Editorial Rolling over for BART If it has any hope of getting north county voter support on new taxes, VTA needs to remedy funding inequities
E
very time transportation sales-tax measures have appeared on Santa Clara County ballots since 1961, Palo Alto voters have joined with those in other cities to approve them, creating billions of dollars for county transit projects. These measures have been essential to developing and maintaining the network of highways, expressways and a light rail system aimed at serving a growing valley. The region would have undoubtedly suffered serious economic consequences from a gridlocked transportation system without them. But with each new effort to raise taxes, usually promoted by political and business interests centered in San Jose, the issue of regional equity becomes a bigger and bigger hot potato. Most local voters don’t realize that only a small fraction of the money generated through our sales tax payments finds its way to projects directly benefitting north county residents. In fact, of the $4.6 billion in tax revenues collected through two sales tax measures since 2000, almost 80 percent has gone to solely to extending BART from Fremont to San Jose (and ultimately to Santa Clara.) The current sales tax rate in Santa Clara County is now 8.75 percent, among the highest in California. Voter-approved measures passed in 2000 (half-cent) and 2008 (one-eighth cent) mean that 0.625 percent of all taxable purchases made in Santa Clara County go to transportation projects. While revenues from the half-cent tax passed in 2000 (and in effect until 2030) are not restricted, all of the funds generated by the 2008 tax are committed to BART operations and maintenance through its expiration in 2038. A plan to put another transportation measure on the ballot was floated last year by the business-supported Silicon Valley Leadership Group but was put on hold after getting an icy reception. The Palo Alto City Council appropriately pressed for answers on the imbalance between BART funding and support for other important transit systems and projects, especially Caltrain, and Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino was surprisingly unprepared for the push-back. But with the tech-dominated Silicon Valley economy simmering along and roads again becoming clogged, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the county Valley Transportation Authority are figuring the time is right to bring a new tax measure forward in 2016. In preparation for the inevitable questioning and skepticism from north and west county cities about the past funding inequities, VTA is asking all cities in the county to submit transportation projects and priorities so they can be reflected in an updated long range plan. This is, of course, the sensible political move, but in order to ensure voter support from throughout the county, a new tax proposal will likely attempt to spread around transportation goodies rather than remedy the current funding inequities relating to the BART extension. And it is likely to suck continued large amounts for completion of the BART extension and connections with the airport and Caltrain. On Monday, the Palo Alto City Council will consider how to influence this process to benefit north county, and the staff has prepared a laundry list of more than 50 projects it considers candidates for funding. These include everything from an expanded city shuttle system to improved bikeways, bike bridges and tunnels and upgrades to the 101/Embarcadero Road/Oregon Expressway interchange. The elephant in the room, however, with a price tag of up to a billion dollars, is to eliminate some or all of the four at-grade crossings of the Caltrain tracks in Palo Alto. Submerging the tracks under just the East Meadow and Charleston crossings would cut the costs almost in half, according to an analysis completed last year. While these are staggering numbers, Santa Clara County should have a goal of eliminating all Caltrain grade crossings in order to maximize the effectiveness of both the growing and soon-to-be electrified Caltrain service and to ease cross-town traffic congestion caused by trains blocking passage. Credit to county Supervisor Joe Simitian for asking staff to prepare the analysis of where transit tax monies have been spent and how much has been contributed by north county cities, in both tax payments and votes cast in support of past measures. It paints a stark picture of how north and west county residents have seen their sales tax dollars siphoned off for BART for the last 15 years. Now is the time for some strong political pressure to ensure that any 2016 tax measure commits the county to significant funding for eliminating grade crossings and other north county projects. It may be a long time before we have more leverage than we do now, and the city should take full advantage. Q
Page 20 • August 14, 2015 • Palo Alto Weekly • www.PaloAltoOnline.com
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Encouraging Edgewood
Editor, If the developer needs to be fined by the city in order to force them to attract a grocer, then perhaps that is the only way. It seems to me that if the rent is low enough (I understand that it now stands at about $56,000 per month), someone will be attracted to the space. The decision on rents rests with the developer. The grocery business is a low-margin business. Possible tenants should be very responsive to an attractive rent. Steve Eittreim Ivy Lane, Palo Alto
Weaning off gas
Editor, The Town Square letters featured in the Aug. 7 Spectrum discussed energy as if humanity were not facing climate-change-induced disaster. They also got the facts wrong on several issues. Every discussion of energy today should begin with the recognition that climate change is a fundamental threat to civilization and that avoiding it requires us to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Palo Alto has taken an important step in that direction by procuring carbon-free electricity. However, natural-gas consumption is as much as 50 percent of our total emissions. Given those facts, it makes sense to consider switching from greenhouse gas-emitting natural gas to carbon-free electricity wherever practical, which is what the council asked the staff to do. One letter declares that natural gas is “low polluting,” “secure” and “affordable.” All three claims are flatly incorrect. Burning natural gas is definitely neither low polluting nor secure in terms of climate disruption. And with the leaks from the entire distribution system, natural gas has the same impact as coal — or worse. Natural gas is not less expensive. It is true that traditional electric heaters, stoves and dryers consume much electricity and are more expensive than natural gas. However, heat pump technology that the city is considering can achieve efficiencies that are more than three times that of traditional devices, which makes it cheaper than gas. It is also true that the costs of converting existing heaters from gas to electricity are substantial. However, requirements for all-electric homes would initially apply only to new construction. Conversion would be required only when a device needs replacement anyway, and even then only with a subsidy and the remaining costs spread over time. Palo Altans deserve to be proud of the city’s leadership on climate change. Reasonable fuel switching is the next step in that leadership. Walt Hays Parkside Drive, Palo Alto Bruce Hodge Janice Way, Palo Alto
This week on Town Square Town Square is an online discussion forum at PaloAltoOnline.com/square Residents call for fines against Edgewood Plaza developer Posted Aug. 6, 2015, at 11:22 a.m. by Larry Kavinoky, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood: If a developer promises a grocery store in exchange for various, and valuable, zoning changes, then it must be incumbent on the developer to do whatever is necessary to keep a viable grocery store on site. Lower the rent, make parking easier, offer discounts to neighbors, adjust hours. The fact that a developer did not correctly estimate the cost of compliance is no reason why the neighborhood should lose. Require the developer to sell to a landlord who will be able to comply with the requirements. If the developer goes bankrupt, then maybe the next developer in Palo Alto will not promise the moon to the residents knowing full well he will never comply. Is the City Council complicit in this by knowing they will not enforce the contract? This attitude just perpetuates profits for the developers at the expense of the residents. Since this has been going on for 50 years, the City Council must know what the results will be of their approvals.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
On what transportation improvements would you spend funds, should a new county tax measure pass in 2016? Submit letters to the editor of up to 300 words to letters@paweekly.com. Submit guest opinions of 1,000 words to editor@paweekly.com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a granting of permission to the Palo Alto Weekly and Embarcadero Media to also publish it online, including in our online archives and as a post on Town Square. For more information contact Editor Jocelyn Dong or Editorial Assistant Sam Sciolla at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.