GELFAND’S WORLD--The working press tends to look for each election's storyline, and then beats on it ad infinitum. Those of a certain age will remember when Gerald Ford was labeled as clumsy and stupid. Comedian Chevy Chase built the beginnings of his Saturday Night Live career by taking Ford-like pratfalls. In the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush was presented as a bit dumb, but Al Gore was labeled as haughty and overbearing. When the press got hold of the line (that Gore didn't actually say) -- I invented the internet -- we heard those words in late night monologues for the rest of the decade. 

No matter that Gerald Ford was probably the most athletic person ever to hold the presidency of the United States, or that Al Gore isn't really like that, or that George W. Bush isn't stupid. Once these tropes get their barbs stuck in the national skin, they don't come out easily. 

It's taken a while for the mainstream press to come out of its collective shell and begin to adopt a storyline on Donald Trump. It's really only the past couple of weeks that the Trump label was adopted as the semi-official presentation for the 2016 election. 

Here it is: Don't trust anything Trump says -- anything at all -- unless you have actual evidence. 

This goes way beyond the more prosaic argument suggesting that Trump deviates from the truth once in a while. If he were just a teller of tall tales that would be something that normal people could live with. We expect a little factual improvisation from politicians who are caught with their arm in the cookie jar. But the argument that the media are making about Trump goes several steps further, making him out to be a pathological case. It's been a long time coming, but now that it's been exploited on the front pages of major newspapers and on CNN, it isn't going away. 

The effects of this developing consensus are beginning to do damage to Trump's campaign. At this moment a few days after the first presidential debate, Trump's advisors are trying to figure out how to salvage something from the wreckage. That means Trump needs a comeback in the second debate. Barack Obama did it in 2012, so why not the Donald? 

The problem for Trump right now is very different than it was for Obama back then. Trump is stuck with a problem of his own making. During the debate, he couldn't resist interrupting Clinton when she made factual attacks on him. He inserted the word, "Wrong" repeatedly. This technique must have worked for Trump in the past, but in the context of a presidential debate it is a disaster. Trump failed to understand that the same techniques proving that Melania Trump's speech included plagiarism will be used on his latest statements. 

It gets even worse than that. People have been archiving Trump's tweets. During the debate, Trump denied being a climate change denialist. Within moments, the internet was ablaze with people repeating his original statement about climate change. 

Even for the most durable Trump supporters, there has to be some cognitive dissonance developing. They can limit their television to Fox News and their radio to Sean Hannity, but at some point in the day, they will be confronted with the fact that Trump's words are not to be trusted. 

Sure, lots of hard-right Trump supporters will stick with him. They are obviously very good at denial and mental compartmentalization. But some people will feel the mental pressure, particularly when Trump's obvious lies are rubbed in their noses. 

How will they deal with questions like, "We all read his tweet saying that the Chinese invented the idea of global warming. How can he now say he didn't say that?" 

They will find it hard to come up with a believable answer. 

The important fact that has been largely ignored is this: Trump delivers his lies in a tone of voice that is very convincing. He sounds certain, even to the point of sounding irritated that someone could ever question his veracity. At some point, people will be confronted with the question, "Trump said it with complete conviction, but it's demonstrably a lie. How do you explain that?" 

There is a real possibility here for improvement in the national temperament. As the skepticism about Trump's honesty is continually reinforced by stories in the press and the electronic media, some current Trump supporters will begin to waver. And as they waver on Trump, they will also waver (just a bit) on the right wing media. After all, it is the right wing media that have been feeding the Trump story to us. 

Does Fox lie intentionally? It's a question that many people have been avoiding, but some will begin to realize that it's time to ask that question. 

By the way, you may be asking, "what is the storyline on Clinton?" That's a good question, and it's not well resolved as yet. But there is another answer that may be compelling. If Clinton wins, then her label will be the one word, "winner." We don't have much of a label on George W. Bush either, because labels are explanations for why a candidate did not win. Winners don't need labels. 

