last revision: 8/1/02
Other Links
Text of Measure "A"
Spending Measure "A" Before It is Passed added 7/20/02
Read and Weep -- "Greater Los Angeles" March GlobalPort
This is a page by people working against Riverside
County California's "Measure A" for the November 2002 ballot. As
we work through ideas on this, it is possible that some information
is inaccurate. Nevertheless, these are the facts and
issues as we understand them, and we will endeavor to correct any
errors as they come to our attention.
Measure A is BAD for Riverside County and Will Only Bring More Disaster!
(Remember, the mess you see in the photos on this page was paid for by the original Measure A, set to expire in 2009. Passed in 1988, it did nothing to alleviate traffic, but only made it worse -- in the very manner I describe on this page. The present "Measure A" is an effort to extend the existing measure from 2009 to 2039, at a further cost to Riverside taxpayers and future Riverside taxpayers of at least $4.3 billion).
yes, this is bad news-->
(4 westbound lanes, 91 Freeway)
Here is the Bottom Line: Measure A will not benefit the people who will pay for it, but instead benefits wealthy special interests; and in specific, significant special interests outside the county. It hangs an additional 30 years of taxation on children who are not yet born and even worse, spends the money (via bond issues) up front, leaving future voters and taxpayers with no ability to extricate themselves from the foolish and ill-advised expenditures.
In the short term, the bond issue will make a number of people considerable amounts of money at public expense. Beyond that, the net impact on the County of Riverside will be almost entirely negative, bringing vast quantities more residents, traffic, pollution and toxic waste to the single most burdened area of the United States.
In essence, Measure A and planning that is based on Measure A will solidify the Inland Empire's role as the wastebasket and supply depot of Los Angeles County and Orange Counties. It will forever condemn Riverside to oppressive pollution, low income jobs and traffic gridlock.
No responsible Riverside County planner or politician would wish this future on one of the most beautiful and desireable locations in the United States. Why, then, is the Measure A extension receiving the support of nearly every community government and developer within the Inland Empire?
The answer is simple -- the Measure receives its support from a coalition of scared, myopic planners and pigs at the public trough.
(Riverside County does have a framework through which we can participate in long term planning -- Riverside County Integrated Plan. One might question the agency's commitment to public participation, though, since comments must be limited to 300 words; and more distressing, an "assessor's parcel number" is required to accompany the comment. Is this intended to imply renters and other non-landowners are not entitled to participate in the planning process?)
Background and Basic Issues
Riverside County is experiencing enormous growth, remaining at or near the top of the list of "growing counties" in the United States. Therefore, good planning requires infrastructure design and implementation.
Unfortunately, Riverside planners are not engaged in responsible development planning. Instead, they have proposed new "pigs in the trough" expenditures which are based on flawed assumptions, most of which are bad for the existing citizens of Riverside County.
In addition, Measure A seems to ignore Proposition 42, approved earlier this year. The California legislature has been diverting transportation taxes to other uses, but starting in 2003 those taxes must be used for transportation, which should bring about $1.4 billion annually (statewide) to state and local governments by 2008. It stands to reason that revenues generated from vehicles using Riverside County roadways should be the funds used to develop and maintain those roadways.
Finally, extension of Measure A is premature. Existing Measure A does not expire until 2009. Who can predict what changes will occur between now and then?
Flawed Assumption #1 -- Unrestrained Growth is Good.
Growth is generally not good for the local citizens. In the short term, it may result in job growth, but it simultanously draws more residents competing for those jobs and driving the price of real estate higher. At the same time, it uses the taxes of existing citizens to (a) transfer wealth to the "insider" businesses who are positioned to capitalize on sale of real property, construction and services to the government; and (b) to provide special incentives to large businesses coming from outside the county that undermine the existing businesses.
<--Is this better?
(construction on I-10 in Pomona)
Let's look more closely at these two issues. As to the transfer of wealth:
(i) The first transfer occurs with the sale of "bonds" that will be re-paid through the extra sales tax. Advance information indicates that 3% of the cost of the bonds will be paid in "expenses" to the attorneys, underwriters, accountants and other private firms who arrange for and sell the bonds.
Since Measure A distributes approximately $4.3 billion throughout Riverside County, we can estimate that various professionals will profit by the amount of $129 million before the tax money performs one single useful act. For the next 30 years, Riverside County will pay interest on that $129 million, representing an expenditure of $3 million annually (rough average) each year. So, before factoring in the cost of borrowing, Riverside taxpayers will pay $219 million for the privilege of borrowing money against their future tax revenues.
