive tax system.
You can make the difference in two clicks. First, sign my petition to tell City Hall to tear up the unfair ticket plan. And second, join the movement I have been leading for nearly two years called Close the Loophole and let's fix what's broken in Proposition 13 and bring real solutions to San Francisco.
Measure R on the Los Angeles ballot would impose a 1/2 cent sales tax on county residents to pay for increased transit lines and services. This couldn't come at a more crucial time, as the MTA is poised to become a casualty of the financial crisis:
The next potential victims of the nation's credit crunch: nearly 1.5 million people who ride buses and trains each weekday in Los Angeles County. Transit officials say riders could soon be facing serious service cuts.
That's because the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority might have to quickly come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to pay investors under terms of deals it made involving American International Group, the troubled financial and insurance giant.
"I've lost a lot of sleep over this," said Terry Matsumoto, the chief financial service officer and treasurer for the MTA. He said it was "absolutely" certain the agency would have to cut service if the deals sour.
The state is already cutting transit funding in the budget, and sales tax revenues, which already partially fund the MTA, are seizing up, as the economy slows and job loss increases (fortunately unemployment flattened out in September, albeit at 7.7%).
This is not the time for cutbacks in service at the MTA. Ridership is at record highs, as people both avoid still-high gas prices (historically speaking) and more attention is paid individually to greenhouse gas emissions. The Air Resources Board just released their final draft for compliance with AB32, and I can't see how they could possibly reach their goals for greenhouse gas emission cuts without an increase in transit. That includes passing high-speed rail, of course, but obviously the existing transit structures, can't be pulled back at this important time.
Speaker Bass has been calling for the Governor to prioritize a federal stimulus package and has also been making noises about a state-based stimulus as well. That has to include protections for transit concerns like the MTA, and increased funding flowing to them as well. It's a job creation engine, an economic sustainability engine, and an engine to a better environment.
We can all do our part in Los Angeles County by passing Measure R as well.
One of the newer entries into the California right-wing blogosphere is Fox and Hounds Daily, a project of the Small Business Action Committee and its head, Joel Fox. Fox was the longtime head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which helps explain Fox's absurd anti-tax screed about various local taxes on the LA ballot.
Whenever right-wingers start expressing concern about how taxes will impact working people, those working Californians should immediately be skeptical. Since when have conservatives expressed genuine concern for the needs of the poor, or the shrinking middle class? Conservatives have long used taxes to attain populist credibility with working Californians but a close examination of Fox's article shows that this is based on a lie. The right-wing anti-tax movement is directly responsible for the dire straits working Californians find themselves in today, and the proposals Fox criticizes would do much to help save them money.
This is the core point that Democrats and progressives need to be repeatedly hitting - taxes save you money. Take for example the proposed LA Metro sales tax that Fox uses as a prime target:
The MTA wants a ½-cent sales tax hike for thirty years to cover various transportation projects. When implemented (if passed), L.A.'s sales tax will be 8.75%. That assumes there will be no state sales tax increase that may come along in a state budget deal. If that happens, along with a successful MTA sales tax increase, Los Angeles residents will be looking at a sales tax over 9%.
Nowhere in the article does Fox mention what the tax would be used for. It's a typical disinformation move - complain about higher taxes but fail to explain what it would provide. As gas prices soared, working Californians' wallets were squeezed, perhaps nowhere moreso than in Los Angeles County, which has a growing mass transit system but remains overly reliant on automobiles for commuting.
The LACMTA proposal would address that by providing billions for desperately needed mass transit projects, whether it's the Subway to the Sea, the Foothill Extension of the Gold Line, or some other project. Mass transit saves people money. Real money. That's why ridership on the LACMTA's rail lines soared this year. Southern Californians are desperate for mass transit options so that they can save money. Why does Fox want to deny them that option?
Yesterday, the L.A. County Metro Board voted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors place on the ballot a half-cent sales tax increase to fund transportation projects. The vote was nearly unanimous, with only Antonovitch and Fasana opposed. Gloria Molina abstained, but was unhappy with the project specifications because it didn't contain "equity" language guaranteeing that expenditures would be based on population.
Of course, nothing will come of it unless AB2321 gets through Senate Appropriations.
But assuming that happens, this means that L.A. County voters will get the chance to get freeway expansion, a subway to the Westside, a Gold Line extension to Claremont, light rail along Exposition Blvd, expansion of the Green Line to LAX, and a whole host of other expansions, all for an extra $1 of sales tax on every $200 worth of purchases.
I have a couple of observations on this below the fold.
Last week the Assembly passed AB2321, which would put before Los Angeles County voters a ballot proposition for an increase in the sales tax in Los Angeles County from 8.25% to 8.75% (an increase of only 50 cents per $100 spent) to pay for subway expansion projects, including expanding the purple line to Santa Monica and the green line to LAX.
The bill was passed by my Assemblymember, Mike Feuer, and I'm really proud of him for pushing it through. Nevertheless, there are a couple of hurdles, beyond the fact that it will require a 2/3 majority of L.A. County voters to pass (not inconceivable, but still not easy). Most notably:
1. Feuer's office still must find a way to ensure that the bill applies to this year's election. An urgency clause that would have done that was dropped from the bill because of a lack of Republican support. The word "tax" makes GOP lawmakers nervous, particularly in an election year.
2. The MTA Board will vote at its June 26 meeting whether to ask the Board of Supervisors to vote to put the sales tax hike on the November ballot -- in other words, they're assuming the bill will eventually pass the Legislature. Confusing? Think of it this way: The five supes have a lot of juice on this issue because they're also members of the MTA Board!
Here's what I would do: Contact the MTA and ask them to ask the Supes to put this before the voters of L.A. County.
I gotta tell you--I would pay a lot more than 50 cents per every $100 if it meant I could get a subway to UCLA, Santa Monica, and especially LAX. It's finally time for Metro to help us mid-city and Westside LA dwellers get our cars on the road only when we need them.
P.S. need any evidence that we can get a 2/3 majority here? Just look at this poll result from LA Curbed.
The Los Angeles Times published a truly remarkable article today: "MTA Fears A Bottleneck At OC Line."
Basically, Metropolitan Transportation Authority is complaining the Orange County Transportation Authority's ongoing program of freeway widening is making MTA look bad. OCTA's freeway-centered investment collides with MTA's lightrail-centered priorities at the LA-OC county line in the form of traffic bottlenecks. It's a vivid illustration of the different outcomes of the two agencies priorities.
OCTA has funneled its money into transportation modes the vast majority of people actually use: freeway and roads. As a result, our freeways move faster than those in Los Angeles. The MTA, by contrast, has prioritized its money into modes of public transit that far fewer people use, i.e. light rail. Or as OCTA Director Jerry Amante put it:
"We build lanes, not trains."
And we're supposed to be proud of that? OK, so widened freeways may be useful in relieving traffic in the short-term. As long as we have all these cars on the road, we have to have something for them to drive on. But really, wouldn't some long-term solutions also help here?
Follow me after the flip for more as I explain why OCTA shouldn't exactly be gloating over this...
