Saturday, May 21, 2016

The Metro Politics of Measure R2 and the 710 Tunnel

Mod: Quite a glorious train-wreck of controversial issues in this Pasadena Star News story. Metro, which desperately wants a half-a-penny sales tax increase to fund various transportation projects, has gone quiet on the issue of the 710 Tunnel. Most likely because they do not want to upset San Gabriel Valley residents by reminding them that they are the lead agency responsible for this unpopular project. Measure R2 will require a two-thirds majority to pass, and it was the SGV vote that killed the previous version. Of course, the best thing you can do is vote NO in Measure R2 because, and despite all denials, they will spend a big chunk of that money on the 710 Tunnel. A project that would obviously have devastating environmental and economic consequences here.

Pasadena Mayor Pursues Repeal of 2001 Measure Supporting 710 Extension (link): Hoping to bolster opposition to the 710 Freeway tunnel project, Mayor Terry Tornek is proposing a November ballot measure that would ask voters to repeal a 2001 vote supporting the completion of the freeway through the city.

Although the City Council voted in April 2015 to oppose the 710 Freeway’s completion as a tunnel project, Tornek said during a City Council meeting Monday that Measure A legally prevents the city from fighting the project.

The city attorney and outside counsel agreed in legal opinions provided to the city.

“The measure that voters approved would not allow the City of Pasadena to take affirmative steps opposing the completion of the 710 extension,” said City Attorney Michele Bagneris.

Tornek intends to ask the council to vote on a repeal on June 13. The council needs to finalize the measure’s language before a July deadline to make it on November’s ballot. By repealing the 2001 ordinance, Pasadena can fight against the project without restriction, Tornek said.

“As soon as we launch an effort, all it will take is one citizen to sue us and enjoin us from violating the provisions of Measure A, which can only be overturned by a vote of the people,” Tornek said.

Tornek said he believes the tunnel project has been purposefully stalled to avoid hurting Measure R2, the county’s proposed $120 billion transit tax on November’s ballot.

Metro and the various transportation authorities are very anxious not to do anything that would rock the boat and jeopardize the adoption of Measure R,” he said.

After the vote in November, Tornek expects the tunnel proposal to come out of hibernation.

“The city is going to get ambushed and we’re going to be confronted with a full court press to build that project,” Tornek said Monday. “We have got to be prepared to make a concentrated effort to prevent that from happening.”

Mod: The plot thickens. To read the rest of this article click here.

You'd think voting for a third party candidate would have been preferable ...


sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

30 comments:

  1. At the May 20th Crescenta Valley debate among 5th District Supervisor candidates, the question was raised about the 710 Tunnel project. Najarian and Portantino are strongly opposed to it, and then Barger-Liebrich avoided the whole question with a long, convoluted answer about how she'd have to study the 26,000 page EIR a little more. Sorry, but she runs the whole Antonovich operation which is the entity behind the whole push on the 710 tunnel to connect the port traffic on our freeways, so it was entirely disingenuous. She can't even answer a direct question about it because then she'd be flat out lying. She just needs to get into the Supe position so she can leverage the industry connections into forcing the tunnel through our communities with devastating impacts on our environment and worsening pollution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Tattler for keeping us current on the 710 Tunnel and on so many other issues. Off-topic (but this is The Tattler), Sierra Madre City Council will be considering their ridiculous plan to change the City Clerk's compensation (*after* the election) at Tuesday night's meeting. Please let them know how un-democratic this is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Off-topic - take a look at the last item on Tuesday's Sierra Madre City Council agenda ("Water Financing Options"). Buried on page 4 is a warning that the City is going to try to increase our water rates again:

    "The water rates implemented as a result of the 2013 Water & Wastewater Rate Study have not increased water revenue as originally projected. . . . The study did not account for current water conservation, and is not generating the revenues needed . . . A new rate study is needed in order to properly meet the financial objectives of the Water operation."

    Translation - our expensive consultant ignored citizens last time when they questioned the rate study's inflated assumptions about ever-increasing water consumption; Sierra Madre residents rationally responded to the drought by using less water; and City Staff needs more money so that we can buy wireless water meters and reduce our workload.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Funny how the predictions made on this blog come true. Well, OK. Not that funny.

      Delete
  4. Any word used to describe a 'tax measure' should be severely voted against voters in the state of California have had right bout enough of politician's lies and half-truths that only fatten the bank accounts of the very few and rob the many. Vote NO on any tax measure appearing on a ballot this year and next.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let them put the tunnel under Sierra Madre. Think of all the development fees Elaine would get.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting that Elaine will end up with more money than the majority of people who live here.

      Delete
    2. This has always been about city employee pay and benefits. It is sad how so many have fallen for it.

