 |
 |
By BOB NORBERG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
California’s Secretary of State has stepped into the debate over an initiative effort to bring the commute rail sales tax back to the ballot, clarifying which elections code should be enforced and who should run the election.
RepealSMART co-chairman Clay Mitchell is reflected in a mirror while addressing a town hall meeting at Ellington Hall in Santa Rosa on Sunday. BETH SCHLANKER/PD
However, in a letter to the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District, the secretary of state’s office doesn’t address the question of how many signatures will be required nor whether SMART can require a summary to be stapled to the front of the initiative petitions.
“We intend to fully comply with this procedure,” SMART General Manager Farhad Mansourian said Friday.
RepealSMART has been collecting signatures since mid-September in an effort to qualify a measure for the June or November ballot that would overturn Measure Q, a quarter-cent sales tax voters in Sonoma and Marin counties passed by 70 percent in November 2008.
Since then, SMART has seen its tax revenues shrink in a bad economy and scaled back what it will be able to provide. The agency now plans to build a line from Railroad Square in Santa Rosa to downtown San Rafael, now delayed to 2015 or 2016, and extend the line to Cloverdale and to Larkspur as additional funding becomes available.
Critics say that is not what was promised voters in 2008, they don’t believe there will be more funding to extend the line and they want voters to have a chance to vote again on the tax.
As the repeal effort unfolded, debates arose over how the election should be run and how many signatures are needed.
SMART, contending that there is no state code for two-county districts with an appointed board, adopted an ordinance naming its clerk of the board as the election official. And it ordered repeal backers to attach to its petitions a 167-word title and summary meant to be an impartial description of the intiative.
The secretary of state’s office at that time said SMART was overstepping its bounds, that it could not require the statement or write its own ordinance.
Backers of the repeal have refused to attach the agency-written statement to its petitions.
In its letter last Tuesday, the secretary of state said that local registrar of voters in Sonoma and Marin counties should be in charge of the election. The elections office also specified who can submit arguments if the issue gets on the ballot.
But the question of how many signatures will be reqired to qualify the intiative for the ballot remains unresolved.
The letter specifies an elections code section that the secretary of state believes should govern the process. That code requires 39,000 signatures to qualify an initiative, but the letter did not address how many signatures would be required.
SMART’s attorneys believe that a separate election code should apply and would would require 30,000 signatures.
RepealSMART co-chairman Clay Mitchell said the number of signatures should be 15,000, as specified in Proposition 218.
“Proposition 218 created an article in the state constitution that trumps any other law,” Mitchell said.
It is likely that the issue will have to be resolved by the courts.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
RepealSMART cost the taxpayers $17. mil.?
Pretzel logic.
You can fool some of the people some of the time,
but can’t fool all the people all the time.
Smart Train falls into the second catagory.
The citizens know they’re being…
Railroaded.
Search:
Michael Coffman’s Smart Growth Fraud.
To understand where the train to tyranny fits in with the whole ‘Smart’ scenario.
Richard Anthony – Please call me John, but to address your concerns…
1.) As long as we keep our initiative on a regular election (June or November), the costs will be minimal. That $600K-$900K estimate which has been floating around would be the cost of a special election. Any electoral litigation costs you mention are not on us. We just want an election, not a lawsuit. The SMART GM is the one who said he would “beat our ass all the way to the Supreme Court” if he has to, just to prevent the people from voting. Perhaps that is one reason that they just blatantly violated California elections law to obstruct our petition-gathering & initiative.
2.) SMART is now telling us that we will be on the hook for the full contract of the trains, even if we don’t take delivery. This is a flat-out misrepresentation, and contradicts every public discussion of this contract at numerous SMART meetings. Look at the contract yourself. There’s an escape clause & we can get out at any time, only paying development costs to date. This is one of their scare tactics. It may sound scary, but it isn’t true.
3.) We’ve spent about $50 million so far, as far as I can tell. I’d say stopping now before we blow another $800 million is prudent.
At the very least though, the voters should have the opportunity to vote on the project again, since it has changed so substantially. If it can’t now pass a simple majority vote, where we have written the initiative in their favor, then it shouldn’t continue.
