<?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>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:39:49 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<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...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's a very compelling case for this tax. On the other hand, there'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'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't know. I think if the "alternative" 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's better to just grow the pot and continue the fight over the allocation at a later date...</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>"Don't forget opposition by the mighty bicycle, pedestrian, and livable streets lobbies!!"</p>
<p>----------------------------</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't forget opposition by the mighty bicycle, pedestrian, and livable streets lobbies!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
