Last week, David Dreier sent a letter to residents in his district. It was signed by nine "Democrats for Dreier" announcing their support of his re-election campaign, because he is a "different kind of leader" who is a passionate advocate for the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire.
The letter was signed by the following 9 Democrats:
Paul Eaton, Mayor of Montclair
Roberto Campos, small businessman, Glendora/Upland
Karen Davis, Mayor of Glendora
Mary Ann Lutz, Monrovia Councilmember
Kurt Zimmerman, Mayor of Sierra Madre
Joe Garcia, Monrovia Councilmember
Anthony Fellow, Director, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Arcadia
Dorrie Bryan, HR Manager, Rancho Cucamonga
Eugene Sun, San Marino Councilmember
The questions arose almost as soon as the letter was sent. On the flip...
Legislative leaders are drafting a complicated scheme to help close the state's massive deficit by raiding funds voters have set aside for transportation and local government services, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday, adding that it probably would force a state sales tax hike....
The legislative plan would balance the state budget with the help of $1.1 billion voters set aside for transportation projects and at least $1.4 billion earmarked for local governments under Proposition 1A, which was approved in 2004, Schwarzenegger said. State law requires that the money be paid back -- at a steep interest rate -- in three years.
To say this would be a bad idea is an understatement, and not only because it relies on a very bad form of borrowing to balance the budget. No, it is flawed because it would make the state's economy much worse. This plan is being floated to stave off a cash crisis in August, but is that crisis worse than cutting buses and trains from mass transit? At a time when Californians are flocking to transit to avoid gas prices we need to be increasing service, not cutting it and thereby turning away from a crucial opportunity to shift our state in a more sustainable direction. And of course public transit cuts will worsen the strain on working families.
The impact on local government is even more damaging. By raiding their funds there will be mass layoffs in cities across the state - libraries, street maintenance, permit approvals. Firefighting would also be hit, as during the last budget crisis when many cities balanced their budgets by cutting back on fire department staffing. Surely the fires in our state right now would suggest the risk of this approach.
Dems might respond that they have little choice because of Republican obstinacy on taxes. But that is absurd. Democrats have done almost nothing to sell their budget plan, which was agreed to rather late in the process. They haven't done the public work to explain why the budget cannot be closed via cuts. And make no mistake - raiding transit and local governments IS a budget that emphasizes cuts. It gives Republicans everything they want with little in return.
Republicans claim they don't negotiate in public but we all know that's untrue. Californians perfectly well understand what their stand is - no new taxes. What have Democrats responded with?
Democrats should not embrace this plan. All it will accomplish is increased distrust of the Legislature - if possible - and sour voters on Democrats due to their leadership failure. Dems will have difficulty generating the public support necessary for long-term fixes if they agree to a plan which will cause confidence in government to plummet. This will only hurt Democrats over the long-term and they would be smart to take a step back and consider what they're doing.
[Update] I wrote this in a panel here at Netroots Nation on building progressive activism to help the "middle class" that includes our own Juls Rosen and David Sirota. The panelists are making brilliant points about how tax reform is the key to addressing the collapsing middle class - and how the right has effectively used taxes to pass themselves off as populist. People want tax fairness. Democrats need to be forced to take a stand on taxes. California Dems are once again looking to punt and are going to hurt working Californians in the process.
When you drive along Highway 101 near Santa Barbara, or Highway 1 in Huntington Beach, it's hard to miss the many oil rigs on the ocean's horizon. They are relics of a bygone age - not just the 1960s, when they were constructed, but an age in which California believed that cheap oil would always be plentiful and available. We built an entire infrastructure around that and neglected trains, walkable neighborhoods, and lagged behind the rest of the world in developing solar and wind power.
Now the consequences of that misguided belief in the permanence of cheap oil have become clear. Gas prices are nearing $5, causing economic distress and sending Californians flocking to mass transit. For his part Barack Obama is proposing massive new investments in sustainable energy and rail infrastructure.