(and before people accuse me of lying about that last sentence, let me explain. Voters tend to vote “no” on initiatives, so that is why they are sometimes worded so that a “no” is really a “yes”. I was always under the impression that it was done that way to confuse; but it is really just to get the “no” vote. We were advised that if we wrote it the opposite of how we did, i.e. “Shall we NOT repeal Measure Q”, then it would give us an instant 2-3% advantage. We purposely chose not to do so, despite the disadvantage.)
Personally, I think that SMART needs to get smarter. Do it right, or not at all.
Richard, do you think it’s fair to the people of Windsor & Cloverdale, who were so excited that they have already built their stations; and now they are not going to get the train, yet must be stuck paying for it for the next 17 years?
@Richard Anthony
I would rather pay the costs associated with stopping this money pit now before they saddle us with train rides that will be taxpayer subsidized for eternity. Can you show me any government project that has been built on time and anywhere near the original cost estimates? If the train isn’t stopped, I can almost guaranty you the cost to build it will be double the original estimate.
The SMART Repealers remain uncharacteristically silent on the massive costs to the taxpayer that a repeal election will bring us in election costs litigation. They are also quiet about the fact that if they repeal SMART all of us taxpayers are still responsible to pay MILLIONS of dollars including the cost of the actual trains being built (EVEN THOUGH WE WON”T BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY USE THEM)
Tell me Mr Parnell, are you seriously advocating that taxpayers repeal our SMART Train even though we will be on the hook for all the money we have already spent in contracts? Really? How is this repeal helping taxpayers again?
I think the sixteen local (“local” in this case means based in Marin or Sonoma Counties) firms that are currently contracted with SMART are happy to have the work. I prefer to put folks to work than see them on unemployment. Again, how much is that sales tax really costing out of the average person’s pocket? Not much. But by putting people to work, they spend that paycheck locally and the impact may far outweigh the minor amount of sales tax we are spending. And believe me, I am not part of any Agenda 21 conspiracy. I am a fiscal conservative. I do, however, believe you need to spend some money on infrastructure to kick start our local economy.
SMART the UN backed control mechanism to enslave the masses in the North Bay …is a big theme on Watch Sonoma County.
Posts relating to the Agenda 21 and SMART are very common here. Since participating in this online discussion in the last few weeks I have come to see that there is this whole underlying conspiracy theory about public transit and SMART. While I don’t begrudge anyone their beliefs it is fair to point them out if one disagrees.
It is just sad that a small fringe is given such credence and costing the taxpayers over $17 million dollars.
I voted against the SMART project every time it appeared on the ballot and I will vote to repeal SMART if I am ever given the chance. This is because I believe the concept is flawed at its core. I do not believe many people voted for SMART because they wanted to ride the train; I believe they voted for it hoping the people in all those other cars on the road would ride it. California generally and the North Bay in particular were designed as part of the “car culture.” Public transit in Marin and Sonoma is woefully substandard and SMART is not enough to change that – no transit system would be. For public transportation to be viable in California, homes would have to be moved closer to commercial areas and the commercial clusters would have to be moved closer together. This is the basic blueprint for all areas where public transportation works. Wishing it were different will not make it different. Compacting residential and commercial areas is impossible and so we will forever be tied to the automobile, like it or not. SMART money would be better spent on roads.
@ Jay Behr said:
“We are not on SMART’s payroll…I wish…we could use the money. None of the activities of the coalition to support the project come from SMART.”
Ok Jay, I’ll take you at your word that you are not a paid PR person for Smart.
Why is it that you continue to accuse those who oppose Smart as being Tea Party members? Stop the rhetoric and accusations. Let’s have an honest and open debate of the facts.
OK, here we are again, back on WSC. I post here in the hope that the readership is much larger and more diverse than the dozen Tea Party characters who make most of the noise here. The turnout on this item is somewhat depressed, because we don’t always agree with the SMART board, even if we support the project. Many of us question the decision on how the election issue is being dealt with.
We are not on SMART’s payroll…I wish…we could use the money. None of the activities of the coalition to support the project come from SMART. Here’s where you can go to find out more about why SMART is still a good idea for the future of the North Bay.
http://www.smartriders.wordpress.com
Where are all those new people who were defending SMART in the last news story comments? The fakes didn’t stick around very long did they?
@Christian.
Yes, it’s just you Christian. Well maybe not just you as the sour-grapes/do-over chorus is also heard from others who object to the idea of a referendum on the SMART Sales tax.
