Rebuttal to Today’s Register Story on Measure M

How should we react to today’s OC Registers’ front page story entitled “Has Measure M Measured Up?” Aside from spending millions of dollars trying to persuade us to give them another 30 years and $11.86 billion dollars of new taxation once the current Measure M expires, we see the reporters buying in to their spin.

With all due respect to the team of reporters who co-authored this front page feature story I must have you consider the recommendation of the Editorial Board of the Register who have far more experience and are not afraid to question the OCTA side of the argument. The position of the Register is to VOTE NO on Measure M.

A few examples. Most of pages 20, 21 and 22 deal with our rear view mirrors. Yes, we paid at the pump, paid into the new tax and most of the work was completed.

An example of incomplete information that should have been questioned. “Recent census data show only 2.8 percent of county residents use public transportation.” Hmm. That includes both busses and Metrolink. They plan to dedicate 20 percent, over $ one billion dollars, to Metrolink connections while less than one half of one percent use that system. While the users of our bus system average $13,000 to $16,000 per year the subsidized Metrolink commuters earn upwards of $85,000 per year. Speaking of Metrolink riders in Orange County OCTA’s data is also twisted. The last time I drove south of Camp Pendleton the city of Oceanside was in San Diego County. Yet their a.m. PEAK ridership for Orange County includes those riders. At the northern end of the line they include passengers getting on in Norwalk and the City of Commerce. The last time I drove into LA both of these cities were in LA County. Therefore deducting the 666 non OC riders from the June 2006 report confirms that only 2136 Orange County residents, out of 3 million, took the Metrolink trains. Note: I doubt that anyone from Orange County drove south to board in Oceanside to head north. Let’s see. That’s 0.07 percent of our population and they still want to spend 20 percent our tax money to drive us out of our cars.
Let’s look at commute time using their data. On average they report 26.5 minutes which is virtually the same as the Public Policy Institute report on “Time to Work.” They plan to spend around $500 million to save perhaps ten to fifteen percent with synchronized lights. So we spend a half billion dollars to save two or three minutes.

In being interviewed alongside Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle by KOCE transportation reporter Pat Haslam, while we were off camera, I listed several public/private alternatives such as the $2.6 billion, 67 mile system in Toronto used by 300,000 cars per day. Or the $One billion M-6 in Britain, the $2 billion A86 ring under the Palace at Versailles, the $1.5 Billion underground connection for three freeways in Melbourne to the $500 million variable tolling that is being used in Stockholm. I agree with Reason Foundation Policy Analyst Ted Balaker when he reported that “Government Solutions Of The ’50s Won’t Fix Traffic Problems Today.” Investor Business Daily, June 7, 2006.

We are awaiting a decision on extending the 241 tollroad. Have the reporters questioned the non-compete clause in that pending agreement? “The TCA non-compete agreement DOES allow Caltrans to construct freeway improvements planned when the agreement was signed, expires in the year 2020 and requires Caltrans to make up lost revenue if the agreement is violated and the affected Agency cannot pay debt service.”
We were deceived in 1990 when OCTA “GUARANTEED –a new lane in each direction, and major interchange improvements on the Riverside Freeway (State Route 91).”
Didn’t happen. Why not? They entered into an agreement with the toll road and signed a non-compete clause preventing said road addition. Furthermore while the SR-55 freeway has a car pool lane, the area of the SR-91 parallel to the 91 toll road does not, forcing us to either buy a transponder or sit in traffic even if you have a car full of passengers. We should not reward the same administration who wasted $63 million tax dollars on the Centerline program, who are ready to spend another billion for a Metrolink connection and misled us in their first Measure M effort.

One minor point that no one questions. According to Bill Leonard of our State Board of Equalization, unless I am mistaken, we collected $4 billion in fuel taxes in CA last year. With passage of Measure 1 A on Nov 7th that money will go into a lock box and not end up in the state’s General Fund. We will therefore have access to that money which is collected to provide for our system of roads. The federal government has also designated over $2.3 billion for CA roads this year. Let’s not ignore the money we already pay at the pump in this debate.
By now you received your Sample Ballot. Notice that each side has a 300 word argument and a 250 word rebuttal. Beyond that the entire OCTA Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan booklet is included. Were talking about an additional thirty-three (33) pages of text printed and mailed at taxpayer expense.Long winded post, but the biased coverage in today’s Register warrants this response. The only positive note was their admission that “they expect a close vote–quite possibly a defeat–and want to leave enough time to take several swings at it.”
I urge you to vote NO on Measure MLarry Gilbert

Note: If you are reading this at a work address, and wish to read it later or print out a hard copy, simply go to www.NoMtax.com where it appears along with related topic Op-Ed’s in the home page listing.
If you agree with the message please feel free to forward this to your email database.
Thank you for taking an interest in this major tax issue. Larry