Addendum: Those weren't deer in the headlights, those were city employees 

During what would have otherwise been a sleepy afternoon at last Saturday's neighborhood council congress, a little bit of fun ensued. High ranking city employees were asked to explain the budget process. They did so very effectively. But when asked why the city was considering a refund to the Mariott Corporation for occupancy taxes, there was a sort of embarrassed pause. It was a deer in the headlights moment. One speaker explained that we were getting into the topic of subventions. It's a curious word, subventions. The questioner followed up, pointing out sarcastically that Mariott sure needed that money, nearly a million dollars. 

Those of us in the audience realized that we were meeting the people who work directly on making the sausage (to borrow from the old Bismarck line). Their job is to follow up on instructions from the City Council and the mayor. 

A thought ran through my mind. The residents of Los Angeles should receive notice of campaign donations to City Council members from companies that have some stake in a piece of legislation. Every single item on the City Council agenda should be checked for financial advantages going to specific companies. Donors and recipients should be listed on the Council's agenda. It wouldn't be the whole story, but it would be something.

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for City Watch. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

-cw

GUEST COMMENTARY--Jesus. On Tuesday, America's trigger-happy police shot dead another unarmed man, this time in El Cajon in Southern California.

Police shot and killed Alfred Orlango, 30, reportedly for having an epileptic seizure while black; his sister had called for help after he began walking in traffic.

Police say they shot - and simultaneously tasered - him when he ignored their instructions to take his hand from his pocket and pulled out an object; no gun was found. Cell phone video shows scores of police and Orlango's sister wailing, “Oh my God. You killed my brother. I just called for help (and) you killed him.” As usual, officials urged calm and furious residents can't see why they should be.

“I’m Scared That I won’t Grow Up to be a Black Man”

That same day, the Charlotte City Council held its first meeting since the shooting death of Keith Scott, a father of seven, sparked sometimes violent protests against almost daily police shootings of black citizens repeatedly decried  as a moral, social and legal outrage as well as a public health epidemic. 

The meeting drew peaceful protesters and a crowd of about 50 people who spoke out against police violence. Among them were several children whose very presence offered a powerful reminder of the devastating effects of the carnage on our smallest citizens. Said Taje Gaddy, 10, "Every morning when I wake up, I’m scared that I won’t grow up to be a black man."

“We Shouldn’t Have Tears”

The most heartbreaking testimony came from nine-year-old Zianna Oliphant (photo above), who tremulously told officials, "I come here today to talk about how I feel ..." Breaking down, audience members yelled support - "You're doing great! Do not stop!" - before she went on, tears streaming down her face.

"We are black people, and we shouldn’t have to feel like this ... I can’t stand how we are treated. It’s a shame that our fathers and mothers are killed and we can’t even see them anymore. It’s a shame that we have to go to their graveyard and bury them. We have tears and we shouldn’t have tears. We need our fathers and mothers to be by our side.”

When she finished, the room filled with protesters speaking the vital, righteous truth. "No Justice, No Peace," they chanted. "No justice, No Peace."

(Abby Zimet writes for Common Dreams where this perspective was first posted.)

-cw

VOICE OF THE PEOPLE-Friday, September 30, the LA City Council will convene to either place the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative on the March 7, 2017 ballot — or immediately adopt this citizen initiative word-for word, as required by law. 

Since the measure is an historic and fundamental reform of a City Council that has grown transfixed by cutting multimillion-dollar backroom real estate deals, we'll be at City Hall with a careful eye to possible political mischief aimed at keeping it off the ballot. 

“We” is the Coalition to Preserve LA, which has had a good month despite a bizarre opposition campaign, funded by three global billionaires, one from Australia and one from Miami, who had hoped to convince voters that we somehow plan to end rent control and “halt all development,” and other absurd conspiracy theories.

(Note: On Friday the Los Angeles City Council unanimously voted to place the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative on the March 7, 2017 ballot. Read that update here.)  

Ironic, then, to see the City Council schedule yet another backroom meeting for Friday, an “executive session,” to discuss possibly suing our movement. Such a bone-headed action would serve to further anger residents sick of surface street gridlock, destruction of neighborhood character, displacement of the working class and poor, and Wild West gentrification fueled by land speculators and skyscraper flippers. 