It's obvious that Republicans see opportunity in high gas prices to roll back sound environmental policies, such as the offshore ban. But for what gain? Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would take 10 years to deliver oil to American pumps and would only meet about 4-6 months of US domestic demand. California's offshore oil pools would probably not produce much more than that.
Like McCain's gas tax holiday, offshore drilling is a gimmick designed to avoid the necessary fixes. Americans need to understand that gas prices will never come back down, and that cheap oil is a thing of the past. It's not something we have a right to - it's something we had for a few decades, but now it is over.
Republicans don't have a solution to high oil prices. Drilling in ANWR and off our coast would not ameliorate prices now, and wouldn't do so in 10 years - the rate of decline in North Sea and Mexican oil exports will far outweigh the new drills and rising global demand will continue to drive up prices.
Democrats would do well to follow Obama's lead and firmly reject McCain's drilling plan. It's time we accepted the fact that cheap oil is a thing of the past, instead of looking for more sources like a junkie desperately seeking another fix. We need to build a sustainable transportation infrastructure that will provide green jobs and economic development for the 21st century - instead of trying to string out the obsolete 20th century any longer.
The assumption the AR&BTA is using is that the tax cut would blow a $9 billion hole in the federal transportation budget. Based on FY 07-08 expenditures CA's share of that would be $664,406,924. The association then estimates that 23,107 jobs would be lost here in California - roughly equivalent to the proposed school layoffs - over the next three years.
No wonder then that local transportation agencies across the state are denouncing this foolish proposal. From Santa Cruz:
"It would deplete an already oversubscribed highway trust fund, making a bad situation worse," commission Executive Director George Dondero said. "We're trying to get the government to generate more money for transportation, not less."
Dondero said he didn't know how much the county could lose, just that "future projects would have to wait."
Critics of the gas-tax break, including Clinton opponent Barack Obama, say it would have little impact on consumers, saving the average driver an estimated $30 over the course of the summer, and instead create a $10 billion gap in the federal highway trust fund, used for highway construction and maintenance.
Calling the proposal an "election pandering" tactic, commissioner and county Supervisor Ellen Pirie said it would benefit oil companies.
"There will be a lot of harm in terms of infrastructure projects and maintenance people want taken care of," Pirie said. "It would be great if there were a way to reduce the price of gas. I know a lot of people are struggling with this, but I don't think [the tax break] is an effective way to do this."
Thanks to Daily Kos diarist Jimmy Crackcorn you can see just how much this pander will be worth to you with an online calculator. Plugging in my expected summer driving (75 mi per week) and car mileage (33 mpg) I get...$16!
Wow. A whopping $16. That's maybe a dollar a week. And at the low, low cost of 23,107 jobs in our state during a recession and stalled transportation projects that if completed would help drivers save on gas for years to come. Of course, the lost jobs have a ripple effect on both state budgets (lost income tax revenue, lost sales tax revenue) and the state economy.
The real solution is, as I explained at my high speed rail blog last night, investment in things like trains. Thank god someone in this race is talking about that:
The irony is with the gas prices what they are, we should be expanding rail service. One of the things I have been talking bout for awhile is high speed rail connecting all of these Midwest cities -- Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis. They are not that far away from each other. Because of how big of a hassle airlines are now. There are a lot of people if they had the choice, it takes you just about as much time if you had high speed rail to go the airport, park, take your shoes off.
This is something that we should be talking about a lot more. We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices. And it is a perfect time to start talk about why we don't have better rail service. We are the only advanced country in the world that doesn't have high speed rail. We just don't have it. And it works on the Northeast corridor. They would rather go from New York to Washington by train than they would by plane. It is a lot more reliable and it is a good way for us to start reducing how much gas we are using. It is a good story to tell.
That was Barack Obama, giving impromptu remarks to an Indiana couple a few days ago.
Former (and future?) governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown was waxing nostalgic about his days in the governor's mansion, driving the famous blue Plymouth ("it lasted 240,000 miles without an engine overhaul - now that was sustainability"), and suing Ronald Reagan over the governor's mansion.