(ii) The next step in the feeding frenzy involves the acquisition of real estate. To build more freeways, property must be purchased. This means that those holding property along proposed freeway routes will receive substantial profits by virtue of holding the property that will be taken to build the freeways. Often, this property is of marginal value/use at the present time, being unproductive land. However, the "condemnation" process will award the owners of this property for taking this unproductive property. Many times, speculators move in ahead of the actual government condemnation, purchasing property in the future "right-of-way" and turning the property around for a cool profit when the government makes its actual acquisition. Of course, some of the relevant property may already be held for this purpose and one can assume that knowledgeable property holders along areas of future right of way are lobbying actively for passage of Measure A.
(iii) Next at the trough will be contractors who will obtain lucrative government contracts to build infrastructure and related improvements. Naturally, contractors who believe they are in a position to gain these contracts are stepping up their support for Measure A.
(iv) The "value" of land tracts held by private speculators and developers will be increased by virtue of the expenditures made by Riverside County taxpayers. When "we" build more infrastructure, the immediate beneficiaries are those who hold land that becomes MORE ACCESSIBLE. What was worthless desert becomes desirable bedroom communities. However, the developer does not shoulder the cost of this increase in value. Nor does the developer give the increased value back to the taxpayers. "We" pay to increase the value of the developer's property. Under our system, developers often laud the virtues of "unrestricted capitalism" -- so why are they asking us, the public, to pay for improvements by which they will profit?
The other, and probably more significant negative is that Measure A money and other public expenditures will be made to encourage out-of-county big box businesses to come into Riverside. The theory of these expenditures is that the costs are off-set by the increased tax base created by the "growth" that occurs. Actual studies of the results of such expenditures have not been so rosy.
In fact, what typically occurs is that commercial enterprises are enticed with the pledge of low taxes and and free infrastructure. This attracts the businesses -- why wouldn't it? They are getting a "free-ride." However, the net results are negative to the existing business base, and here is why.
A business must price its goods and services at a level which will allow it to make a profit. Therefore, if its costs of doing business are lowered, it can reduce its pricing and maintain the same level of profit. So, if Big Box A moves into Riverside with a significant tax break and with the City/County providing infrastructure it would otherwise have to pay for, its cost of doing business is signficantly lower than that of the existing businesses.
The new business will draw business away from the existing local businesses, which will appear overpriced and "worn out" by comparison with the cheaper, newer business. What has happened? The existing business has "paid" with its own taxes to help bring in the very competitor that spells its doom.
Thus, the employees will lose their long-time job security and will find themselves looking for work with the new Big Box, which typically offers lower wages, less benefits and inferior job security to the job that pre-existed.
And, in fact, the Big Box will have initially attracted new employees to the area when it first opened for business. So, there is now greater job competition, which drives wages and working conditions down.
Would a true community leader desire this result for current citizens? For the current businesses? Of course not.
Flawed Assumption #2- Growth Is Inevitable
Growth of the type envisioned by the proponents of Measure A is not inevitable. Yes, as new people are born in or move to the region, there will be growth. But it will not be of the destructive, unrestrained nature presently experienced and envisioned by the proponents of Measure A.
A typical pattern has been followed: Freeways are built, private interests build tracts of homes to profit because the area is now attractive to commuters, more people move to the area, Big Box employers show up, more people move to the area, etc. Never-ending population explosion.
Yes, now we're cooking!! -->
Or, as my wife says, "if you build it, they will come ..."
(6 westbound lanes, 60 freeway at Diamond Bar)
On the other hand, without Measure A, without the
freeway/infrastructure development, the area will have a
natural gate holding back growth. Growth will
proceed at a moderate rate, with the "newcomers" bearing a
greater share of the cost of relocating to the area.
So why is Unrestrained Growth so popular? It is popular because for a certain sector of the economy, it represents massive profits. The property speculators, developers and contractors who will parlay farmland into huge housing tracts will make grand profits. People in service industries related to "growth" will experience profitability as they provide services for the newcomers.
This has been a historical pattern in California going back "forever." For instance, those of you who have seen the movie "Chinatown" have seen a "fictionalized" version of how the real water politics played out in Los Angeles. Water was actually dumped from the reservoirs to convince the Los Angeles taxpayers to pay for the Owens Valley water project. So, Los Angeles taxpayers built the Owens Valley project and the land speculators made vast profits selling land that was turned from desert to farmland thanks to the "deep pocket" of the L.A. voters.
