Comments on: A Look at the BRU’s “No on the Six” Ballot Campaign http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/28/a-look-at-the-brus-no-on-the-six-ballot-campaign/ Covering Los Angeles's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:06:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dana Gabbard http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/28/a-look-at-the-brus-no-on-the-six-ballot-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-2836 Dana Gabbard Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:34:12 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1310#comment-2836 I have to question just how much of a campaign this really is. They have plastered a smattering of posters on traffic signal control boxes, as Kymberleigh mentions. Plus they did a small folded sheet outlining their stances--but it isn't clear that they have been distributed all that widely. And they did the You Tube video posted above. But I see no signs of any real outreach, such as sending masses of organizers aboard buses or holding a press conference/another of their standard issue protests. And I am puzzled at the reference to South L.A. as if they are some sort of political power south of the 10 freeway. AFAIK their alliances are very few, mostly on the far left, and by no means do they carry that much political weight despite their posturing. I have to question just how much of a campaign this really is. They have plastered a smattering of posters on traffic signal control boxes, as Kymberleigh mentions. Plus they did a small folded sheet outlining their stances–but it isn’t clear that they have been distributed all that widely. And they did the You Tube video posted above. But I see no signs of any real outreach, such as sending masses of organizers aboard buses or holding a press conference/another of their standard issue protests. And I am puzzled at the reference to South L.A. as if they are some sort of political power south of the 10 freeway. AFAIK their alliances are very few, mostly on the far left, and by no means do they carry that much political weight despite their posturing.

]]> By: Kymberleigh Richards http://la.streetsblog.org/2008/10/28/a-look-at-the-brus-no-on-the-six-ballot-campaign/comment-page-1/#comment-2834 Kymberleigh Richards Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:15:45 +0000 http://la.streetsblog.org/?p=1310#comment-2834 Love how you call the BRU's arguments "creative". It is the same creative rhetoric, in fact, that we've all grown accustomed to hearing from them over the past decade. I especially shake my head in amazement in their declaration that "the total cost of all rail projects proposed in Measure R and noting that the total cost is $80 billion, a much larger number than the total funds that would be generted by the half cent sales tax." Of course it is. You would think that the BRU would have learned by now -- via osmosis from being at all those Metro Board meetings, if by no other means -- that local funds are nearly always used to leverage state and federal funds. That's how the Red Line got built in the first place; a small portion of the cost was covered by local sales taxes and the Feds put up the rest. Even more amazing is that they trot out the usual "MTA will be faced with a choice to cut bus service to pay for the rest of these projects ignoring that there are plenty of funding sources at the federal and state levels that would help pay for new rail projects" which means they know the non-local funding exists but don't understand (or conveniently deny, take your pick) that the local match formula exists. Finally, they claim (apparently to prove they are accomplishing something) that "the firewall that has prevented the MTA from using operating funds to pay for capital construction has held better than in other parts of the country." Total b*llsh*t. Their mantra during the awful years of the consent decree was "if Metro would stop building things, all that money could be used to operate bus service." As I said at last week's Metro Board meeting when Manuel Criollo offered a version of that during public comment, the halting of a construction project does not magically make the funds used for them operations-eligible. Indeed, under the aforementioned local/federal matching system, if you halt a project you either have to give the Feds their money back or get them to approve the funds being used for another construction project. One of their statements is somewhat true, though, if applied to a different context. 20% of Measure R funds are specifically allocated to bus operations, and if that measure fails next week, the sheer weight of the operating deficit (which wouldn't be as large as it is if the BRU hadn't spent ten years getting a federal court to force Metro to add tons of service it couldn't afford to operate), plus the AIG debacle, will likely force every one of the 25 lowest performing lines to be eliminated ... and their howls of protest won't be able to stop it. By the way, that silly "No on the 6" logo is so difficult to read unless you are right on top of it that it looks more like a poster for Proposition 6. Which pretty much lowers the effectiveness of their (illegal) campaign of plastering them on the side of traffic signal control boxes. Maybe someone at the City will read this and charge them the appropriate fines for defacing those boxes. It would be the first positive use of all that grant money they keep accumulating! Love how you call the BRU’s arguments “creative”. It is the same creative rhetoric, in fact, that we’ve all grown accustomed to hearing from them over the past decade.

I especially shake my head in amazement in their declaration that “the total cost of all rail projects proposed in Measure R and noting that the total cost is $80 billion, a much larger number than the total funds that would be generted by the half cent sales tax.”

Of course it is. You would think that the BRU would have learned by now — via osmosis from being at all those Metro Board meetings, if by no other means — that local funds are nearly always used to leverage state and federal funds. That’s how the Red Line got built in the first place; a small portion of the cost was covered by local sales taxes and the Feds put up the rest.

Even more amazing is that they trot out the usual “MTA will be faced with a choice to cut bus service to pay for the rest of these projects ignoring that there are plenty of funding sources at the federal and state levels that would help pay for new rail projects” which means they know the non-local funding exists but don’t understand (or conveniently deny, take your pick) that the local match formula exists.

Finally, they claim (apparently to prove they are accomplishing something) that “the firewall that has prevented the MTA from using operating funds to pay for capital construction has held better than in other parts of the country.”

Total b*llsh*t. Their mantra during the awful years of the consent decree was “if Metro would stop building things, all that money could be used to operate bus service.” As I said at last week’s Metro Board meeting when Manuel Criollo offered a version of that during public comment, the halting of a construction project does not magically make the funds used for them operations-eligible. Indeed, under the aforementioned local/federal matching system, if you halt a project you either have to give the Feds their money back or get them to approve the funds being used for another construction project.

One of their statements is somewhat true, though, if applied to a different context. 20% of Measure R funds are specifically allocated to bus operations, and if that measure fails next week, the sheer weight of the operating deficit (which wouldn’t be as large as it is if the BRU hadn’t spent ten years getting a federal court to force Metro to add tons of service it couldn’t afford to operate), plus the AIG debacle, will likely force every one of the 25 lowest performing lines to be eliminated … and their howls of protest won’t be able to stop it.

By the way, that silly “No on the 6″ logo is so difficult to read unless you are right on top of it that it looks more like a poster for Proposition 6. Which pretty much lowers the effectiveness of their (illegal) campaign of plastering them on the side of traffic signal control boxes. Maybe someone at the City will read this and charge them the appropriate fines for defacing those boxes. It would be the first positive use of all that grant money they keep accumulating!

]]>