On August 6, 2002, I attended a Board of Supervisor's Meeting.  It's sole purpose was to pass a resolution approving the ballot language for Measure "A". Only supervisors Tavaglione, Buster and Mullins attended and voted.  They were openly hostile to several speakers who spoke against Measure "A".  In fairness, I think they were polite to me. However, they seem taken aback at the possibility county residents might not support Measure A.

Since the agenda item was the ballot language, I addressed my comments specifically to the ballot wording.  My specific concerns were:

1.  There is no EIR and no justification for the statement that Measure "A" is intended to "reduce congestion, and improve air quality."
2.  The ballot language fails to disclose that the Expenditure Plan will be "locked in" absent specfic review procedures.
3.  The ballot language fails to disclose that the County Ordinance authorizes "any form of indebtedness" and not merely "bonds".
4.  The ballot language fails to disclose that the borrowed money will be spent immediately, rather than during the 2009-2039 tax period.
5.  The ballot language fails to acknowledge the allocation of funds that is required in the ordinance.

I was told by Supervisor Buster that the meeting was "merely ministerial" and that they could not alter the language.  I suggested that they then reject the language and require a better statement.

Two very interesting comments were made by the Supervisors:  (1) that the money is needed to provide adequate transportation for projects that are already approved; and (2) we "have to" build freeways to accommodate a state plan designating our area as the "low income housing" location for our southern California area.

Though I was not allowed to respond to those comments, the question is why are they approving projects for which there is inadequate transportation development?  And then, of course, why are they expecting the public to willingly pick up the tab for that new "necessary" transportation development?  In my view, the problem stems from poor planning.  Why are they authorizing development which cannot be supported by the existing infrastructure in the first place?

As to the second point, there is no reason we should be asked to pay for transportation corridors to benefit Big Business interests who think Riverside should be the "low income housing" pool for their workers.  It should be obvious to anyone who takes time to think about it that low income housing should be provided in proximity to the locations where these people work.  It is a "silent tax" on these workers to force them into a substantial commute out to Riverside.

Riverside County should develop jobs for all of our residents.  LA and Orange Counties should develop housing for all of their workers.  If the "State Plan" says otherwise, it should be scrapped.  And, at a minimum, we the voters should say "no -- we are not going to pay for this lousy plan!"