Unfortunately, this is not a sustainable form of growth. Instead, it is essentially a giant Ponzi scheme, whereby the enormous costs of building (and making profits for speculators) NOW, is paid for LATER from the "expected revenues" to be derived from the ever growing influx of new residents.
As the area becomes overbuilt, the speculators and developers necessarily move on to greener pastures. The now fully developed area is left behind, to stagger along under the burden of excess taxes that do not provide current services but are paying the debt incurred to open the area to development in the first place.
To see the result of this type of "progress," one need only look at Moreno Valley or at any area developed with the fraudulent "Mello-Roos" system put into play 15 years or so ago.
Flawed Assumption #3 - Poor Air Quality and Poor Water Quality is the Cost of Progress
It is not "progress" to destroy people's quality of life. To have adequate jobs, we have to put people to work. Planning and deploying environmentally sound programs requires human resources. All that is lacking is the funding. But if we can fund $4.3 billion in programs that will bring uncontrolled growth, pollution and congestion, we can just as easily fund $4.3 billion worth of jobs that provide air and water quality improvement along with carefully planned and built infrastructure that will improve the quality of life of everyone who lives here (the people who will PAY the $4.3 billion), while allowing for reasonable growth to accommodate increasing population.
Who would be left out of such a program? Well, speculators would not obtain windfall profits. If the taxes were utilized on a "pay as you go" basis rather than on a "sell bonds and spend it all now basis," then underwriters, attorneys and accountants would not be taking away 3% of the funds off the top. Los Angeles would not be able to use the Inland Empire as a dumping ground for their problems, such as air pollution, water pollution, trash, toxic waste, excess population.
Decent jobs provided by a well-thought out program would free up the freeways by providing local residents with jobs nearby, rather than jobs in Orange County and Los Angeles Counties. Subsidized mass transit would provide better alternatives for travel within the county.
The opportunities are endless and bounded only by the imagination of Riverside County residents who choose to make their homeland economically prosperous, self-sufficient and unpolluted.
More Notes on the Feeding Frenzy:
Don't believe people are lining up to profit from Measure A? Read some of these links. Riverside County cities and developers uniformly consider it a "given" that they will have the Measure A money to spend. They are ready to start spending the day after the ballot initiative is voted upon.
For instance, here is a developer who thinks Measure A proceeds (rather than the developer) should pay for off-site improvements. Why should we pay to develop this private property?
"Mr. Howenstein stated their largest single concern is Condition No. 22 regarding dedication of 18 feet on Jackson Street. He stated the applicant is being burdened to improve Jackson Street to give access to the freeway. He stated these improvements should be borne through Measure A and other funding mechanisms. He requested the Council delete this condition entirely, and stated the applicant would be fully cooperative. " LINK -- see item, "Public Hearing" on an appeal by Ben J. Smith, Alpine Storage.
Above, I mentioned the way Los Angeles voters were fooled into paying for the Owens Valley water project many years ago. But there is another L.A. water project that deserves mention, because it highlights the way Los Angeles treats the rest of Southern California. L.A. built itself a pipeline to Mono Lake. Then it proceeded to suck Mono Lake dry, destroying what was a wonderful habitat and community. You can read the political history of Mono Lake HERE.
Why do I bring up Mono Lake? Because this is precisely the way L.A. treats the Inland Empire. The Inland Empire is not treated as a genuine "community," but basically as a garbage pit for L.A. "What difference does it make if L.A. produces smog," they think. "It will just blow out to Inland Empire, so who cares?" That is their attitude. If L.A. has toxic waste, "send it to Riverside." Yep, that's the Stringfellow Acid Pits legacy. Don't forget the "new" plan to send 100 years worth of LA trash to Eagle Mountain (CCAEJ Report Here). And, if LA needs a "supply depot" and warehousing area for the goods it consumes, "Let's build warehouses in the Inland Empire. Let's build 'March Cargo Base,' and send freeways full of trucks out there to transport cargo." If you think I am kidding, look near the bottom of this web page concerning the "joint powers" development of March Air Base. Does it reference Riverside? Heck, no -- it's called the "Greater Los Angeles GlobalPort."