But the core of his speech dealt with our climate crisis. Brown emphasized his administration's earlier efforts to encourage smart growth, urban density, walking, even trains. And he called for renewed action on this today. He conceptualized it as "elegant density" - get people out of their cars, build more walkable communities served by trains and other forms of mass transit, powered by solar energy, to not just deal with global warming, but to encourage a more sustainable California.
During the 1970s, Brown had tried to promote a similar agenda. He appointed a trains advocate as the head of Caltrans, promoted a solar energy program, and cut off funds for freeway construction projects, and establishing the Office of Planning and Research. He even promoted an ambitious Urban Strategy for California emphasizing density and limiting sprawl.
Prop 13's passage ended much of this as state government was starved of funds. But Prop 13 was about more than low taxes. It was the reaction of the lovers of suburban sprawl, of the 1950s model of California, against Brown's more forward-thinking model. As recently as 2001 arch-conservative Tom McClintock danced on the grave of Brown's sustainability strategy calling it:
a radical and retrograde ideology into California public policy that quite abruptly and permanently changed the state.
That radical ideology has been the central tenet of governance in California through four successive gubernatorial administrations, Democratic and Republican, to the present day. It was described by Jerry Brown as "the era of limits," punctuated by such new-age nonsense as the mantra, "small is beautiful." Suburban "sprawl" would be replaced with a new "urban strategy."
Republicans continue to make these arguments. They are bent on preserving the failed 1950s model of urban life at all costs. By doing so they have become a party of aristocracy. "Elegant density" isn't just an environmental and climate strategy - it's also necessary for the survival of California's working and middle classes in the 21st century. Republicans will fight against this, and so it is very good to hear Jerry Brown mounting a full-throated defense of sustainable living.
The rest of his speech is pure red meat - bashing the Bush Administration and its EPA ("those idiots"), denouncing them for the mortgage crisis, and calling for the repeal of NCLB. If he does have the governor's office in mind in 2010, this kind of playing to the base would make him an even more formidable opponent in the Democratic primary.
Plug In America, an electric car advocacy group, has been organizing a campaign around this week's California Air Resources Board (CARB) meeting, where the board will vote on a proposal to reduce the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) yearly requirement for automakers to just 150 through at least 2015. Currently the requirement is 25,000 ZEVs for the years 2012-2014.
Gov. Schwarzenegger, you showed true leadership when you signed the nation's first global warming law. You showed true leadership with your vow to "turn back the clock on pollution" through your Million Solar Roofs Plan, an initiative that is the equivalent of taking one million gasoline cars off the road.
Now, how about putting one million electric cars on the road?
Please continue to lead our state by asking the California Air Resources Board to strengthen their staff proposal and get more electric cars on the road.
As you prepare to take delivery of your electric Tesla, we ask you to support a stronger Zero Emission Vehicle Program that will help us all turn back the clock on pollution.
I especially like the reference to Arnold's order of a Tesla Roadster - their 2008 model is completely sold out and a waiting list is already in place for the 2009 models. This despite the car's base price of $98,000. Given the success of cars like the Toyota Prius it stands to reason that there is a broad market for ZEV cars in California, even among those who can't afford a hundred thousand dollar car. If it's good enough for Arnold, surely it's good enough for Californians.
CARB has long taken the lead in forcing automakers to improve mileage and emissions standards. Now, as the state works to implement its AB 32 goals, CARB needs to take a strong stand and drag these reluctant automakers into the 21st century. For their own good.
Plug In America is holding a rally in front of the CARB offices, tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 10:30, ahead of Thursday's CARB meeting. And on their website they've got contact info for both the governor and CARB.
Let's hope that their activism is a success. It is long past time for this state to get serious about ZEV transportation.
Kopp said the bond measure enjoys public support for the landmark project. As the bond reads now, 58 percent of Californians favor the bond and 32 percent oppose it, he said.
Now, we don't know any details of this poll other than what Kopp gave Judy Lin, the author of the Bee article. And those details matter. How many people were polled? What was the exact wording of the question asked of respondents? How many people said they were familiar with the high speed rail project? (If that number was above 40% I would be shocked.) All of that information is crucial to understanding this poll, and how seriously we ought to take it.
