.
Feedback

Alameda County Can Ask Voters to Raise Taxes to Pay for Transportation Projects

AB 1086 allows Alameda County to put a measure on the November 2012 ballot to fund infrastructure projects.

The following is a press release issued Monday by the office of state Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D- Fremont:

Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation by Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) today to give Alameda County the option to put a November 2012 measure on the ballot to fund transportation infrastructure improvements.

“The county is updating its transportation plan and this legislation gives it the option to ask voters to invest in long-term improvements in Alameda County,” Wieckowski said. “The potential is there to create jobs to repair our roads and maintain our infrastructure to meet the needs of local residents and businesses.”

AB 1086 provides a one-time exemption from the existing 2 percent cap on local sales taxes. Recent sales tax measures approved in San Leandro and Union City would otherwise have prevented a countywide measure because it would exceed the 2 percent cap. Wieckowski’s bill would allow a November 2012 measure to take effect if it receives the required two-thirds support from county voters.

“We appreciate Assemblymember Wieckowski’s leadership in authoring AB 1086, which allows Alameda County residents a choice to improve transportation throughout Alameda County,” said Union City Mayor Mark Green, chair of the Alameda County Transportation Commission.  “Governor Brown did the right thing in signing AB 1086 today since it supports his ideas of government reorganization throughout the state.  It is now up to the elected officials in Alameda County to forge the creation of a new transportation expenditure plan that voters will approve in November 2012.”

The Alameda County Transportation Commission is holding community meetings throughout the county as it prepares to update its long-term plan. 

AB 1086 is the second Wieckowski bill signed by Governor Brown. On Sept. 6, he signed AB 255, to make it easier and less expensive for businesses to manage latex paint waste and to encourage proper disposal.  Studies suggest up to half of leftover paint is illegally discarded in landfills. Wieckowski has seven bills remaining on the governor’s desk.