Yeah, right. Inland Empire already has filthy, disgusting air quality, but let's send lots more cargo jets spewing out tons of exhaust. Let's send rows and rows of diesel trucks spewing out their tons of exhaust, and maybe throw in a few more diesel trains, too. And they try to tell us this is all for our own "good"???
If I sound a bit stressed about all this -- yes! It's true! My family is one of the victims of all of this, same as all the other families in Riverside County. And my home is right under various March Air Base flight paths, where I already have the bad experience of Air Force jets jettisoning toxic, carcinogenic aviation fuel over my home so that they can "land safely." Is Measure A going to reimburse me for the loss in value to my home that all this "development" is going to cause? Of course not. Is it going to pay for my daughter's asthma treatment and all the other health problems occasioned by this "progress?" Of course not.
So why should I pay for this "progress"? Indeed, why should it happen? It should not. That is the bottom line. Unrestrained growth is not going to happen unless the bill for the growth is paid for by the citizens of Riverside County, because it is not "profitable" for private enterprise to do this to us without our help. Let's say no, okay?
Links to various pages that talk about Measure A. In some of these pages you will have to do a search for "Measure A" in order to find the discussion.
OCTA News/April -- talks about the Orange County Buy-Back of the 91 toll lanes and the expectation that Riverside County will spend $498 million on 91 improvements. OCTA News/May
The following are articles from NCTimes promoting the extension of Measure A:
"Residents Upbeat about Inland Empire"
"County Approves Area Road Projects"
"Survey Shows Support For Sales Tax Extension"
"4.6 Billion Highway Tax Measure To Go To Voters"
"Path For new Riverside-San Bernardino Freeway"
This link is useful for arguments against March Cargo Base. It is a large amount of information used to oppose El Toro.
El Toro Airport
Gasoline and Transportation Funding and Tax Issues:
Proposition 42, requiring sales and use taxes to be used only for transportation. added 7/19/02
1995 Study of Gasolines Taxes added 7/19/02
California Gasoline and Diesel Prices, taxes, etc. (California Energy Commission. Not directly useful, I just thought the page was interesting.) added 7/19/02
Other Stuff:
CVAG Transportation Committee Minutes
Palm Springs Life Magazine Article
Riverside Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings 5/14/02
McGaw-Hill Construction News
The Civil Engineer News
"The council and transportation officials will be closely watching several counties, including Solano, Fresno, Tulare and Riverside, which are expected to place local traffic-relief measures on their ballots this fall." Mercury News added 7/17/02
This page is still in progress and contains my thoughts as they are presently developed.
prepared by Shel Daltrey, who recommends the Green Party on these issues.
(photos by FaitAccompli of San Bernardino)
Measure A is BAD for Riverside County and Will Only Bring More Disaster!
(Remember, the mess you see in the photos on this page was paid for by the original Measure A, set to expire in 2009. Passed in 1988, it did nothing to alleviate traffic, but only made it worse -- in the very manner I describe on this page. The present "Measure A" is an effort to extend the existing measure from 2009 to 2039, at a further cost to Riverside taxpayers and future Riverside taxpayers of at least $4.3 billion).
yes, this is bad news-->(4 westbound lanes, 91 Freeway)
Here is the Bottom Line: Measure A will not benefit the people who will pay for it, but instead benefits wealthy special interests; and in specific, significant special interests outside the county. It hangs an additional 30 years of taxation on children who are not yet born and even worse, spends the money (via bond issues) up front, leaving future voters and taxpayers with no ability to extricate themselves from the foolish and ill-advised expenditures.
In the short term, the bond issue will make a number of people considerable amounts of money at public expense. Beyond that, the net impact on the County of Riverside will be almost entirely negative, bringing vast quantities more residents, traffic, pollution and toxic waste to the single most burdened area of the United States.
In essence, Measure A and planning that is based on Measure A will solidify the Inland Empire's role as the wastebasket and supply depot of Los Angeles County and Orange Counties. It will forever condemn Riverside to oppressive pollution, low income jobs and traffic gridlock.
No responsible Riverside County planner or politician would wish this future on one of the most beautiful and desireable locations in the United States. Why, then, is the Measure A extension receiving the support of nearly every community government and developer within the Inland Empire?
The answer is simple -- the Measure receives its support from a coalition of scared, myopic planners and pigs at the public trough.
(Riverside County does have a framework through which we can participate in long term planning -- Riverside County Integrated Plan. One might question the agency's commitment to public participation, though, since comments must be limited to 300 words; and more distressing, an "assessor's parcel number" is required to accompany the comment. Is this intended to imply renters and other non-landowners are not entitled to participate in the planning process?)