More likely, the City Council is not going to make such a mistake, and is merely holding yet another illegal backroom meeting, an “executive session” where no litigation is seriously discussed (the City Council is allowed to meet as a full body in private only to discuss lawsuits, nothing else). 

It's far more likely that any “executive session” held Friday will simply be another Brown Act violation, an illegal meeting at which much hand-wringing unfolds among City Council members concerning “what to do about” the tens of thousands of LA residents who say their communities are being paved over to provide skyrocketing profits to developers. 

The Coalition to Preserve LA will be just outside their door, to watchdog things — people like Jay Beeber, the folk hero who got rid of LA's hated red-light cameras. This San Fernando Valley resident proved that City Hall was lying when it said that the universally hated $465 red light camera tickets were reducing accidents. That was a lie. Beeber proved it — not one of the city's 50,000 municipal employees — by delving into the accident data itself. 

Also present on Friday will be attorney Grace Yoo, who has stared down well-connected political forces in Koreatown, where the pressure is on from City Hall to wipe out affordable neighborhoods because luxury skyscrapers are “inevitable.” The developer of one proposed 27-story edifice has already destroyed several affordable rentals and will wipe out even more if the City Council votes to approve his utterly illegal plan. 

This lack of planning — top city officials openly admit that their “customer” is developers, not city residents — has brought us predictable results: a steep vacancy rate of about 15% in all luxury housing built in the past 10 years, and skyrocketing homelessness fed by the loss of 22,000 affordable rent-stabilized rental units since 2000, now demolished or converted to condos. 

And endless gridlock on streets that cannot absorb the giant glass boxes marching across Los Angeles. 

It's no wonder that volunteers who support the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative hail from the Westside, Eastside, South LA, Wilshire District, Hollywood, West Adams, East and West Valley, San Pedro, Westchester, Northeast LA and scores of other communities. 

Naturally, I will be there on Friday, having been accused by our three billionaire opponents of personally promoting a “housing ban” — yet another conspiracy theory by the anti-campaign, which cannot beat us on the merits next March, and so has resorted to ridiculousness. 

Earlier this week, in an exchange on the NextDoor social media messaging system, I explained to West Valley residents that the busy U.S. Post Office in Woodland Hills is set for destruction. But even worse, after months of backdoor meetings with key City Council members, the developers had announced plans to build a massive 335-unit luxury housing project just a stone's throw from the 101 Freeway. In the works for a long time, this distinctly awful development was finally being sprung on the unpleasantly surprised neighborhood.

What makes freeway-adjacent housing bad development? We call them “Black Lung Lofts” at the Coalition, based on an LA Weekly cover story several years ago that delved into USC's landmark Children's Health Study into thousands of children who lived within two blocks of a freeway, or about 500 to 550 feet. USC researchers definitively showed that children's still-developing lungs (they develop until age 18) suffered high levels of permanent lung damage. 

The suffering and millions of dollars in medical care due to Black Lung Lofts will be vast, but at least we know about the threat to children now, and we can stop jamming children into housing within two blocks of freeways. 

But the City Council won't stop. Children suffering from millions of dollars in health damages must be weighed against their desires to run for higher office, after all. 

In Los Angeles, by the time a bad development like the Post Office luxury rental blob is unveiled to the neighbors, the deal has been cut in City Hall backroom meetings, the political palms greased. By the time such a project is publicly announced, the developer is all but assured a huge profit by being allowed to ignore the zoning to build as big as he wants. 

Our measure puts an end to these backroom deals, in which City Council members get rolled by developers, time and again — and LA residents suffer for it. 

But far more important than the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative's timeout on City Council backroom deals is the work we force them to proactively undertake. Our citizen intiative forces the City Council to, in essence, eat its vegetables rather than grab for the dessert: Come up with an actual General Plan — an integrated and interwoven plan for LA's parks, streets, sewers, housing, open space, safety services. 

