Vote No on Measure I

votenoonmeasurei_032020-3

As a fourth generation Sonoma County resident and family business owner, I have deep roots in this community. What happens here and the direction it takes is of intense concern to me. When my father was approached by a SMART board member for a donation to fund a poll on ridership, and with the related tax measure coming up on the March ballot, I was curious to learn more myself. Thus began the work of looking into the facts of how SMART is doing.

 

Since its inception, SMART has been resistant to constructive measures. Following a 2010 Marin grand jury report, SMART disagreed with 13 findings of the report and rejected seven of eight of the report recommendations designed to improve the financial oversight and communication with the public. Over the next 9 years, SMART’s poor, unchecked performance continued. Measure I allows SMART to spend billions more in tax revenue without any budget oversight, nor any commitment to extend the line or improve service. Voting “yes” on Measure I is like signing a huge blank check for an additional 30 years.

 

In 2008, Measure Q passed with promises to the public of a 71-mile train, 71-mile bike path, rail service beginning in 2014, and shuttle service to and from rail stations that would transport thousands of riders per day and relieve traffic on Highway 101. Eleven years later, SMART has only completed 45 miles of rail and 18.4 miles of the bike path, and now says it doesn’t have the funds to finish. Measure I would extend the tax another 30 years, to 2059, so SMART can refinance their current debt and lower payments for six years, but raise them for 24 years thereafter. Extending the tax 30 years equates to asking the public for $2.4 billion in additional taxes, with none of those funds allocated towards constructing rail north of Windsor, nor completing the promised bike path.

 

Apart from the failure to complete significant portions of their service route, recent data shows less than one-eighth of 1 percent of the intended public uses SMART. In comparison, the percentage of the public riding BART is 30 times higher, and eight times higher for Golden Gate Transit.

 

The argument that “SMART is in its infancy” and will miraculously start making sense from a massive influx of new riders, is not supported by any data. BART increased ridership by 204 percent in its second year, and another 99 percent more in its third year. SMART ridership actually decreased in its second year, showing the opposite trend.

 

SMART claims that use of its diesel trains lowers greenhouse gas emissions. We know of only one serious examination of this question—a recent analysis done by Richard Harkness, a local transportation and greenhouse gas expert with a Ph.D. in urban systems planning. His study shows that SMART’s trains are emitting more CO2 than if all SMART’s riders took cars and Golden Gate Transit buses instead.

 

Aside from its broken promises and unsubstantiated environmental claims, SMART is a financial disaster. The current tax runs through 2029, and subsidizes 90 percent of SMART’s operating expenses, making SMART one of the worst performing trains in our country. To put this into perspective, for every roundtrip, taxpayers are subsidizing $100 of the cost, and for every two SMART riders, there are 1,000 non-riders paying for 90 percent of the cost. To rub salt in the wound, according to SMART’s own data, the average rider on SMART has an annual income of $97,000.

 

SMART’s financial projections are a hoax. Their 2008 Expenditure Plan, published with the 2008 tax measure, estimated the annual operating cost for the train was $17.1 million. In reality, for 2020 the operating cost for just the 45-mile train will be $41.3 million and grow 3 percent per year thereafter. This means the average annual cost to operate the train over the next 40 years will be $85 million per year—600 percent of the original estimate.

 

The seeds of failure were apparent from the start had the responsible parties taken care to pay attention. Asking taxpayers to continue a strategy that has failed miserably is egregious. The lack of transparency and manipulation of data by SMART is unacceptable. An additional $2.4 billion for a glamour project is socially, politically and economically irresponsible.

 

I feel fortunate to live, work and raise my family in this beautiful county, where I have deep roots. There is a limit to how many tax measures can be supported, and freeing up to $2.4 billion for infinitely better uses creates a community benefit that cannot be ignored. We have dire needs in this community that beg immediate attention, action and funds. Join me in a clear message to those who would continue this waste of taxpayer money and vote “no” on Measure I.

 

 

 

Molly Flater, is a local business owner and mother. For additional facts and supporting documentation, visit notsosmart.org.