Background and Basic Issues
Riverside County is experiencing enormous growth, remaining at or near the top of the list of "growing counties" in the United States. Therefore, good planning requires infrastructure design and implementation.
Unfortunately, Riverside planners are not engaged in responsible development planning. Instead, they have proposed new "pigs in the trough" expenditures which are based on flawed assumptions, most of which are bad for the existing citizens of Riverside County.
In addition, Measure A seems to ignore Proposition 42, approved earlier this year. The California legislature has been diverting transportation taxes to other uses, but starting in 2003 those taxes must be used for transportation, which should bring about $1.4 billion annually (statewide) to state and local governments by 2008. It stands to reason that revenues generated from vehicles using Riverside County roadways should be the funds used to develop and maintain those roadways.
Finally, extension of Measure A is premature. Existing Measure A does not expire until 2009. Who can predict what changes will occur between now and then?
Flawed Assumption #1 -- Unrestrained Growth is Good.
Growth is generally not good for the local citizens. In the short term, it may result in job growth, but it simultanously draws more residents competing for those jobs and driving the price of real estate higher. At the same time, it uses the taxes of existing citizens to (a) transfer wealth to the "insider" businesses who are positioned to capitalize on sale of real property, construction and services to the government; and (b) to provide special incentives to large businesses coming from outside the county that undermine the existing businesses.
<--Is this better?(construction on I-10 in Pomona)
Let's look more closely at these two issues. As to the transfer of wealth:
(i) The first transfer occurs with the sale of "bonds" that will be re-paid through the extra sales tax. Advance information indicates that 3% of the cost of the bonds will be paid in "expenses" to the attorneys, underwriters, accountants and other private firms who arrange for and sell the bonds.
Since Measure A distributes approximately $4.3 billion throughout Riverside County, we can estimate that various professionals will profit by the amount of $129 million before the tax money performs one single useful act. For the next 30 years, Riverside County will pay interest on that $129 million, representing an expenditure of $3 million annually (rough average) each year. So, before factoring in the cost of borrowing, Riverside taxpayers will pay $219 million for the privilege of borrowing money against their future tax revenues.
(ii) The next step in the feeding frenzy involves the acquisition of real estate. To build more freeways, property must be purchased. This means that those holding property along proposed freeway routes will receive substantial profits by virtue of holding the property that will be taken to build the freeways. Often, this property is of marginal value/use at the present time, being unproductive land. However, the "condemnation" process will award the owners of this property for taking this unproductive property. Many times, speculators move in ahead of the actual government condemnation, purchasing property in the future "right-of-way" and turning the property around for a cool profit when the government makes its actual acquisition. Of course, some of the relevant property may already be held for this purpose and one can assume that knowledgeable property holders along areas of future right of way are lobbying actively for passage of Measure A.
(iii) Next at the trough will be contractors who will obtain lucrative government contracts to build infrastructure and related improvements. Naturally, contractors who believe they are in a position to gain these contracts are stepping up their support for Measure A.
(iv) The "value" of land tracts held by private speculators and developers will be increased by virtue of the expenditures made by Riverside County taxpayers. When "we" build more infrastructure, the immediate beneficiaries are those who hold land that becomes MORE ACCESSIBLE. What was worthless desert becomes desirable bedroom communities. However, the developer does not shoulder the cost of this increase in value. Nor does the developer give the increased value back to the taxpayers. "We" pay to increase the value of the developer's property. Under our system, developers often laud the virtues of "unrestricted capitalism" -- so why are they asking us, the public, to pay for improvements by which they will profit?
The other, and probably more significant negative is that Measure A money and other public expenditures will be made to encourage out-of-county big box businesses to come into Riverside. The theory of these expenditures is that the costs are off-set by the increased tax base created by the "growth" that occurs. Actual studies of the results of such expenditures have not been so rosy.
In fact, what typically occurs is that commercial enterprises are enticed with the pledge of low taxes and and free infrastructure. This attracts the businesses -- why wouldn't it? They are getting a "free-ride." However, the net results are negative to the existing business base, and here is why.
A business must price its goods and services at a level which will allow it to make a profit. Therefore, if its costs of doing business are lowered, it can reduce its pricing and maintain the same level of profit. So, if Big Box A moves into Riverside with a significant tax break and with the City/County providing infrastructure it would otherwise have to pay for, its cost of doing business is signficantly lower than that of the existing businesses.
