<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Senate Committee Passes Ammended Sales Tax Measure</title>
	<atom:link href="http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/13/senate-committee-passes-ammended-sales-tax-measure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/13/senate-committee-passes-ammended-sales-tax-measure/</link>
	<description>Covering Los Angeles&#039;s livable streets movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: D. Malcolm Carson</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/13/senate-committee-passes-ammended-sales-tax-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-1979</link>
		<dc:creator>D. Malcolm Carson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:12:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/13/senate-committee-passes-ammended-sales-tax-measure/#comment-1979</guid>
		<description>Maybe the beginnings of an interesting debate? From what I understand, in Alameda County, there was a similar proposal for a 1/2 cent transportation sales tax that included nothing guaranteed for bikes/peds and many of the advocates opposed the tax and it failed. Two years later, the agency folks got some religion and put a new tax on the ballot that guaranteed 10% for bikes and peds, and this tax passed.

So...personally, I can really see both sides of this. We desperately need funding for rail, buses, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in LA County so there&#039;s a very compelling case for this tax. On the other hand, there&#039;s billions in there to widen the 710, the 5, to build a freeway tunnel in South Pasadena, for sprawl-inducing rail lines such as the Gold Line extension. And there&#039;s really no much at all in there for more and better bus service, for pedestrian improvements and for bicycle lanes/paths/boulevards, all three of which could probably pull far more out of their cars than even the better-conceived rail lines are likely to, at least on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

So, I don&#039;t know. I think if the &quot;alternative&quot; transit crowd were to get organized and oppose this in a prinicipled fashion, maybe we could get something better down the road. But if not, maybe it&#039;s better to just grow the pot and continue the fight over the allocation at a later date...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe the beginnings of an interesting debate? From what I understand, in Alameda County, there was a similar proposal for a 1/2 cent transportation sales tax that included nothing guaranteed for bikes/peds and many of the advocates opposed the tax and it failed. Two years later, the agency folks got some religion and put a new tax on the ballot that guaranteed 10% for bikes and peds, and this tax passed.</p>
<p>So&#8230;personally, I can really see both sides of this. We desperately need funding for rail, buses, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in LA County so there&#8217;s a very compelling case for this tax. On the other hand, there&#8217;s billions in there to widen the 710, the 5, to build a freeway tunnel in South Pasadena, for sprawl-inducing rail lines such as the Gold Line extension. And there&#8217;s really no much at all in there for more and better bus service, for pedestrian improvements and for bicycle lanes/paths/boulevards, all three of which could probably pull far more out of their cars than even the better-conceived rail lines are likely to, at least on a dollar-for-dollar basis.</p>
<p>So, I don&#8217;t know. I think if the &#8220;alternative&#8221; transit crowd were to get organized and oppose this in a prinicipled fashion, maybe we could get something better down the road. But if not, maybe it&#8217;s better to just grow the pot and continue the fight over the allocation at a later date&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Wentzel</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/13/senate-committee-passes-ammended-sales-tax-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-1969</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Wentzel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/13/senate-committee-passes-ammended-sales-tax-measure/#comment-1969</guid>
		<description>&quot;Don&#039;t forget opposition by the mighty bicycle, pedestrian, and livable streets lobbies!!&quot;

----------------------------

Count me as one of  many people in the livable street lobby, such as it is, who will enthusiastically support this tax.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Don&#8217;t forget opposition by the mighty bicycle, pedestrian, and livable streets lobbies!!&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-</p>
<p>Count me as one of  many people in the livable street lobby, such as it is, who will enthusiastically support this tax.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ubrayj02</title>
		<link>http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/13/senate-committee-passes-ammended-sales-tax-measure/comment-page-1/#comment-1966</link>
		<dc:creator>ubrayj02</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2008 05:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/08/13/senate-committee-passes-ammended-sales-tax-measure/#comment-1966</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t forget opposition by the mighty bicycle, pedestrian, and livable streets lobbies!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t forget opposition by the mighty bicycle, pedestrian, and livable streets lobbies!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