But for now, 58-32 is all we have to go on. And it is very encouraging. The rule of thumb for California ballot propositions is that the Yes position must be above 50% in the polls early on if it is to have a chance at passage. This is because most ballot props lose support as the election draws nearer. Negative campaigning is very effective, and as attacks on the proposition increase nearer the election, support ebbs. If you're well above 50% before those attacks begin, though, the chances are typically good that the proposition will pass.
According to some critics, this is not a good year to take HSR to the polls. The usual argument is that given the state's budget crisis, voters will not likely be willing to float $10 billion in bonds. I realize this is a valid concern, but I am confident we can pass this plan. Especially in November, when we are likely to see a very high turnout of progressive voters - the very folks who are most likely to get why HSR is such a good idea.
But to help ensure passage, the following points need to be driven home to California voters over the next 8 months:
HSR is necessary to our economic survival, in both the short term and definitely in the long-term. Californians need to see this as a necessary project that, if they voted to kill it, would cost them more than they'd save.
HSR is affordable - it won't break our state's debt ceiling, the system will likely generate a surplus as do all other HSR systems in the world, it's cheaper than expanding airports and freeways, and it will spur a lot of economic growth.
HSR is necessary for our transportation needs - this really depends on more people learning about peak oil, but perhaps $4 gas and fuel surcharges on flights will help get us part of the way there. Californians have to see that they cannot expect to drive and fly around the state for much longer. If they want to see mom and dad in Orange County at Christmas in 2020, they're going to need a high speed train.
HSR is necessary for our climate needs - it would eliminate 12.4 billion pounds per year of carbon emissions, equivalent to removing a million vehicles from the roads. If Californians really do take global warming seriously, they will see HSR as a compelling solution to the climate crisis.
Note the common theme: HSR is necessary. It isn't, as the Contra Costa Times' Capricious Commuter said, "an esoteric infrastructure project." It is vital to this state's future. If we are to win the vote this fall, we are going to have to make sure Californians understand that fact.
As any of us who have lived in the area realize, rents are nearly unaffordable in the urban center of LA - the place where it's easiest to live without a car. Lazarus opens his column with the story of a single mother who makes $38K as an admin assistant and who can only afford a rental way out in Lancaster. This is a familiar story to me - I know a LOT of Californians who make a similar commute. And as oil prices soar toward $4/gal, it is becoming more difficult for working Californians to get around.
For the last few decades, Californians have been told the solution is more of the same - more sprawl, more freeways, more commuting. The obvious solution - to build more housing in the urban core - is opposed by those who believe, as a USC professor lamented in Lazarus' column, "density is a four-letter word."
Lazarus helps explain why the anti-density movement is blocking what I described last summer as the redefinition of the California Dream for the 21st century - that unless we invest in greater urban density, we will inscribe inequality permanently on the urban landscape.
Back in November I wrote about Santa Cruz County's "wrong way" proposal to pass a tax measure to spend $600 million on widening the Highway 1 freeway but would have delivered virtually nothing for local passenger rail, despite the fact that the infrastructure to provide rail already exists.
Happily, wiser heads appear to have prevailed. The county's Regional Transportation Commission voted to kill the plan yesterday, meaning it won't go to the ballot in November as originally intended. Erosion of public support was cited as the reason for the decision. The county's Business Council withdrew its support and, more importantly, its promise to fund the plan's campaign; bicycle and transit supporters objected to the inadequate rail funding; the Sierra Club criticized the road's effect on climate change; and local Republicans demanded that the freeway widening alone be funded.
I predicted that the plan would have failed at the ballot box, and I'm not surprised that it didn't even make it that far. The tide is beginning to turn against using freeways to solve our transportation problems. Last November Seattle voters rejected a plan that would have added 160 miles of new freeway lanes, even though they have some of the nation's worst traffic (outside of California, of course). And this week the Coastal Commission rejected a toll road through San Onofre State Beach, rightly choosing to protect the environment over continuing our outdated reliance on highway transportation.