The new business will draw business away from the existing local businesses, which will appear overpriced and "worn out" by comparison with the cheaper, newer business. What has happened? The existing business has "paid" with its own taxes to help bring in the very competitor that spells its doom.
Thus, the employees will lose their long-time job security and will find themselves looking for work with the new Big Box, which typically offers lower wages, less benefits and inferior job security to the job that pre-existed.
And, in fact, the Big Box will have initially attracted new employees to the area when it first opened for business. So, there is now greater job competition, which drives wages and working conditions down.
Would a true community leader desire this result for current citizens? For the current businesses? Of course not.
Flawed Assumption #2- Growth Is Inevitable
Growth of the type envisioned by the proponents of Measure A is not inevitable. Yes, as new people are born in or move to the region, there will be growth. But it will not be of the destructive, unrestrained nature presently experienced and envisioned by the proponents of Measure A.
A typical pattern has been followed: Freeways are built, private interests build tracts of homes to profit because the area is now attractive to commuters, more people move to the area, Big Box employers show up, more people move to the area, etc. Never-ending population explosion.
Yes, now we're cooking!! -->Or, as my wife says, "if you build it, they will come ..."
(6 westbound lanes, 60 freeway at Diamond Bar)
So why is Unrestrained Growth so popular? It is popular because for a certain sector of the economy, it represents massive profits. The property speculators, developers and contractors who will parlay farmland into huge housing tracts will make grand profits. People in service industries related to "growth" will experience profitability as they provide services for the newcomers.
This has been a historical pattern in California going back "forever." For instance, those of you who have seen the movie "Chinatown" have seen a "fictionalized" version of how the real water politics played out in Los Angeles. Water was actually dumped from the reservoirs to convince the Los Angeles taxpayers to pay for the Owens Valley water project. So, Los Angeles taxpayers built the Owens Valley project and the land speculators made vast profits selling land that was turned from desert to farmland thanks to the "deep pocket" of the L.A. voters.
Unfortunately, this is not a sustainable form of growth. Instead, it is essentially a giant Ponzi scheme, whereby the enormous costs of building (and making profits for speculators) NOW, is paid for LATER from the "expected revenues" to be derived from the ever growing influx of new residents.
As the area becomes overbuilt, the speculators and developers necessarily move on to greener pastures. The now fully developed area is left behind, to stagger along under the burden of excess taxes that do not provide current services but are paying the debt incurred to open the area to development in the first place.
To see the result of this type of "progress," one need only look at Moreno Valley or at any area developed with the fraudulent "Mello-Roos" system put into play 15 years or so ago.
Flawed Assumption #3 - Poor Air Quality and Poor Water Quality is the Cost of Progress
It is not "progress" to destroy people's quality of life. To have adequate jobs, we have to put people to work. Planning and deploying environmentally sound programs requires human resources. All that is lacking is the funding. But if we can fund $4.3 billion in programs that will bring uncontrolled growth, pollution and congestion, we can just as easily fund $4.3 billion worth of jobs that provide air and water quality improvement along with carefully planned and built infrastructure that will improve the quality of life of everyone who lives here (the people who will PAY the $4.3 billion), while allowing for reasonable growth to accommodate increasing population.
Who would be left out of such a program? Well, speculators would not obtain windfall profits. If the taxes were utilized on a "pay as you go" basis rather than on a "sell bonds and spend it all now basis," then underwriters, attorneys and accountants would not be taking away 3% of the funds off the top. Los Angeles would not be able to use the Inland Empire as a dumping ground for their problems, such as air pollution, water pollution, trash, toxic waste, excess population.
Decent jobs provided by a well-thought out program would free up the freeways by providing local residents with jobs nearby, rather than jobs in Orange County and Los Angeles Counties. Subsidized mass transit would provide better alternatives for travel within the county.
The opportunities are endless and bounded only by the imagination of Riverside County residents who choose to make their homeland economically prosperous, self-sufficient and unpolluted.
More Notes on the Feeding Frenzy:
Don't believe people are lining up to profit from Measure A? Read some of these links. Riverside County cities and developers uniformly consider it a "given" that they will have the Measure A money to spend. They are ready to start spending the day after the ballot initiative is voted upon.
For instance, here is a developer who thinks Measure A proceeds (rather than the developer) should pay for off-site improvements. Why should we pay to develop this private property?
