|
LA Voters Lied to on How Transpo Bond Money would be Spent? |
|
|
The City
By David Lowell
Both Councilwoman Janice Hahn and Mayor Villaraigosa issued statements this week demanding that Southern California get its fair share of the Prop 1B transportation funds supported by voters … including SoCal voters … a year ago.
Hahn called for the California Transportation Commission to cough up 75% of the bond monies for the Southern California region.
The Mayor sent a letter to the CTC noting that Southern California’s ports handle $256 billion in cargo and generate $6.7 billion in state and local tax revenue. He told the Commission that “Any allocation that fails to recognize this special burden is unacceptable.”
 The San Bernardino Sun editorialized: “Watch out. Like some other state “solutions,” the (money) may never materialize.”
Here’s what the Sun had to say.
“State officials, ever glad to help, have added a billion dollars to help handle the increasing burdens of trade-driven transportation. But watch out. Like some other state "solutions," the billion may never materialize.
The reason for the generosity was an argument that has been brewing among competing regions over who would get the bulk of money from bonds approved by voters as part of Proposition 1B. Since five counties - Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and Ventura - handle 85 percent of the state’s trade, it seems logical they should get 85 percent of the money, which would amount to $1.7 billion. The bulk of the state’s trade passes through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the Inland Empire’s distribution centers.
But three other regions - San Diego, the Bay Area and the Central Valley - were lining up for a fight. The problem, as usual, is that there are too many needs and too few resources. The California Trade Commission’s solution: Put more money in the pot, and make both sides happy.
The trouble is that half of that extra billion is supposed to come from revenue sources that are less than certain, and the other half probably would have gone to the five-county region anyway.
The five counties aren’t happy. A spokesman, Roger Snoble, CEO of the Los Angeles County County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, complained that the rest of California doesn’t understand his region’s dire circumstances.
What he’s referring to is the need to expand port and rail facilities and reduce shipping-related pollution. That has to be done before the inevitable increases in trade happen, or the consequences will be very unpleasant.
Snoble said that at least the five counties are getting about what they wanted under the latest proposal, between $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion of the expanded $3 billion fund.
But are they? Assembly Speaker Fabian Nu ez, D-Los Angeles, said the five-county region shouldn’t settle for a deal with so many holes in it, and demand something better - a higher percentage commensurate with the region’s trade-bearing role.
He’s right. That’s the best way to do business with the state.” _
|