By refusing to waste precious tax dollars on freeway lanes, Santa Cruz County has taken the first step toward solving its transportation issues in a sustainable and responsible way. This gives county leaders and activists time to educate the public about the need for passenger rail, and come back to voters in a few years with a plan that will actually provide for the county's needs, instead of foolishly trying to pretend that the methods of the 20th century can continue.
Hopefully we in Monterey County will follow Santa Cruz' lead - transportation officials here are proposing a similar roads-focused tax plan, having stripped $90 million to bring Caltrain to Salinas. Public hearings are going on next week, so if you're in Monterey County, speak out in favor of sustainable transportation, and against sticking our heads in the sand on climate change and peak oil!
As the Bush administration's environmental team returns from reluctantly endorsing a "road map" for future international climate negotiations, and prepares for a critical regulatory decision on concrete action here at home being initiated by California and other states, the expectations remain somewhat dimmed. While the Washington Post editorial board reviews the administration's history of foot-dragging and other negative machinations regarding California's key waiver request, reporter Juliet Eilperin's coverage of Bali includes one critical observation on its continued difficulty with strong emissions-reduction targets:
While the Bush administration made some concessions, it also scored a key victory by eliminating explicit language calling on industrialized countries to cut their emissions 25 to 40 percent, compared to 1990 levels, by 2020, a high priority for the European Union. Eventually the Europeans relented, settling for a footnote in the document's preamble that refers to a section in the 2007 scientific report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That section suggests that cuts that deep will be required to keep Earth's average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels.
There are several important points to take away from this telling footnote. First and foremost is the reality that for an administration recently caught down-playing science in its climate-related efforts-- including the process by which it formulated the position on mandatory carbon limits that was knocked down in Mass v. EPA-- deliberately relegating a scientific finding by a group of Nobel laureates isn't exactly a confidence-booster. (Seriously, if you haven't read through Rep. Waxman's report already, do so!)
But even more important is the simple observation, as conveyed at Bali by the likes of Al Gore and by local officials themselves-- and described at Gristmill by Professor Andrew Light-- that the states have been moved to action in a way that completely contradicts administration naysaying and obstruction:
Meanwhile, Fabian Núñez is "so confident that we will be successful in reaching agreement that I have called for the Assembly to meet on Monday, December 17 in order to take up and pass AB 1X." So where are we actually heading on this?
Governor Schwarzenegger is calling for 10% spending cuts across the board in response to the budget shortfall that everyone knew was coming. And as Dave points out, this means everyone who can't afford to live without government gets screwed while the rich continue on their merry way. It also means that next year's budget fight will likely turn this year into the good ole days of budget wrangling. And if Perata is serious about not passing anything as long as there's a shortfall, then we ain't passing anything for a while cause the shortfall isn't going anywhere.
But before we even get to that, we find out whether all the extended sessions, coalition-shredding wars over an acceptable level of health-care (I'm looking at you Shum/Maviglio), time, money and both literal and cyber ink may end up coming to nothing because Don Perata can't see spending on an important mandate when the political leadership in Sacramento can't figure out how to balance a budget.
This is ultimately going to encapsulate most of the Calitics greatest hits from the past year; starting with health care, this runs through privatization, water usage, high speed rail and transportation, prison reform, Núñez pecadillos, labor relations, term limits, clean money, taxes, and the 2/3 rule. Because it all runs back to the ability of people to get elected and pass a budget.
Most of all, it's likely to reinforce the absurd lack of strong, public political leadership in this state. There are no advocates. Nobody has tried to convince me to sacrifice. Nobody has tried to convince me of the inherent wisdom in a program that I might not otherwise think was a good idea. The art of the possible is starting to discover that, as it turns out, not very much is possible with a $14 billion shortfall and no bold attempts at change.
Perata's statement closed by saying "The real issue now is the deficit and how this squares with everything else that we are going to do." Everything is back up for debate. Now that we're staring at the very real possibility of getting less than we started with, it might not be such a bad time for a return to the fundamental principles of budgeting and state spending. I'm not sure it could end up much worse.