Regardless, suggesting that the effort to repeal Measure Q is like an “elementary school do-over” is flawed logic.
Such a suggestion assumes that once a proposal is passed, the voters that approved the proposal forever give up their rights to review their choice.
Both sides agree that circumstances have changed since Measure Q passed.
The SMART Board and Project Proponents attribute the change in circumstance almost entirely to the economy. And they contend the current project is delivering what it promised, although now in phases.
The Repeal supporters argue that the change in circumstance was reasonably foreseeable in that the 1/4 cent tax was never adequate to finance the entire project. And the poor economy only amplified an inherent financial projection. Supporters of the Repeal are also troubled by what they consider a lack of accountability by the SMART Board.
Both sides dispute each others position. The facts are disputed. But neither side disputes a change in circumstance.
Democracy allows for an orderly change in policy by the will of the people. It’s called an election.
Suggesting that the repeal effort is unsportsmanlike or sour grapes is akin to saying that a politician who is not elected for an office the first time, should be barred from ever running again.
Abraham Lincoln lost his first race for the Illinois Legislature in 1832 before winning the seat two years later. Apparently, the voters of that Illinois District either changed their mind about Mr. Lincoln or decided that two years later he was the right man for the job because of a change in circumstances.
The Voters of the Marin Sonoma Area Rapid Transit District are similarly allowed to change their mind or evaluate changed circumstances.
RepealSMART may fail.
At least we can say ” I told you so” , after a $600 million waste of money.
Like Hammer says — Fix the roads !
The youth should Occupy SMART, as SMART is draining their future with more debt.
I still haven’t heard of anyone that have said that they will commute on it with specifics. When I want to go to Marin near to the Golden Gate transit stops, I use that service, I also take Sonoma County transit now at times when convenient.
Any real ridership numbers ? Not forthcoming, and maybe that is why the qualified rail managers turned down the job. Same with Mr Heath that was fired as CFO. I think that those folks know more than they are ‘allowed’ to say.
Is there a secrecy order concerning anything in-house at SMART ? Seems so.
@Christian said:
“Is it just me, or do Clay Mitchell and his group continue to sound like the kids in elementary school who call for a “do-over” when they don’t like that they’re losing?”
How quickly they forget. Smart? was voted down twice before it was finally approved?
I’d call that 2 “do-overs”.
RE: – “Is it just me, or do Clay Mitchell and his group continue to sound like the kids in elementary school who call for a “do-over” when they don’t like that they’re losing?”
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
It took SMART three tries to get the sales tax increase for SMART to pass. And it would have taken a lot more tries if SMART had not be able to grossly underestimate the true costs and grossly overstate the route, ridership, reduction in vehicle emissions/vehicles not commuting on highway 101 and the build-out time line.
And you should clarify ‘losing’: repealSMART is only about signing a petition to allow the citizens an opportunity to vote on the funding based on the realities of what SMART is, not the misrepresentations of what was promised. repealSMART ‘wins’ by only having to qualify for a revote. If the petition is successful and the voters decide to continue the sales tax to eternity to fund SMART, well, then the voters will have spoken that they don’t have a problem with all the initial misrepresentation and false claims, and don’t mind subsidizing a fairly empty train to/from nowhere.
I’d rather ride the Monorail at Disneyland; it actually serves a purpose and doesn’t require a 90% taxpayer subsidy. Hopefully the SMART train can ride off to Never-never land.
This is a democracy. Let the people decide if this reduced scope project is what they want. Put it on the ballot for a vote.
What are pro-SMART people so afraid of? Why are you resisting the democratic process soo fervently?
Is it just me, or do Clay Mitchell and his group continue to sound like the kids in elementary school who call for a “do-over” when they don’t like that they’re losing?
We’re in it now. It’s time to buck-up and finish what we started.
The really sad part about this train to nowhere is that it probably will not go away. The County Board of Supervisors is dead set on bringing in this boondoggle so they can set their cronies up with high paying jobs and pensions that they will tie up whatever results come out of the election up in the courts for years.
And knowing the state of the Department of Injustice that exists here in California, with everybody on the bench sitting in the pockets of Unions and elected officials (?), they will obtain ruling after ruling supporting this disaster.