That is actually the City Council's core job, to write one every five years. Yet it is a job they have refused to do since 2005, when they very quietly voted never to have to write another General Plan for Los Angeles.

True story: Members of our Coalition found the one-page document in which the City Council — the nation's highest-paid City Council with salaries of $189,041 a year — relieved itself of its fundamental duty of writing a General Plan. One City Hall elected official insisted to me recently that, “We had to do suspend writing a General Plan because it was during the Recession, and we had to put planning aside” to cope with other troubles. 

Interesting, how lying works — or doesn't work quite as well, lately — at City Hall. After all, the Recession was not yet upon us in 2005. In fact. 2005 saw a booming economy and an LA development frenzy similar to the one unfolding today. 

But City Hall elected leaders love their dessert — high-end wining and dining by the developers and their lobbyists — and hate eating their vegetables. Nobody is going to hand $100,000 to an LA politician's favorite charity or pet project because that Council member finally decided to lead an update of LA's cracking ancient water mains, or an effort to identify the water source that's going to feed City Hall's thirsty skyscrapers. 

So we'll be there on Friday, as the Los Angeles City Council undertakes a required, and some say historic, vote. To put a citizen initiative on the ballot measure that lets LA residents fix a broken system at City Hall.

(Jill Stewart, a former journalist,  is campaign director for the Coalition to Preserve LA, sponsor of the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative.)

-cw

PERSPECTIVE-Both the New York Times and LA Times have recently published informative articles about the status of public pensions, particularly Calpers. LA Times’ Jack Dolan and James Koren have provided sober analysis in recent weeks. 

The reporters have echoed the same concerns that I, Jack Humphreville, respected members of academia and many in other publications have been sounding for years – concerns over the diminishing sustainability of the defined benefit plans that almost every politician at the state and local government levels have ignored. A few, including Governor Brown and former Governor Schwarzenegger, have attempted modest reforms and failed, because of the death-grip public unions have on our elected officials. 

The NY Times article, by Mary Williams Walsh, is particularly interesting because it reads like a case study. For all intents and purposes, it is one. It deals with a small fund managed by Calpers. Since this particular fund is so small, it is easier for readers to wrap their heads around the math. But it is the same math behind every other defined benefit plan, large and small. Just as a lab experiment on a single cancerous cell can speak volumes about the greater disease, so can this case shed light on the cancer of public pensions. 

Basically, the problem boils down to using aggressive favorable assumptions to gauge the financial health of plans, plans which are required to fully guarantee the promises made to their members. The assumptions have masked the weakness of the underlying numbers. 

The important difference between a market vs actuarial approach to funding defined benefit plans is critical, as the article suggests. As the small pension unit in the article learned, Calpers charged them the market rate to liquidate the plan, which was a sum far greater than the actuarial value Calpers uses to assess the health of any plan. 

Quite a shock to the participants who assumed things were just peachy. 

Calpers wants it both ways: use the blue-sky view for public disclosure, but penalize participants based on reality. It’s called “having your cake and eating it too” (a few of my colleagues at CityWatch know how much I detest that expression, but it applies here.) 

The truth is, Calpers should not be hanging its hat on one approach vs the other. A range of values needs to be shared with the public, and funding should be based on at least a blend of outcomes.

That means either taxpayers fork over more money, or the participating employees contribute more. The taxpayers are already covering too much, not to mention bearing the risk if there are insufficient funds to pay participants. 

How much more participants should pay is arguable, but it would cause some degree of pain in any event – manageable pain. 

In the private sector, typical employees pay 6.2% for SSA retirement and contribute at least 6% into a 401K. State employees contribute anywhere from 5% to 11.5% of their salaries. Pretty good compared to the 12.2% absorbed by their counterparts. Safety workers are at the higher end, but can retire much earlier and collect up to 90% of their salaries. 

A private-sector worker would pay $1 million to purchase an annuity comparable to an average CalPERS’ benefit starting at age 60. A state employee earning an average of $100,000 and contributing 10% would pay in $300,000 over 30 years in gross terms. Obviously, discounting the amount would lower it considerably. 