A Caltrain rail extension is no longer on a list of projects that Monterey County transportation officials hope a sales tax will help fund over the next quarter century.
On Wednesday, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County board approved a 25-year improvement package wish-list that boasts more than 20 road and transit projects at a cost of $1.8 billion.
TAMC is working to place a half-cent sales tax on the November 2008 ballot that would generate an estimated $980 million. The county would seek matching state and federal funding to pay for the rest of the work.
Over the summer, officials from the Monterey County Hospitality Association and the Monterey County Farm Bureau withheld their support from an earlier draft sales tax proposal, arguing there wasn't enough focus on highway and roads projects that would benefit their industries. They also complained about proposed spending on a Caltrain rail project included in the earlier draft.
But after TAMC officials eliminated the rail spending, both groups sent a letter last month indicating they would back the sales tax effort.
This is madness. The TAMC proposal is reckless planning and poor public policy - locking Monterey County into a roads-only future for the next 25 years puts our economy at risk and will cause us to miss out on leveraged funding opportunities. We can become nationwide leaders in sustainable tourism and sustainable agriculture, but not if we believe against all available evidence that the 20th century dependence on roads can be continued for much longer.
It's a shame that Roll Call operates behind a subscription wall, because Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs the House's special committee on global warming, has a great op-ed there today summarizing where things stand moving forward from the solid energy bill framework that congressional Democrats hope to pass, "Global Warming At the Starting Gate." One key highlight:
Seventeen states (representing over 46 percent of Americans) have adopted or will soon adopt global warming emissions standards for vehicles. The federal district court in Vermont recently held that federal law does not prohibit such measures. What remains to be seen this year is whether the Bush EPA will grant these states the waiver they need to enforce these tailpipe standards, or spurn their ambitious action.
In addition to loving Markey's framing of Congress' movement as a launching point for so much more, we cannot stress the point he makes above with any more emphasis. Given the trends in the courts (which Markey also notes) and the rising tide of action at all levels, the spotlight is now on the EPA regardless of what happens with the energy bill. Now that Congress has smartly resisted pressure to do anything that remotely borders on preemption, it's incumbent on the administration to follow suit.
Yesterday's veto threat on the energy bill doesn't exactly inspire confidence along those lines, as White House economic advisor Allan Hubbard's letter to Speaker Pelosi pretty much reiterates the industry's ideal outcome in its language regarding auto efficiency (emphasis ours):
As anyone who's had the misfortune to be stuck in a traffic jam on Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County knows, there's a major traffic problem on the northern end of Monterey Bay. High housing costs in Santa Cruz have spurred growth over in Watsonville, where homes are (relatively) more affordable. When combined with the job engine of Silicon Valley just over the hill, this means there's a LOT of traffic on Highway 1.
So what should be done? Widen the freeway? Take advantage of the rail line that connects Watsonville to Santa Cruz to provide commuter rail and take the pressure off of Highway 1?
Highway 1 widening has been very contentious - a 2004 plan to widen the freeway was shot down by voters - and so it is somewhat surprising to see that a Santa Cruz County transportation tax force has suggested trying again in November 2008, with another 1/2 cent sales tax that would largely go toward an additional freeway lane and only a pittance for rail.
Environmentalists and transit advocates, led by Friends of the Rail Trail and former Santa Cruz mayor and Democratic candidate for AD-27 (should Prop 93 fail) Emily Reilly, have denounced the proposal and vowed to fight for transportation alternatives.
What I want to do here is explain why they are right, why Santa Cruz needs to seize this opportunity to lead the state into a more sustainable and effective transportation future. Instead of trying in vain to keep the 20th century alive, we need to realize our limits and embrace a more sensible vision for the 21st century.
(Cross-posted from Warming Law, which focuses on covering and analyzing the fight against global warming from a legal perspective. My name is Sean Siperstein, and I run Warming Law as part of my work for Community Rights Counsel, a non-profit, public interest law firm that assists communities in protecting their health and welfare. Given the blog's focus, a lot of what I write about ends up having to do with efforts by the administration and the auto industry to hold up California's pioneering efforts in fighting global warming (here's our full archive of posts about the EPA waiver application), and as such I'm (belatedly) taking up a suggestion to post select items here. Thanks for the opportunity to join the discussion; I really look forward to it!)