They will run any campaign that seeks to disassemble this revenue drain out of funds seeing as they can draw from the 1/4 cent sales tax they obtained to create it. Fight them for now, get the signatures to place it on the ballot and vote it out, but it’s not going to go away.
Best thing to do after seeing this come to pass is start a campaign to boycott it. It will be hard to continue to justify it if nobody is using it. Then it can die the death it deserves.
The unsmart board smacked down again. The authoritarians who sit on the board got their hands slapped and don’t like it one bit. They wanted to run the repeal election and call the shots. Well, the Secretary of State straighten them out on how elections are to be managed and it isn’t by SMART.
The smart board has been on the wrong end of the stick for so long, it is a wonder they haven’t learned their lesson.
But autocrats don’t go easily into the night, and these unelected bureaucrats are use to things going only their way.
They will continue to pull out all of the stops along their short rail line. Public sector unions, bicycle groups, growth regulators and those who want to regulate our lives.
Best defense, sign the Repeal petition and put the question of SMART to the voters to decide. That is how democracy works SMART, but you don’t know much about that.
“RepealSMART has cost you $17 Million”
The backers of the repeal effort would have you think that they are just exercising their first amendment rights, and that they should get the chance to veto a project that is already been approved,and has tens of millions of dollars of contracts already let (which will have to be paid even if they kill the project). OK, they have the legal “right” to leverage a $50 filing fee into a multi-million dollar legal and fiscal train wreck, but that does not mean that we have to respect their lack of social responsibility. They should be shamedfor this egregious penalty that they have already imposed on the taxpayers.
The fanatical insistence of Clay Mitchell, John Parnell, and the NorCal CRUSH Tea Party in pushing forward to try to overturn the 70% vote for SMART has already cost the citizens of Marin and Sonoma over $17M in added bonding costs. When you add in the costs of the election, and the additional staff legal time, we will end up in the vicinity for $20 million dollars. These are the folks who claim to be all about protecting the taxpayer. This is the height of hypocrisy and irresponsibility.
Every government official, from the cities to the counties to the state, hate Prop 218. Prop 218 gives power to the taxpayers and the government officials, in most cases, hate it and will ignore Prop 218.
I personally can site several policies in the County of Sonoma that are in direct violation of Prop. 218. All of which the County is aware of but continues to ignore.
One wonders what the hell these people think they are doing by ignoring the Constitution of California.
Oh yes, and don’t forget, FIX THE ROADS!
In the spirit of public service, which is what Smart is all about, a self imposed moratoriam will commence immediately.
Until such time as a revised poll can measure the will of the public to fund such an enormous expenditure.
Based on procedural, economic, logistical and legal questions brought to light by the people and the Secretary of State.
Smart wouldn’t want to overstep their authority.
Smart board would like to take this opportunity to appologize to the public for any loss of good will or trust that may have occured over the course of this ill conceived project.
…Then the cat woke me up.
The Secretary of State already told SMART in previous letters that its ordinance was NOT in compliance with CA law. It couldn’t have been clearer. SMART acted wrongly by passing that ordinance last month, and since the requirements of the ordinance are trumped by state law, RepealSMART was/is absolutely correct to ignore all of it.
This new letter explicitly cites the elections code that applies to special district elections (EC 9300-9380). This is NOT the elections code SMART claimed was applicable in its ordinance. Since SMART now says it will abide by the instructions of thie new, Nov. 15 letter, it is also, if tacitly, agreeing that the ordinance does not apply.
However, since SMART has refused to do the proper, honorable thing — rescind its wayward ordinance — additional clarification from the Secretary of State’s office may be needed.
SMART’s requirement for an added piece of paper on a portion of the petitions was outrageous. Had RepealSMART complied with that demand, two classes of petitions would have been created and that would almost certainly have put the certification of all the signatures in peril. SMART knew this — don’t think it didn’t. But RepealSMART did not fall into its trap. If SMART tries to refuse to call an election after certification of the signatures by the county registrars of voters due to the lack of that paper, SMART will again be completely in violation of the Secretary of State’s earlier declarations. But perhaps, if SMART needs additional instructions pertaining directly to that piece of paper (it shouldn’t), that can be arranged?
The PD constantly insists that the number of signatures necessary for qualification is up in the air. This isn’t the case. Bob Norberg should do some more homework; if he does he will see that indeed, the state constitution decides this matter, as Clay Mitchell noted.