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!
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.
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.
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.
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 -- 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 Co,mission. 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.
page sponsored by "No on A-No LA", 3138 Brockton Ave., Riverside, CA 92501,
Sue Nash, Treasurer.