Reacting to last week's lawsuit challenging the EPA's failure to produce a timely decision on California's waiver application to enforce its own auto emissions standards, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson cited-- as he had many times before-- the need to painstakingly evaluate thousands upon thousands of in-depth public comments on the waiver.
However, a quick look at Thursday's lawsuit filing reveals that while the White House, Transportation Secretary Peters and the auto industry might have schemed to politicize that process, they nevertheless failed to significantly influence it (at least in a formal sense):
5. The comments submitted to USEPA overwhelmingly support the GHG Regulation. Of the approximately 98,000 comments referenced in the USEPA's docket, more than 99.9% support the GHG Regulation. Only one automakersubject to the GHG Regulation [Editor's note: General Motors] submitted any opposition to the USEPA. Two automaker trade groups submitted opposing comments.
This is noteworthy (and, frankly, laugh-inducing) because, as emails obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee indicate, a central purpose of the administration's surreptitious lobbying effort was to encourage negative comments from governors and members of Congress. Indeed, the communications in question took place rather hurriedly over the weeks leading up to EPA's June 15 deadline for public comment.
As those of us who have had the wonderful opportunity to live in Berkeley understand, the city isn't always as liberal as it's cracked up to be. The city consistently fought against affordable housing, homeless shelters - it even threatened to stop BART from being built unless it was built underground (a battle Berkeley finally won).
In these instances Berkeley has shown that it is no different from other parts of California that oppose progressive urbanism. Homeowners who are convinced that they can maintain a 1950s style urban landscape even in the face of population pressure, housing costs, and environmental/energy crises tend to dominate public discussions about urban change, and insist that their views be privileged over all others. This is true in supposedly liberal, progressive Berkeley, as much as it is in the San Fernando Valley or - dare I say it - Orange County.
That's what AC Transit is proposing for its busiest route in the East Bay, the 15-mile-long stretch from Bay Fair BART Station in San Leandro to downtown Berkeley.
The $400 million bus rapid transit project would look a lot like light rail, with elevated stops in the middle of the street and dedicated lanes free of cars. Buses would run every 10 minutes and sail through intersections.
But the project may hit a roadblock in Berkeley, where some neighbors and merchants are lobbying furiously against it, saying it would worsen traffic and be the death knell for the beleaguered Telegraph Avenue shopping district.
And if Berkeley rejects the plan, the entire project is imperiled - which leaves some people in town wondering how one of the region's most green-thinking cities could say no to public transit.
It's not a new idea: Raise the gas tax as a method of both funding public transportation, as well as encouraging people to use it instead of their cars. Discussions of climate change, peak oil, and sustainable development usually always at some point or another emphasize a gas tax as a particularly effective carbon tax. And as the San Francisco Chronicle notes today, the SF Bay Area is starting give the idea serious consideration:
Regional officials are taking a close look at trying to increase the Bay Area's gasoline tax by as much as 10 cents a gallon and believe voters might agree to it as a way to help combat global warming, The Chronicle learned Thursday.
Although the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission has been able to ask voters for a higher gas tax since 1997, a decade of polls indicated there was little chance such an unpopular idea would ever secure the necessary two-thirds approval in the nine Bay Area counties.
Now, however, with public concern building over climate change, the electorate might not be so opposed to a new gas tax as long as voters see it as a way to help the environment, officials said.
A 10-cent-a-gallon increase in the Bay Area could generate an estimated $300 million a year or more to pay for transportation-related projects. Although the money could be used for roads, the emphasis probably would be on public transit and efforts to reduce auto pollution.
But is this a workable plan - workable in both policy and political terms?
