Avalos seeks greater transit justiceRound three of the battle between Mayor Gavin Newsom and the Board over the Municipal Transportation Agency’s budget saw Sup. John Avalos, throw a powerful one-two punch at the Mayor's Office, with the backing of Board President David Chiu and Sups. David Campos, Chris Daly, Eric Mar, Sophie Maxwell and Ross Mirkarimi.
Last week, as Avalos observed, the Board did not have the votes needed to reject the MTA budget, but today
they had enough to delay decisions on the MTA budget until at least next week: a special meeting was set for noon, May 27, to discuss the details in an alternative, transit-first budget that Avalos is calling the “Transit Justice Package."
Under Avalos’ proposal, the MTA 2009-10 budget would roll-back proposed fare increases for seniors, youth and lifeline uers, restore bus lines to public housing, while increasing parking fees in the city’s downtown core on Sundays and evenings, and eliminating public subsidies in city parking garages.
“Given our grave economic crisis , we owe it to seniors, youth and other low-income MUNI riders to come up with a better budget that ensures MUNI accessibility and accountability, “ Avalos said, while his progressive colleagues noted that transit advocates are concerned that the under the budget that Newsom has been pushing, MUNI riders would pay four times more than drivers of private vehicles.
And then Avalos ntroduced a charter amendment to reform the MTA Board composition. Currently, the mayor appoints all seven members of the MTA Board and all the supervisors can do is confirm or reject these nominations.
Avalos’s charter amendment, which will be on the November ballot, proposes to split these appointments, so that the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors each get to nominate three commissioners, and the seventh is elected by the voters of San Francisco.
“The new MTA Board composition will create greater checks and balances and also ensure that the MTA director is not solely accountable to one person, but a Board that is more representative of the City and County of San Francisco,” Avalos said.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (6)
Newsom Beggar Budget,
That's what it is. Thanks to Avalos for holding the increase in Muni fare for seniors and crippled to 50% instead of 100%. Still, that's another $5 a month off an income that saw no COLA for the first time in 30 years (cost of living increase), a 20% deduction ($96) in earned Social Security benefits and a 30% increase in rent on my subsidized SRO unit.
I hit my 65th birthday last month making $550 a month on Social Security and paying $211 for my SRO and nothing for health care under Ammiano's plan. Within a week the federal, state and local government had informed me that my monthly take would be cut by well over 30% in new deductions that are being passed on to me because times are tough.
Let me note that you'd have to cut Mayor Newsom's salary over $70,000 a year to equal the cuts that I and seniors like me got over the last month or so. That didn't happen.
In fact, the social security taxes on the rich didn't increase a dime. Even though everyone knows that if you made the rich pay the same rate on Social Security that I pay that the fund would be solvent with untold billions left over. But, no, they decreased benefits at the bottom instead of increasing taxes at the top.
Hey, I'm one lucky camper. My friends keep me stoned, drunk and fat. Others aren't so fortunate. Every day I watch my neighbors march sadly to the BART station to beg back pennies of what Newsom and Arnie and now Obama are taking from them while literally trillions go to the rich.
Meanwhile Park and Rec has added millions of dollars to their budget to hire a brutal security force that specializes in rousting the homeless. Another 8.5 million is added to the Muni (it should be free) budget for even more security guards to squeeze the poor while the cops present fraudulent invoices for even more security.
Is there a connection between squeezing the poor on one end while increasing security forces at the other end? I think so. It's no accident that the money needed to hire thugs to harass the poor comes from the poor.
If history has taught us anything it is that the rich only share when forced to. Sometimes how that plays out can be very ugly.
thanks, Avalos
h.
Posted by hbrown | May 20, 2009 09:37 AM
H have you considered taking BART someplace where they have a Wal-Mart and getting a job as a greeter? It might do you good to get out of that SRO a couple of times a week.
Zuni Cafe was out of the penne with tuna I wanted for lunch today. Could the Board of Supervisors please meet and pass a "restaurant justice" bill that would ensure every San Franciscan can always order what's on the menu? I felt quite disenfranchised & marginalized by not being able to order what I wanted.
Posted by Shane | May 20, 2009 05:45 PM
Excellent work for the Supervisors mentioned.
I am a strong supporter of the proposed charter amendment. I will note that it has been tried once or twice before and regrettably failed: Most Muni riders do not understand that problems with Muni stem from the Mayor rather than Board of Supervisors. When this measure came before voters before, the Mayor's people said, "do not 'politicize' Muni", suggesting that the Board of Supervisors is 'political' while the Mayor is not. That is a ridiculously bogus argument. Perhaps, when the Mayor says keep the politics out of Muni, he really means keep the "public" and real politicians who want the best Muni can give at the lowest cost to riders to have not voice. The obvious solution is to curtain the Mayor's role, to relieve him of monopoly appointment power to the MTA (and other commissions too).
-David Tornheim
Posted by David Tornheim | May 20, 2009 06:57 PM
Hey H Brown - San Francisco is one of the most beautiful and expensive cities in the nation - MAYBE that means that someone with limited income might live *outside* the city where rent is cheaper - oh wait, do you even pay rent? or is it significantly subsidized?
Typically, responsible people live where they can afford the rent rather than spend their income on booze and pot. Or they take classes to obtain new skills to get a job.
Posted by H Brown in SF? | May 20, 2009 08:19 PM
Elected Muni Board Would Be Far Superior -
Actually, I wish that Avalos would have introduced an amendment for an 11 member district elected MTA Board.
Planning and the SFPUC are much improved, but still a battle. We will end up with the same in regards to Muni if we only get split appointments.
Posted by Eric Brooks | May 20, 2009 08:40 PM
Campers,
I agree with Brooks on a split MTA appointments process not being perfect. Still, it's preferable to the present arrangement. When Gonzalez and Hall combined to split key commissions and boards they felt they couldn't get the measure past the voters if it looked like a Board attempt to control those commissions and boards. The Avalos measure seems to draw from that experience.
And, I'm not leaving town. Thanks for all the advice though. I think I'll smoke another bowl, pour another bourbon and get back to watching the Board all day. Eat your hearts out.
Tornheim? What's this about telling a senior citizen he should leave town cause it's so expensive? I thought you opposed gentrification.
h.
Posted by hbrown | May 21, 2009 11:17 AM