David September 28, 2011 at 08:37 am
Source is the Wall Street Journal, via the BLS and Census. I've mentioned before, if a union wants to organize, fine, but I don't agree with forcing workers to join (closed shop). I've visited Morocco. So what? More relevantly, I've visited Alabama; it's not the third world. Unions don't make working conditions or wages better, productivity and skills do. Heck, unions don't even protect private jobs (see above, see UAW and Michigan). Are working conditions worse in my non-union positions compared to my union position? Actually, no. When I was a member of a union (the UAW, in fact), I earned less money and had less benefits. How about you. Have you ever lived in a right-to-work state? How were the labor conditions? Have you ever belonged to a union?
Leah Hall September 28, 2011 at 11:06 am
I guess you are referring to an ob-ed in the WSJ? That was also mentioned in wikipedia. Remember, David, that op-eds don't have to be balanced or even edited for accuracy. Consider the investigative (not op ed) article and map from the NY Times I linked, the sunbelt States like Nevada, California and South Carolina, which relied most heavily on the construction bubble, were the ones hit the hardest by the recession and the slowest to recover. States with strong education sectors, for one, have faired much better.
David September 28, 2011 at 01:00 pm
Leah, the data come from the BLS and Census. The WSJ didn't dream it up on its own. We all know Texas etc has created more jobs than all other states combined over the past decade and has had a significantly higher population growth (there's a reason its Congressional delegation is growing and California's is not, while, say, Michigan and Pennsylvania's is shrinking). Second, the WSJ is looking at the longer-term --2000-2009. The NYTimes is looking from 2007-2011. In any case, make a list of reliably "Republican" states and their performance since this "jobloss" recovery began and see if their employment improved. to be continued.
David September 28, 2011 at 01:12 pm
Ok, Leah. State by State according to political leanings past 5 presidential elections (voted majority Republican in majority of past elections). Which of these states have improved employment since 2009 (number: 17):
Ohio, New Hampshire, Virginia, N. + S. Carolinas, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, N+S. Dakotas, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming States with worsened employment (6): Nevada, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Idaho, Florida. Reliably Democratic states with improved employment (12): Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island With worsened employment (4): California, Arkansas, Connecticut, New Jersey Unchanged (but still Dem) (4): Pennsylvania, W. Virginia, Maryland, Delaware. So, just counting up states doesn't mesh with your interpretation of that article.
David September 28, 2011 at 01:19 pm
To wrap up (part 1 of 2), the "recovery" is uneven, but to say that the West and South haven't recovered is flat out wrong. You should know Leah, that the headlines of "fact-based" articles don't actually have to match the facts, especially at the NYTimes. To recap:
West Coast states with improvements since 2009: Washington and Oregon, with California worse. States of the original confederacy with improvements since 2009: Tennessee, Alabama, N., S. Carolinas, VIrginia (5). States of the original confederacy with worsening: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas (6). Kind of split, and if you throw in Missouri, it evens it out.
David September 28, 2011 at 01:26 pm
Now looking at unemployment in 2007. What states are above the national average then (4.6% in those dark dark days of the Bush economy)? Why, West Coast states, ALL of the "Confederacy" except Texas, Louisiana and Virginia. So states of the South and West STARTED the recession at higher-than-national rates. And now which states are still above the national unemployment rate? Why, the entire West Coast, and all of the original Confederacy except: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Virginia. So when the Times says that "some" of the "highest" unemployment rates are "now" found in the West and South, well, I guess that's true except for the "now" part.
Jessica September 28, 2011 at 02:36 pm
People always want things; nice schools, better roads, more services, etc- but no one ever wants to pay for them. You may think that you're paying enough, but it obviously isn't. California (bay area) has great companies here and lots of jobs, California is hurting because of our housing a market- a crappy 3 bedroom, 1 bath home in a poor neighborhood used to cost $400,000+ in the bay area- People in Texas are able to work at mimimum wage and are at least able to put a roof over their heads. In CA a minimum wage job is often people's second or third job! I say yes to more taxes as long as it's being put to good use and gets us out of this hot, financial, mess.
Tim September 28, 2011 at 02:49 pm
Since when does the government e er put our tax dollars to good use? About 51 cents on the dollar of federal taxes is wasted entirely. If you want more taxes then great you pay it. Ill continue to shop in santa clara county and more Alameda county businesses will suffer as a result of people like me taking our dollars elsewhere.
David September 28, 2011 at 03:06 pm
