Christmas, Chanukah and Kwanzaa come early to Orange County this year. The supporters of extending the poorly conceived Measure M extension are giving out free gifts to everyone in the County. After reading the flyer I felt I had just dined at an all you can eat schmorgashboard restaurant. In Mission Viejo our mailer, referencing past accomplishments, was signed by Councilman Frank Ury.
I guess we could say the same thing about the New York Yankees. Look at how many championship banners are hanging in their Bronx home. Joe Torre survived but their 2006 season is over.
However, as I have taught sales and marketing executives around the country, whose staff survive by commission alone, corporate beancounters don’t place too much emphasis on yesterday’s achievements. Along with compensation we distribute plaques to hang on office walls for past accomplishments.
Supporters of Measure M are desperate. It has been reported that they have raised around $2 million to promote this flawed plan allocating twenty percent, representing $one billion dollars for a countywide Centerline system for less than one-half of one percent of commuters. And the bigger joke, having the AM Peak ridership numbers for the past fiscal year, they tell us their plan includes “expanding” service. So if the AM peak ridership in Santa Ana, our largest city with 350,000 residents, is currently 141, than will perhaps 35 residents (.01 percent)ride an expanded Metrolink schedule? What’s the plan? Add a train between the northbound 5:41 and 6:53 PM? How many straphangers are on the train at this hour anyway? Currently the last northbound train from this station departs at 6:53 PM. So you add one or two more trains at 8 and 9 PM. Hello, how much additional time can they spend at their destination and still board a train back home? Does it make sense? They said it and I will continue to repeat their words.
“The proposed Measure M may have to be refined and presented to the voters more than once.”
Larry Gilbert
Larry, let’s be an auto-only county because we have nothing but farmland around the freeways to expand them and let’s also return to burning our trash in the backyard incinerators, just like we did in the 1950’s!
Unlike the federal government with natural disasters, O.C. should be prepared for the tidal wave of population heading our way and address the issue of improving mobility proactively, instead of reactively.
Go back to your cave or move to the 909!
Anonymous. Or is it mouse.
As new parents consider names for their children I wonder how many of today’s generation are considering the name “anonymous.” Anonymous seems to be the number one name used in today’s blogs.
But that’s OK.
After your flawed Measure M Plan loses in November I will give you the same response as I just gave to our (Mission Viejo) Vice Mayor Frank Ury.
My plan is to attend the OC Board of Supervisors meeting shortly after the election to hear their “new” transportation plan and respond with some of my recommendations.
Thank you for your comments.
Larry Gilbert
Typical! Criticize but offer no recommendation of your own!
There is no need for an extended sales tax (Measure M)to fund roads for cars.
Let the car drivers pay by the “mile” with yearly odometer tax thu the DMV.
The Gas tax doesn’t even come close to covering the cost of owning and operating the states road systems.
Anonymous.
Do you play poker with all of your cards facing the dealer where everyone else can see your hand?
Having just received a similar comment from my neighbor, Mission Viejo Vice Mayor Frank Ury, I will share part of my reply to him with all Juice readers:
Frank. What’s my/our transportation recommendations? They (OCTA and the Board of Supervisors) surely have my phone number and email address. This is not a win or lose election for the Supervisors. OCTA will immediately come back with a new plan should they fail to get 2/3rds. It’s clearly stated in their literature. Supervisor Bill Campbell, recognizing that I was winning the audience in La Habra, said “this offer may be the best plan you will see” referring to a future attempt. And unlike citizen initiatives, the Board of Supervisors, by the stroke of a pen, can place it back on a future election Ballot. Unlike Measure D they did not require getting 100,000 valid countywide signatures when they added Measures B, C and E last year.
Is that a better reply?
Larry
Larry:
The debate is fine and good for the process, but you should at least try to be honest on every other statement.
1. The mailer you are referencing lists projects that are in the new plan, not old projects.
2. The project in the plan is not a countywide Centerline…PERIOD. YOu can say it as many times as you want, but it does not make it true.
3. State law very clearly states the process a county must go through to put a transportation measure on the ballot, the Board of Supervisors cannot simply place anothe “Measure M” on the ballot like they did with Measure B, C and E.
Jeff Flint
Jeff. It’s always good to hear from you even when we might disagree. Let’s work in reverse.
Your #3. The process. My example is not accurate. While you do not require getting 100,000 signatures as the firefighters to get on the Ballot, OCTA representatives or Staff attend each city council meeting where the council members are used simply as tools to the end outcome.
Peter Herzog addressed our Mission Viejo meeting and told the council members they really weren’t giving their opinion with their votes. He only needed their votes, and their counterparts from the other 33 cities to give residents an “opportunity to vote” later. We each know that without getting the 2/3rds council approvals the process would end.
A Gilbert thought. And if the council members voted NO, and a few took that bold step, I wonder what impact that would have on future Grant applications being fully funded for their cities if at all.
Point #2 It “is” a Countywide Centerline under a clever disguise and some future, who cares, name. Supervisor Campbell confirmed that to the KOCE audience when answering my question on May 11th. “There is $one billion dollars for individual cities to come forward and seek grants–but not one city, to be able to connect their rail stations to their job centers and their homes–so we’re utilizing facilities and the entrepreneurial spirit and talent of individual cities to best define how to connect to those depots.” I have the tape from which this transcript was made.
Your #1. The Mission Viejo flyer reads like being in a candy store. Look at all you get forgetting how much in Measure M taxes we continue to contribute. Forgetting that our roads are in “very good” shape, traffic light synchronization supposedly has been in place on major arterials in our city unless we have been misled by our former and/or present council. You plan to improve Metrolink Rail Service. How? With a bus from our homes to the Laguna Niguel station that serves three cities with a combined population of around 180,000 of which the June 2006 AM Peak Period was 177 passengers, one tenth of one percent. That’s a good use of our money. We prefer a new Plan Thank You. A Plan that doesn’t allocate 20 percent for less than one-half of one percent of the commuters. That’s from OCTAx and our own data. Other readers are getting tired of reading this over and over again but you leave us no alternative than to call you on your flawed argument and Plan.
Good night.
Larry Gilbert