For nearly a hundred years, the "California Dream" has had a particular meaning: owning a detached single-family home with a bit of land around it, being able to drive anywhere you need or want to go without encountering traffic, and with enough money left over to spend on soaking up the sunshine. The cheap and widely available Model T crystallized this dream in the 1920s, combined with cheap and widely available land. The Depression wound up intensifying the dream, as Californians in bread lines and rural relief camps yearned all the more strongly for that dream they glimpsed in the Roaring Twenties. World War II provided the jobs and savings to make it a reality, and by the 1950s and 1960s the California Dream was in its Golden Age. Any white family that held down a steady job could buy a home and have more than enough left over to fill its garage with cars and its rooms with consumer baubles.
In the 1970s and 1980s the Golden Age had dimmed, as roads became crowded and housing became expensive. In response Californians tried all kinds of methods to prolong this version of their dream, from Prop 13 to NIMBY activism against new projects that were seen as ruining the detached suburban paradise, to reasserting the automobile and the freeway.
Here in the 21st century, though, this California Dream seems to have finally run its course. In Southern California especially - always the true home of this dream, its Bay Area expressions notwithstanding - cheap and available land simply no longer exists. Roads of all kinds are hopelessly clogged and new freeway lanes fill with traffic as soon as the ribbons are cut. Housing prices are beyond the reach of most Californians; only creative and ultimately dishonest lending supported real estate these last five years.
It's fitting then that as the 20th century California Dream is dying, the 21st century Dream is slowly being born. And as two important articles in Monday's Los Angeles Times suggest, SoCal is the birthplace of this new dream. But the old attitudes die hard, and in their meeting lies the root of the political battles that will define our adult lives.
Julia- photo moved below the fold (Cross-posted at The Liberal OC)
This is the latest part of my special report on the proposed extension of the 241 Toll Road to San Onofre State Beach (aka Trestles). If you'd like, you can find the other stories in the "Speeding Our Way to Trestles" series on here. As the debate heats up over Trestles and the 241, I'd like to go in depth and examine all the issues involved... And I'd love for you to come along for the ride as we explore what can be done to relieve traffic in South Orange County AND Save Trestles Beach. Enjoy! : )
There are just some things in life we can always count on. Death. Taxes. Another season of "Cops" on Fox. Thousands more poor souls being told that they have no talent on "American Idol" on Fox. Now for me, the one thing in life I can ALWAYS seem to count on these days is complete and utter garbage from Red County/OC Blog on the proposed 241 Extension to Trestles.
So what nonsense is being spun to death at OC Blogland today? Theodore Judah is claiming that some new screed from the San Diego Business Journal is evidence that the evil "eco-extremists" are stonewalling traffic relief for San Diego. Huh?!
Follow me after the flip as I take out my handy dandy facts once more to debunk the right-wing spin on the toll road to Trestles...
Last night on Warren Olney's Which Way LA?, which everyone should be podcasting, Dan Walters from the Sacramento Bee made a very interesting point about the budget that has been somewhat unremarked-upon to this point. I'm not generally a fan of Walters, but it's hard to argue with this.
The budget that passed the Assembly took $1.2 billion designed to go to transit and put it back into the general fund, with the reason given that the infrastructure bonds are financing transit improvements so there would be some duplication there. That's not what voters approved in November at all. Not even close. The infrastructure bonds on transportation were meant to be additional funds that the state could use to start new projects. It was in no way meant to stand in for the regular finances received from the state regarding transportation.
So we now have a situation where bonds have been floated to finance existing projects and maintenance. Is this a preview of things to come, a get-out-of-the-deficit-free card by using Arthur Andersen-style creative accounting tactics? Voters approved those bonds because they wanted to see new mass transit options and new carpool lanes. They did not approve an addendum to the state budget to solve the fiscal mess.
(We of course see this also in the cut to Prop. 36 funding for drug treatment in prisons, also approved by voters, which I guess doesn't matter. It's a good thing nobody covers this state in the media, or there would be some howling going on)
As anyone who's had the misfortune to be stuck in a traffic jam on Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County knows, there's a major traffic problem on the northern end of Monterey Bay. High housing costs in Santa Cruz have spurred growth over in Watsonville, where homes are (relatively) more affordable. When combined with the job engine of Silicon Valley just over the hill, this means there's a LOT of traffic on Highway 1.