"Mr. Howenstein stated their largest single concern is Condition No. 22 regarding dedication of 18 feet on Jackson Street. He stated the applicant is being burdened to improve Jackson Street to give access to the freeway. He stated these improvements should be borne through Measure A and other funding mechanisms. He requested the Council delete this condition entirely, and stated the applicant would be fully cooperative. " LINK -- see item, "Public Hearing" on an appeal by Ben J. Smith, Alpine Storage.
Above, I mentioned the way Los Angeles voters were fooled into paying for the Owens Valley water project many years ago. But there is another L.A. water project that deserves mention, because it highlights the way Los Angeles treats the rest of Southern California. L.A. built itself a pipeline to Mono Lake. Then it proceeded to suck Mono Lake dry, destroying what was a wonderful habitat and community. You can read the political history of Mono Lake HERE.
Why do I bring up Mono Lake? Because this is precisely the way L.A. treats the Inland Empire. The Inland Empire is not treated as a genuine "community," but basically as a garbage pit for L.A. "What difference does it make if L.A. produces smog," they think. "It will just blow out to Inland Empire, so who cares?" That is their attitude. If L.A. has toxic waste, "send it to Riverside." Yep, that's the Stringfellow Acid Pits legacy. Don't forget the "new" plan to send 100 years worth of LA trash to Eagle Mountain (CCAEJ Report Here). And, if LA needs a "supply depot" and warehousing area for the goods it consumes, "Let's build warehouses in the Inland Empire. Let's build 'March Cargo Base,' and send freeways full of trucks out there to transport cargo." If you think I am kidding, look near the bottom of this web page concerning the "joint powers" development of March Air Base. Does it reference Riverside? Heck, no -- it's called the "Greater Los Angeles GlobalPort."
Yeah, right. Inland Empire already has filthy, disgusting air quality, but let's send lots more cargo jets spewing out tons of exhaust. Let's send rows and rows of diesel trucks spewing out their tons of exhaust, and maybe throw in a few more diesel trains, too. And they try to tell us this is all for our own "good"???
If I sound a bit stressed about all this -- yes! It's true! My family is one of the victims of all of this, same as all the other families in Riverside County. And my home is right under various March Air Base flight paths, where I already have the bad experience of Air Force jets jettisoning toxic, carcinogenic aviation fuel over my home so that they can "land safely." Is Measure A going to reimburse me for the loss in value to my home that all this "development" is going to cause? Of course not. Is it going to pay for my daughter's asthma treatment and all the other health problems occasioned by this "progress?" Of course not.
So why should I pay for this "progress"? Indeed, why should it happen? It should not. That is the bottom line. Unrestrained growth is not going to happen unless the bill for the growth is paid for by the citizens of Riverside County, because it is not "profitable" for private enterprise to do this to us without our help. Let's say no, okay?
Links to various pages that talk about Measure A. In some of these pages you will have to do a search for "Measure A" in order to find the discussion.
OCTA News/April -- talks about the Orange County Buy-Back of the 91 toll lanes and the expectation that Riverside County will spend $498 million on 91 improvements. OCTA News/May
The following are articles from NCTimes promoting the extension of Measure A:
"Residents Upbeat about Inland Empire"
"County Approves Area Road Projects"
"Survey Shows Support For Sales Tax Extension"
"4.6 Billion Highway Tax Measure To Go To Voters"
"Path For new Riverside-San Bernardino Freeway"
This link is useful for arguments against March Cargo Base. It is a large amount of information used to oppose El Toro.
El Toro Airport
Gasoline and Transportation Funding and Tax Issues:
Proposition 42, requiring sales and use taxes to be used only for transportation. added 7/19/02
1995 Study of Gasolines Taxes added 7/19/02
California Gasoline and Diesel Prices, taxes, etc. (California Energy Commission. Not directly useful, I just thought the page was interesting.) added 7/19/02
Other Stuff:
CVAG Transportation Committee Minutes
Palm Springs Life Magazine Article
Riverside Board of Supervisors, Statement of Proceedings 5/14/02
McGaw-Hill Construction News
The Civil Engineer News
"The council and transportation officials will be closely watching several counties, including Solano, Fresno, Tulare and Riverside, which are expected to place local traffic-relief measures on their ballots this fall." Mercury News added 7/17/02
This page is still in progress and contains my thoughts as they are presently developed.
prepared by Shel Daltrey, who recommends the Green Party on these issues.
(photos by FaitAccompli of San Bernardino)