      Delete
  6. Interesting when you note who was in favor of the 10% no sunset UUT vote, signs in a yard is a good start. Just look at the ones you know then know their profession and wonder what was the motivating factor for that YES VOTE. Was it for profit or fear, was it because they were actually happy with status quo, would be interesting to know. Why we would vote to keep a locally controlled police department that has 9 of its 21 members leave? Why would we pay more money for less service/safety. I would like to know what the answer is. To me it appears criminal to be taxed more for less service coming out of CITY HALL. I wonder if all the YES on UUT voters are financially set to the point where the cost doesn't matter, I can understand that but why would they not want a safer neighborhood and to not be lied to? Guess it boils down to people are trusting and don't have time to read and understand all the facts. Bottom line is hang on because more taxes are on the way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:21, so much logic. I agree with you, but what I've seen in some residents is a real unwillingness to think. There's this image of Sierra Madre as a little place that is kind of like a 50's soda shop, and some people just won't admit there are real problems, or look ahead to consequences. Our councils have really failed us in long term planning.

      Delete
    2. There are a lotta suckers in Sierra Madre.

      Delete
    3. I think there's a real reluctance to examine facts, and too much of a tendency to glamorize some men of questionable character and ability as though they are men of wisdom They're not. Residents have a habit of trusting people like John Buchanan, or the always present Rob Stockly, as though these people are capable of looking at the well being of the city separately from their own aggrandizement. Look at how many people refused to acknowledge that the owner of the local paper Henderson was an out and out con. Or taking someone like Eliane Aguilar seriously while she makes an obscene amount at taxpayers' expense and runs a staff that specializes in complaining about their jobs. This is a place where frauds can get away with people believing the images the frauds want them to believe.

      Delete
    4. They prey on the weak and gullible.

      Delete
  7. I think the smiling woman's obituary is a testament to her sense of humor. Reminds me of one my mom recently saw in her local paper:
    Nancy Ann Walls passed away on April 9th, 2016, leaving behind a hell of a lot of stuff that her children have no idea what to do with. She is survived by her four children, Judy, David, Kelly and Angela. All will remember her for her ninety-nine cent store hauls, inappropriately timed jokes, and the annual Thanksgiving Turkey Song.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 9:42, so true. Why is it that when people become council members they change. Some we can understand as they are climbing the political ladder. Some are sponsored and pushed by organizations that are misinformed. Some are really trying to preserve our community but they get over run. Seems like Sacramento and politicians don't want us to keep our small town charm. Oh, and not to mention local city hall employs have different interests than us residents. Maybe we should only employ residents, IS THAT LEGAL? If we were all on the same team our city would not be in such trouble. You are so right when you said there are some real problems in Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've posted but it hasn't shown up yet, hope it shows up soon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This question may sound naive, but what exactly are the anticipated "devastating economic consequences" if that tunnel would be built.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most wasteful highway construction project in the country, per US PIRG
      http://www.no710.com/

      Delete
    2. Substantial environmental degradation. This tunnel will funnel much of 710 corridor port truck traffic out onto the 210. The 710 corridor is one of the most polluted areas in the country. Think of what that will do to the valley we all live in. One big soup bowl of diesel smoke. And if you think the 210 is a traffic nightmare now, add around 11,000 trucks a day and see how much worse things get.

      Delete
    3. Health care costs - dealing with the higher cancer rates by the openings of the tunnels. The proponents of the tunnel have admitted the statistics show a clear relationship between tunnels and higher cancer and emphysema rates.

      Delete
    4. New 210 traffic because of the tunnel is est. at 30,000 combined trucks and autos each day.

      Delete
    5. I am just returning from a trip to Switzerland. The entire country is full of tunnels and it is actually to the economic benefit of Switzerland, or so it seems.
      The difference is that they seem to have much better emission regulation on diesel trucks.


      Delete
  11. Calling it I-710 Corridor Project or 710 Freeway Tunnel Project or Freeway Tunnel Alternative sounds a bit sterile to me.

    Boston had its Big Dig, so I propose that from now on the 710 tunnel project be called The Big Antonovich Hole.

    I know it's requires quite a lungful of hot air to say, so perhaps someone can shorten it a bit to make it catchier?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Think if you were in the 710 tunnel and there was an earthquake. In earthquake country that is not good. Rescuers may not get to you in time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It is the antonopit, so good a name. 11:38 and 11:41, well done, for me it will here on be called the antonopit. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, antonopit it is. 2:18, if you dont go into any tunnel you wont get caught in it during an earthquake. I would never use the antonopit and never need rescuing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you get caught in the tunnel during the earthquake then you will get some Antonopity.

      Delete
    2. ANTONODITCH

      Delete
    3. I think he is an agent for Beijing.

      Delete