That’s a pretty large gap. In any event, Calpers would still be a good deal for employees if their contribution rates doubled. 

And why not? 

Investors pay more, in the form of a lower yield, for less exposure to risk. Why shouldn’t public employees pay a premium for what is a risk-free, lifetime benefit? 

The system is not going to collapse tomorrow. It’s similar to a sinking ship, which takes on water but stays afloat … that is until buoyancy is lost. 

When that happens, it goes down faster than the Edmond Fitzgerald. 

Time to start pumping and sealing the leak.

(Paul Hatfield is a CPA and serves as President of the Valley Village Homeowners Association. He blogs at Village to Village and contributes to CityWatch. The views presented are those of Mr. Hatfield and his alone and do not represent the opinions of Valley Village Homeowners Association or CityWatch. He can be reached at: [email protected].) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

ROAD DIET RAGE--I have had the misfortune to be elected to the board of my local Neighborhood Council, which is involved in promoting a road diet for the Miracle Mile’s Sixth Street, a one-mile stretch of roadway that saw 135 recorded collisions between 2011 and 2015, including one death, and several more deaths since then. Note that many minor crashes are not reported to the CHP’s database.

Naturally, a handful of particularly blustery sorts are aghast that traffic might actually be slowed down by a road diet, and predict every sort of calamity to ensue should it be approved. Of course, they ignore the very real blood-and-bones calamities that occur nearly every month on this stretch. So I shall reprint for you the letter I just sent to our Nextdoor group, where the self-righteously indignant have been raging.

When you look at ACTUAL road diet implementations, you find that they do not increase congestion–in fact, they often alleviate it slightly. I have previously posted links to the dozens of studies from all over the US and the world that support this assertion. The intuitive is rarely related to actuality. The Federal Highway Administration recommends road diets for streets such as Sixth as “a proven safety countermeasure.” Bike lanes are often used, as I have mentioned several times, as techniques for creating road diets, but, although several of you would “never ride” your bikes on Sixth, I do, every day, and so do many dozens of others. It is a major bicycle commuting corridor.

Convenient tax-subsidized parking and saving a few seconds on a one-mile passage are not valid justifications for terrorizing all the pedestrians and cyclists who use the street, as well as the many motorists (and even building owners) who have suffered property damage and injuries, including severe ones, caused by Sixth Street’s “dangerous by design” configuration,.

Barbara G. presented her proposal, and went far over the time allotted for comments, getting more of her say in than anyone else, including board members, but the majority of the attendance was not convinced.

I have been studying road diets and related interventions for twenty years, and I am convinced that it is right for Sixth Street. I have lived near Burnside and Sixth for sixteen years now, and I have personally seen the carnage.

Listen, if you hate the road diet, write Ryu. If you support the road diet, write Ryu. His email is [email protected].

I have seen the bodies. I have heard the testimonies of fear. Neighbors are afraid to walk on the sidewalks–on the sidewalks! A handful of people shouldn’t have the power to condemn their neighbors to death and terror for the sake of a few seconds’ “convenience.”

And for your further delectation, this all-too-appropriate comment from Minnesota, entitled, “A Cure for Fear of Parking Loss.” 

(Richard Risemberg is a writer. His current professional activities are focused on sustainable development and lifestyle. This column was posted first at Flying Pigeon. ) 

-cw

GUEST COMMENTARY--Metro’s Measure M on the November ballot adds LA County’s fourth half-cent transportation sales tax increase since 1980, and gives Metro two full cents in “forever” sales taxes. But, is Metro’s Plan as advanced in Measure M really perfect enough to cast in concrete for perpetuity? The Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association has studied Metro’s transportation plan for more than two years and wanted to support it. Unfortunately, we believe the plan is flawed by five inherent weaknesses and we must recommend a NO vote. Let’s give Metro a couple of years to perfect their plan for the 2018 ballot. 

We agree that Los Angeles County desperately needs better transportation solutions – to move people more effectively on streets, freeways and in public transportation. 