We're paying 50% more in taxes than we were 10 years ago, despite the downturn in the economy (median private sector pay is at 1996 levels. government pay is of course higher). Are roads 50% better? Schools? California is hurting because the government is not just spending money, it's wasting money. It's taking big piles of hard-earned income from its citizens and torching it. Period.
Jessica September 28, 2011 at 03:38 pm
We would have a lot more money if all of those foreclosed, unoccupied homes were occupied by home owners. I'm not saying that our tax dollars don't go to foolish things, I would much rather have safer schools that offer better programs, or more police officers, firemen, over having better roads (I drive an SUV with 4 wheel drive, the bumpier the road the better, haha). Paying more in sales tax is the only option to help make up from what the state/county is missing. If people aren't working the city/county/state can't collect SSI taxes, SUI taxes, disability, etc- if people don't own homes the states/cities/counties miss out on lots of $$ from property taxes, but whether your employed or not, or own a home, rent, or are homeless, EVERYONE pays sales taxes! Even those that collect welfare go to the store and buys things that are charged sales tax. (well now, I'm ranting... oh well)
David September 28, 2011 at 03:55 pm
1) It's the only option?? Give me a break. How about cutting useless deadwood? Duplicative agencies (the state has hundreds of them)? Pension reform? Cutting salaries? As it goes, 'Every time they need more money, they tell me it's for cops, firemen, teachers. So how come it always ends up in some bureaucrat's leather chair downtown?' We've been paying more on a per person, inflation adjusted basis (despite salaries going down) for years, more than a decade. Where does that money go?
2) Everyone pays property taxes. Either you pay them as a homeowner or business owner, or you pay them through increased rent as a renter or increased prices for 'stuff' if you buy things at a store (that passes along the property taxes to you in the form of prices). Stop ranting and learn Econ 101.
Craig Williams September 28, 2011 at 04:36 pm
Jessica, conservatives and liberals feel differently about taxes obviously. While conservative question social investments , they are rarely critical of military spending or spending prisons. The cost of one soldier in Afghanistan and Iraq is approximately $1 m a year . If the premise of being there faulty , which a large percent of the population believe,than we are wasting too much government money in that area. The estimate of that waste is $3t to $4 trillion. One could also argue that it ultimately was gone to prop up oil prices and subsidize the industry , since Iraq at the time was about to be allowed to sell oil on the open market when their sanctions were to be lifted.
People on the left also believe that that we are collecting less and less taxes from the rich and corporations.Authors like David Cay Johnston do a good job of detailing this trend in books like Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch. Also www.CTJ.org Citizens for Tax Justice is very good on this issue. I wrote an article which is worth looking at regarding California commercial property taxes "California Silence of the Scams." Also sales taxes are a very regressive form of taxation since they end up taxing the poor and middle class at a much higher rate than the rich since a much higher part of poor and middle class income goes to cover sales tax related essentials. It is Often referred to as "nickle and diming the poor."
David September 28, 2011 at 04:45 pm
Your "estimate" is faulty. The entire DoD budget is approximately $680 billion. Are you saying that 50-66% of that was spent in Afghanistan each and every year for the past 10 years? Once again, you're flat out wrong.
Mike September 28, 2011 at 05:19 pm
http://costofwar.com/en/
Craig Williams September 28, 2011 at 05:34 pm
See Nobel Prize Winner for Economics Joe Stigliz and Linda Bilmes' The Three Trillion Dollar War. The Bush administration cooked up the conservative failed policy, estimating it would cost $200M to $600M tops . Those Stiglitz and Bilmes numbers include long term medical cost which are projected to be astronomical.
Leah Hall September 28, 2011 at 06:32 pm
Op-ed defintion:
is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. Investigative journalism definition: is a form of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a single topic of interest, often involving crime, political corruption, or corporate wrongdoing. An investigative journalist may spend months or years researching and preparing a report. Investigative journalism is a primary source of information. Most investigative journalism is done by newspapers, wire services and freelance journalists. Practitioners sometimes use the terms "watchdog journalism" or "accountability reporting." It is my general understanding that investigative journalists do not have the freedoms of an op-ed contributor (much less a Patch comments community contributor like you or myself). The editorial board of distinguished newspapers, such as the WSJ and the NY Times scrutinize journalistic reports for relevancy, balance, errors, etc.
Craig Williams September 28, 2011 at 08:07 pm
