Peninsula needs to kill the BART merger plan

How do you get folks to support massive expenditures?  By not telling them.  Instead ask if they want to sky and the moon.  Imply there is no cost.  Get them to agree and then after approved mention it is very expensive.

“One of the poll questions is whether the public would support “one integrated rail system.” Another one asks whether people would support “one regional transit agency for the Bay Area.”

Neither question addresses the cost of such proposals, as confirmed by Rebecca Long, MTC director of Legislation and Public Affairs.

This means you can expect rousing public support, and those who pushing these potentially disastrous ideas will feel they have the wind at their back.

This is how government lies—they refuse to tell you the true costs of projects, like the High Speed Rail, after lots of money has been spent and there appears to be no way to spent the scam.

Peninsula needs to kill the BART merger plan

Daily Journal, 11/14/23  https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/columnists/peninsula-needs-to-kill-the-bart-merger-plan/article_2fb3c180-8425-11ee-88df-0b04d52c7124.html

After last week’s mini-rant about the proposed merger between BART and Caltrain (I have not yet begun to rant, to paraphrase John Paul Jones), a reader asked, heaven forbid, that I elaborate.

I said the merger would not be in San Mateo County’s interests, and the reader wanted to know why. Here you go:

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the regional agency that doles out most state and federal transit money, has a poll in the field to test public appetite for a regional transportation funding measure.

One of the poll questions is whether the public would support “one integrated rail system.” Another one asks whether people would support “one regional transit agency for the Bay Area.”

Neither question addresses the cost of such proposals, as confirmed by Rebecca Long, MTC director of Legislation and Public Affairs.

This means you can expect rousing public support, and those who pushing these potentially disastrous ideas will feel they have the wind at their back.

No cost. No details. No problem.

But, in answer to the reader’s question, I am told no one at Caltrain knew the question was plunked into the poll. No one at SamTrans knew about the regional question.

And that’s what you can expect — planning that involves other people in some other place concerned with issues that benefit their own priorities. Until the measure is finalized, that is. And the campaign is underway. Then, someone undoubtedly will say it is time for the region “to join together in unity to pass this critical measure.”

The only fitting unified response is for Peninsula political leaders, including those from cities with BART stations and Caltrain stations, to stand up now — not later — and kill this pie-in-the-sky proposal.

MAYORITIS — What is it about these mayor and mayorlike positions that seems to bring out oddly cranky and often egoistic behavior among the elected class?

We have seen city after city get into quite public (and often embarrassing) fights over the “rotation” for mayor. We all know about San Mateo, but it has happened many times over in many other cities.

Add to the list the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, where, as reported by the Daily Journal’s indefatigable Sierra Lopez, they got into a tiff over who gets to be president on the cordial-no-more political body.

With the exception of Belmont and San Bruno, all these mayoral positions rotate, some on a wobblier axis.

Mayor is largely an honorary title. A mayor is just one vote and needs at least two more to get anything done, no matter how many State of the City/County priority lists are announced at the start of the year. The only distinction in being mayor is that it is a year of heightened attention — feeling important, in essence. This apparently is enough to get our friendly, neighborhood electeds fighting with one another over whose turn it is.

They try to adopt policies that set a rotation in place. But they still have to vote, it still takes three votes to be elected mayor, and they have to do it in public.

They can adopt all the policies they want, and that works fine, until it does not.

THAT WAS QUICK: Speaking of San Mateo, moments after last week’s masterpiece showed up, devotees of Mayor Amourence Lee jumped on my statement that District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe had “concluded no illegal behavior had occurred” among the people who Lee had accused of improperly lobbying her during the city’s mayoral tsuris waaay back in December.

Said one correspondent, who identified only as Westy: “Wagstaffe did not conclude no illegal conduct occurred, he said there was insufficient evidence. He didn’t clear anyone, which is pretty damning considering he usually comes down squarely on the side of the moneyed peoples.”

These are the times in which we live — the absence of proof is evidence, not of innocence, but of a cover-up.

Besides being an example of a difference without a distinction, it is a model of revisionist history. Do not take my word for it. Consider this statement post-hoo-ha, from Lee: “Now, fortunately the DA investigation puts to rest any question of impropriety.”