Taxpayers have been contributing to Metro’s coffers since 1980 when they approved Measure A, Metro’s first half-cent forever sales tax. They again ponied up in 1990 with Measure C, Metro’s second half-cent forever sales tax. In 2008, they passed Measure R, Metro’s third half-cent sales tax, which was not forever but expires in 2037. As a result, we are currently paying a 1-1/2 cent sales tax to Metro, which brought them about $2.3 billion in FY2014. 

And now, we are being asked to pass Measure M, adding a fourth half-cent forever sales tax. It also removes the expiration date from Measure R to make it a forever tax as well. So, if taxpayers pass Measure M, we will all be paying a two-cent transportation sales tax in perpetuity. For example, LA City’s sales tax will rise to 9 1/2 percent – and stay at least that high forever! Is Metro’s plan really perfected enough to warrant this? 

We give Metro credit for working hard on the plan -- with the County, its 83 cities and its unincorporated areas, looking at hundreds of projects across nine subregions. Using a bottom-up selection process, Metro used local input to focus on the 39 major highway and transit projects listed in their August 2016 Measure M Flyer – “Facts About The Los Angeles County Traffic Improvement Plan.” 

The key questions are whether these projects are good enough to truly improve the County’s traffic gridlock and whether we can be sure the projects get built as promised. We think the answer to both questions is no, because Metro’s plan is flawed by five weaknesses: 

• Guarantees are weak; 

• Parking plan is weak; 

• Management capability is weak; 

• Route implementation is weak; and 

• Long-term public commitment is weak. 

Guarantees are Weak 

Measure M does not include strong guarantees that promised projects will really be built – and as we know, Metro has reneged on promises before. 

Look at Metro’s 1980 ballot measure brochure transit route map on the left. This was Metro’s promise for its first half-cent transportation sales tax. There’s a line from Sylmar to Long Beach. There’s another line from El Monte to San Pedro. And another from Burbank Airport to Canoga Park. But none of these were ever built. 

Oh yes, the Orange Line busway in the Valley is similar to the Canoga Park route, but it was not built with Metro funds (former Assembly Speaker, now Senator Bob Hertzberg found the funds.) 

The Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association was worried about promised projects being built and identified this as a key concern in our March recommendations letter to Metro. We told them that ironclad written guarantees are absolutely necessary for Measure M’s success. 

Measure M does include some new provisions that help ensure that projects will be built. For example, paragraph 11.a of Measure M’s implementing ordinance provides that “the Metro Board of Directors may amend the ‘Schedule of Funds Available’ … to accelerate a project, provided that any such amendments shall not reduce the amount of funds assigned to any other project or program … or delay the Schedule of Funds Available for any other project or program.” 

In other words, you can’t rob one project to pay for another. This is good. But, when Metro CEO Phil Washington spoke at our August Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association meeting, we asked him a question about guarantees – expecting him to quote this paragraph. 

Inexplicably, he instead talked about the Measure’s Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee and how they would ensure projects are built. How does a seven-member committee of technical specialists hired and fired by Metro ensure taxpayers that their projects are built? No way! It seems that Metro is planning for flexibility to do what it wants rather than what the public wants. Maybe the committee should be nine members from the public – one for each of the nine subregions that Metro used to develop its bottom-up plan? 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to develop ironclad guarantees. 

Parking Plan Is Weak 

The key to any public transportation system is strong ridership – make it easy for people to get to stations. Unfortunately, Metro’s Measure M includes no parking plan. In fact, Metro’s proposed Measure M Ordinance includes the word “parking” only once, and then it’s about bicycle parking, not car parking. And, Metro’s April 2016 Active Transportation Strategic Plan also only addresses bicycle parking. So, why is Metro ignoring parking? 

We met with Metro’s new Director of Parking Management and know that Metro is beginning to work on a parking plan. But, it is not ready yet – and shouldn’t a parking plan be part of Measure M right now – not later? Other transportation systems in major metropolitan areas have learned that parking is necessary to secure ridership. In fact, the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association sent Metro a detailed letter in June explaining how Washington DC had drastically increased automobile parking to improve ridership. And, we don’t even have a parking plan? Are we supposed to walk or ride our bikes to a station four miles away? 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to include a detailed parking plan in their ballot measure. 