As a fourth generation Sonoma County resident and family business owner, I have deep roots in this community. What happens here and the direction it takes is of intense concern to me. When my father was approached by a SMART board member for a donation to fund a poll on ridership, and with the related tax measure coming up on the March ballot, I was curious to learn more myself. Thus began the work of looking into the facts of how SMART is doing.

Since its inception, SMART has been resistant to constructive measures. Following a 2010 Marin grand jury report, SMART disagreed with 13 findings of the report and rejected seven of eight of the report recommendations designed to improve the financial oversight and communication with the public. Over the next 9 years, SMART’s poor, unchecked performance continued. Measure I allows SMART to spend billions more in tax revenue without any budget oversight, nor any commitment to extend the line or improve service. Voting “yes” on Measure I is like signing a huge blank check for an additional 30 years.

In 2008, Measure Q passed with promises to the public of a 71-mile train, 71-mile bike path, rail service beginning in 2014, and shuttle service to and from rail stations that would transport thousands of riders per day and relieve traffic on Highway 101. Eleven years later, SMART has only completed 45 miles of rail and 18.4 miles of the bike path, and now says it doesn’t have the funds to finish. Measure I would extend the tax another 30 years, to 2059, so SMART can refinance their current debt and lower payments for six years, but raise them for 24 years thereafter. Extending the tax 30 years equates to asking the public for $2.4 billion in additional taxes, with none of those funds allocated towards constructing rail north of Windsor, nor completing the promised bike path.

Apart from the failure to complete significant portions of their service route, recent data shows less than one-eighth of 1 percent of the intended public uses SMART. In comparison, the percentage of the public riding BART is 30 times higher, and eight times higher for Golden Gate Transit.

The argument that “SMART is in its infancy” and will miraculously start making sense from a massive influx of new riders, is not supported by any data. BART increased ridership by 204 percent in its second year, and another 99 percent more in its third year. SMART ridership actually decreased in its second year, showing the opposite trend.

SMART claims that use of its diesel trains lowers greenhouse gas emissions. We know of only one serious examination of this question—a recent analysis done by Richard Harkness, a local transportation and greenhouse gas expert with a Ph.D. in urban systems planning. His study shows that SMART’s trains are emitting more CO2 than if all SMART’s riders took cars and Golden Gate Transit buses instead.

Aside from its broken promises and unsubstantiated environmental claims, SMART is a financial disaster. The current tax runs through 2029, and subsidizes 90 percent of SMART’s operating expenses, making SMART one of the worst performing trains in our country. To put this into perspective, for every roundtrip, taxpayers are subsidizing $100 of the cost, and for every two SMART riders, there are 1,000 non-riders paying for 90 percent of the cost. To rub salt in the wound, according to SMART’s own data, the average rider on SMART has an annual income of $97,000.

SMART’s financial projections are a hoax. Their 2008 Expenditure Plan, published with the 2008 tax measure, estimated the annual operating cost for the train was $17.1 million. In reality, for 2020 the operating cost for just the 45-mile train will be $41.3 million and grow 3 percent per year thereafter. This means the average annual cost to operate the train over the next 40 years will be $85 million per year—600 percent of the original estimate.

The seeds of failure were apparent from the start had the responsible parties taken care to pay attention. Asking taxpayers to continue a strategy that has failed miserably is egregious. The lack of transparency and manipulation of data by SMART is unacceptable. An additional $2.4 billion for a glamour project is socially, politically and economically irresponsible.

I feel fortunate to live, work and raise my family in this beautiful county, where I have deep roots. There is a limit to how many tax measures can be supported, and freeing up to $2.4 billion for infinitely better uses creates a community benefit that cannot be ignored. We have dire needs in this community that beg immediate attention, action and funds. Join me in a clear message to those who would continue this waste of taxpayer money and vote “no” on Measure I.

 

Molly Flater, is a local business owner and mother. For additional facts and supporting documentation, visit notsosmart.org.

Related Posts

Loading...

Sections