Although the 9-30 Measure M supporters contribution report is not the final tally I thought it might be interesting to know who is funding the yes on Measure M flood of literature. Contributions listed on this partial report exceeds $1,000,000 dollars. Yes, you read that correctly. Over one million dollars and counting.
We often read concerns about “out of town” contributors. What’s their agenda, etc.
One donor, that jumps off the page, is the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians whose contribution, through Sept 30th, was $100,000 dollars.
If the Indian casino owners wish to get people from LA, Orange and surrounding counties to their hotel casinos faster than perhaps they should help fund any additional transportation solutions to those responsible for said efforts. Why should the residents of Orange county be asked to pay when many of us do not patronize their casinos?
Other out of state donations were received from firms based in Minneapolis,MN; Austin,TX; Birmingham,AL; Providence,RI; Englewood, CO; to Sunny Isle, FL.
Let me list the top players plus two others:
Auto Club $203,773.00
OC Businss Council $163,800.00
Agua Caliente Band 100,000.00
RMV Entitlement Co 99,800.00
The Irvine Co 99,800.00
Heritage Fields LLC 99,000.00
Lennar Platinum Triangle 99,000.00
Sares-Regis Group 50,000.00
Centex Homes 49,900.00
CH2M Hill Inc 49,900.00
John Laing Homes 49,900.00
Michael Hayde 49,900.00
Walt Disney 49,900.00
William Lyon 49,900.00
Roger Grable 100.00
Martin Thompson 100.00
Note: All contributions of less than $100 are comingled for campaign reporting purposes. I have included two examples of individual contributions of $100 to make a point. If the majority of Orange County’s current residents truly support the extension where are their contributions? Virtually every donor has a self serving Agenda.
The massive donation from the AAA remind me of the school teachers who wish to “opt out” of their union dues being used for purposes or candidates they do not support. I wonder if my membership and services from the Auto Club are diminished due to their massive outlay for Measure M?
My message is clear. Vote NO on Measure M. Even OCTA admits that this is not a one time opportunity to address the transportation issue.
Looking forward to your feedback.
Larry Gilbert
Larry
thanks for providing all this great information. I wonder, however, does the same logic apply to Proposition 90? The vast majority of the money going to Prop 90 comes from out of California, mostly from a guy with a self-serving agenda.
Does Prop 90 truly represent the will of California if Californian’s aren’t putting up the bulk of the dollars to support it?
Anonymous. Good question. However there is a BIG difference.
Before Prop 90 could even get on the ballot we collected around one million signatures from registered California voters. It doesn’t matter who funded the signature gathering. We still had to sign up and we did.
That was not the case with Measure M.
Larry
Why don’t those companies band together with the auto-insurance-oil companies and pay for and build there own private transportation system? It could be free roads, toll roads, bus roads, railways, whatever they want, it would be their money – their choice.
Isn’t it time for the auto-ins-oil industrial complex to pay for their own infrastructure costs?
They have plenty of profits, no reason to subsidize them anymore out of the public-good funds.
no on “M”
Cook.
You are on the right track.
Notice all the high rise building construction and other future housing activity in Anaheim and Irvine. Than check out the list of developers and developer related contributors to Measure M. Hey, we can reduce the cost of our new homes and/or increase our profit margins by forcing everyone else in the County to pay for new transportation to meet the needs of these future property owners, many of whom will also be kicking in. We the developers need to assure them that they will not find other cars on the road when they arrive.
It’s like a Mello-Roos District for roads. Pass the cost on to others to increase developer profits and make their product more affordable, if there is such a location in Orange County.
If you notice, the proponents focus is on “future growth” in Orange County. Than look at the number of “new housing units” being approved by local cities.
“A Mello-Roos District is an area where a special tax is imposed on those real property owners within a Community Facilities District. This district has chosen to seek public financing through the sale of bonds for the purpose of financing certain public improvments and services.. These services may include streets, …”etc.
Now tell me if you don’t see a parallel between Measure M and a developer Mello-Roos. No it’s not a direct tax on property owners but it’s a tax on everyone who shops in Orange County.
Bottom line, as taken from the Nov. 1990 Ballot Argument in favor of M.
Bullet point #8 of the Revised Measure M “GUARANTEES a growth managment program that requires new development generating any new traffic to pay for additional streets and roads as development occurs.”
As evidenced by their contributions, these developers would rather fund the extension ballot argument than paying the real cost of said improvements.
\Larry
Larry:
Your arguments against Measure M get stranger and stranger.
First of all, there is not doubt that a majority of OC voters will vote yes on M. The question is whether we get two-thirs or not.
Second, if opposition to measure M were so strong, where are YOUR contributions? Have you received any?
Third, you did not address anonymous 9:31 AM’s questions at all. The correct answer is, so what if the donors who paid for qualifying Prop 90 came from out of state. Just as it is “so what” if some donors to Measure M are out of OC…unless you only selectively support the First Amendment.
Fourth, you are drifting dangerously into anti-growth rhetoric there, and here I thought you supported property rights.
Jeff
Jeff.
Those of us opposed to the extension of Measure M are not spending over one million dollars to share the truth of your flawed plan. If we had, the results would be even more favorable for us. Yes, I believe you will get over 50 percent. However, the law requires two-thirds. Our polling says that will not happen. Let’s meet on Tuesday and watch the results together. You know where I will be.
“Promises made-promises kept” should read “promises made and mostly kept.”
Do we selectively overlook the failure to add a lane on the SR 91 due to a non-compete clause?
And lastly.
Jeff we still have some No on M yard signs left. If you want us to drop one off at your home or office let me know.
Best regards.
Larry
Yes, Larry, regarding those signs and polling…who’s payiong for those? Have you disclosed your donors?