Scott Ritter the UN arms inspector detailsin Iraq Confidential , how the U.S. government put him through at least 20 interrogations assuring them that Iraq did NOT have Weapons of Mass Destruction.Paul Wolfowitz in Hans Blix's Disarming Iraq admits that the WMD strategy was to sell the war to the American people. Stiglitz and Bilmes estimate that ONE trillion dollars could buy you 8 million housing units or 15 million teachers for a year or 120 million kids to attend Head Start, or insure 530 million kids with health care for a year or provide 43 million students with a four year scholarship to a public university(in The Three Trillion Dollar War) I guess you could say that with our rush to war "haste makes waste."
Tim September 28, 2011 at 08:35 pm
No one on the right believes George W. Bush is or ever was a Conservative. I give the man credit for keeping the nation safe after 9/11 but I have been very outspoken against his spending on things such as Medicare Part D and the TARP program both of which pre-dated Obama. Mr. Bush was a big spending Repubican just like his father. Conservatives and the Tea Party have not had much influence against the Republican establishment but that is changing. I am demanding a true Conservative as the GOP nominee and will not support another liberal Republican big spender like Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain. That said, Obama has doubled down on Bush's failed policies of deficit spending, bailouts, foreign wars, etc. Is this the hope and change we were promised?
Craig Williams September 28, 2011 at 09:00 pm
Wish some of the true conservatives had voted against the war or military spending. Hope they're not duped by Citizens United.
David September 28, 2011 at 10:08 pm
I can believe 1.2T as posted on that website, which would be about 20% of the DoD budget.
David September 28, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Well, Obama and the Democratic-run Congress spent an additional ONE Trillion dollars EACH AND EVERY year since elected. Compared to an additional one hundred billion GW spent in Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter of which I've always contended was a waste, but Obama supports, and has doubled down on), GW was a piker. So, what did we get for that additional ONE TRILLION dollars Obama has thrown at bankers, bureaucrats and buffoons?
Craig Williams September 29, 2011 at 02:02 am
Can't blame Obama for the meltdown. But you can blame him for not choosing better advisers.Larry Summers apparently had a vested interest in getting it right for the finance sector. No bank should be too big to fail. No one was negotiating for the at risk homeowners.Andrew Bacevich foreign policy expert ,author of American Rules in an interview yesterday said that the president can make campaign promises but the "president is not the most powerful person in the world," and can't apparently tell the military what to do or not do. Stiglitz and Blimes calculate the health care and disability to be much higher well over half a trillion. Plus the effect of the oil prices being much higher both directly on consumers and the economy in general is factored in . Price volatility doesn't ,in there opinion, balance out because it has a ripple effect on the rest of the economy. No matter how you slice it, and they claim they erred on the side of moderation , it was and is a huge waste.
Geoff Burton September 29, 2011 at 02:21 am
We are all duped by on side or the other. It's coming to the point were we disagree on the color of the sky based on party affiliation.
Marga Lacabe September 29, 2011 at 02:40 am
I see it as pink, who is with me?
David September 29, 2011 at 10:25 am
Leah, I read the article and used its own numbers. They don't even support their own headline in the NYTimes. If you think the WSJ op-ed is using wrong numbers, I'd like to see how you figure that. Is the Census wrong (we know population growth has been much faster in right-to-work states)? Is the BLS wrong (we know jobs growth has been much faster in right-to-work states)?
Leah Hall September 29, 2011 at 11:05 am
No David, I believe the WSJ opinion editorial is referencing the primary source material you mention.
David September 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Ok then Leah. So you agree that right-to-work states have produced more growth than the rest of the country over the past decade. You also agree with the article you cite that, by a ratio of 2:1, reliably Republican (and mostly right-to-work) states have improved their employment numbers since the "recovery" compared to a ratio of 1.5:1 in reliably Democrat (and mostly closed shop) states. This should not be a surprise. A union is simply a labor cartel whose purpose is to restrict and drive up the cost of labor. Simple economics dictates that if you raise the price of something, you get less of it.
sandra dawson September 29, 2011 at 12:59 pm
I think we are getting off the subject here.
Leah Hall September 29, 2011 at 06:04 pm
Nope.
I know it is a hard concept to grasp. But I also know that you can do it! Buddy thanks you for your support. :)
Stephen Carbonaro October 5, 2011 at 11:35 pm
That doesn't include funding for "black ops", the stuff so secret that they can't admit to it's existence, much less it's cost,

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Union City Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Nika Megino (Editor) May 30, 2013 at 10:45 am
When is Kid's Night Out?
Pacific West Gymnastics June 8, 2013 at 09:18 am
Hey Nika, Sorry for the delay. We offer Kid's Night Out 1 to 2 times per month. We have oneRead More tonight, actually! Our full schedule is on our website (http://pacwestgymnastics.com/camps-events/kids-night-out/). Thanks!