Management Capability Is Weak 

Metro doesn’t have a good track record managing large transportation projects. A few examples are the original tunneling problems on the Red and Purple subway lines, the lack of sufficient rail cars on the brand new Expo Line, and the massive overruns and schedule delays on the recent I-405 improvement project, including a $400 million lawsuit against Metro by the project contractor. 

Now Metro is asking voters to approve a massive transportation plan where multiple huge projects will be built at the same time. Are we to expect that Metro’s management capability has so improved over the last few years? The answer is very probably no. At our August Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association meeting, Metro CEO Phil Washington told us that he is working on a detailed program management plan. But working on a plan and having a complete management capability are two different things. Is Metro really ready? We don’t think so. 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to prove they have a strong management capability in place. 

Route Implementation Is Weak 

Rapid transit must have effective routes and fast vehicles. You can have a great route, but implement it with a slow bus or tram and ridership will not materialize. We fear that Metro’s plan suffers weak route implementation. Let’s look at some illustrative examples in the San Fernando Valley. 

There are seven major Valley projects in Metro’s plan, as listed here by opening year. Together, they form a rectangular route from Van Nuys to Warner Center to Canoga Park to Sylmar and back to Van Nuys, with offshoot lines through the Sepulveda Pass and to the Red/Gold Lines. But while the routes look effective, their implementation does not. It raises some serious questions about Metro’s plan for the Valley – and the entire County. 

Why, for instance, are the first four Valley projects all busways? Probably because busways are cheap and quicker to build. But, they are slow and lack the capacity of rail. We know – the Valley’s Orange Line is a dedicated busway that was over-capacity on the day it opened. But, not to worry, the Orange Line is being improved by Project 4 – except that this project simply adds a very few grade separations to the existing busway – and still leaves many street crossings. 

Again, not to worry, the Orange Line is converted to light rail with Project 7. But, it will still have many at-grade street crossings. And, this project does not open until 2057 – one of the very last Measure M projects completed. Even when the project is complete, the Valley route rectangle will only have rail on two of its four sides, and busways on the other two. And we all know that once these busways are in place, it will be decades before they might be upgraded. So, expect to be stuck with the projects we start with. 

Yes, this is bad implementation. Metro is telling the Valley that we should be happy with slower, less-efficient transit. Metro’s Red and Purple Lines are light-rail subways operating in downtown Los Angeles, Hollywood, and the Westside. Metro’s Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines are ground-level rail running from downtown to Long Beach, Santa Monica, and Azusa, with a few routes even having dedicated rights-of-way. And, the Valley is supposed to be thrilled with slow busways running through busy intersections. We’re not. And, neither are other parts of the County that Measure M is shortchanging. 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to fix the implementation problems in their plan. 

Long-Term Pubic Commitment Is Weak 

When Metro began planning for Measure M many years ago, they started with a 40-year sales tax increase built around a 40-year bottom-up plan. The tax would generate more than $120 billion over the plan’s 40-year period, and Metro would spend this on critical highway and transit projects. So far, so good! But, in July, when Metro realized that they needed to accelerate many project schedules to attract voters, Measure M became a forever tax that never ends. Here’s the catch: Metro changed to a forever tax but didn’t commit to a future bottom-up public planning process once their 40-year plan is finished. 

The Measure M Ordinance – the document that implements the ballot measure – has no specific provisions for detailed public involvement in another bottom-up process to select the next set of projects after 2057. Sure, that seems like a long time from now for some of us, but not for our children and grandchildren. Don’t they deserve a commitment that Metro will keep them involved? Metro is committing taxpayers to a forever tax without a forever plan – and that’s a serious flaw. 

Decisions about public funding of projects should be made by the public, not politicians. 

Vote NO – Give Metro two years to develop a commitment to public participation in future planning and correct the other weaknesses in their plan.

(Bob Anderson is a board member of the Sherman Oaks Homeowner Association. He can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

Tags: Bob Anderson, Sherman Oaks Homeowner Association, Measure M, Metro, SF Valley transportation