The case against Prop A (just an open pot of money)

Hurray! It’s raining!

Proposition A is a $500 million General Obligation transportation bond issue which, including interest payments, would exceed one billion dollars in total cost to the populace. Voters should reject this huge bond measure. Here’s why:

Prop. A would raise property taxes and rents to significantly higher levels; the measure provides no effective oversight with no indication of who would be making the key decisions or who would be assuring effective oversight. In other words there is neither defined management nor defined oversight.

Unlike most bond issues, Proposition A does not allocate dollar amounts to identified projects. Instead, the measure lists every transportation category imaginable and then tells us that funds “may be allocated”. In fact Prop. A says: “Projects to be funded under the proposed Bond may include but are not limited to the following….” This language would give the SFMTA license to spend the money on virtually anything.

Has the SFMTA earned such trust? In 1999 Prop E called for the SFMTA to keep its buses and trains on schedule at least 85% of the time. The SFMTA’s current compliance rate is 60.6%.

Instead of putting the most important things first, Prop A’s promoters talk of spreading $500 million around haphazardly in response to the clamor of assorted benefiting groups. Little or no attention has been paid to: bringing Muni service and vehicle maintenance up to standard; dealing with SF’s anticipated growth and the resulting strains on Muni easing the peak period crush in the Market Street subway; putting SFMTA’s financial house in order; developing and following a well thought-out citywide transportation program.

Despite the SFMTA’s sky-high budget ($978 million in 2013), Muni service has deteriorated. Since 2006, the SFMTA has eliminated or reduced cross-town runs, slashed neighborhood and night time service, eliminated 7 bus lines, shortened 22 lines and deferred vehicle maintenance. SFMTA’s Transportation Effectiveness Plan (“TEP”) to be funded by Prop A, would make additional cuts to pay for additional service in selected “high-use” corridors.

SFMTA’s Cost-Control System is in shambles, which is nothing new. In 2011 the SF Supervisors’ CRG Report concluded that the SFMTA has been historically unable to meet its capital budgets. The cost of the Central Subway has already soared from $647 million in 2003 to $1.6 billion today. According to a courageous whistle-blower and the Fed’s Oversight Consultant, the Central Subway is headed for a major, as yet undisclosed, additional overrun. Throwing billions of dollars at this agency hasn’t worked in the past. Why should things be any better this time?

$500 million in new transportation capital, not one billion, could solve many of this city’s most pressing transportation problems, if allocated prudently and spent effectively, before launching a huge new spending program, let’s get it right! Vote No on A. See also www. NoOnTransportationBond2014.com