From: jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon)
Subject: Re: Santa Clara Measure "A"?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.173301.7139@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> In article <r4lsh0s@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> 
> |> given that roads will have gotten a 1/2 cent for ten years.
> 
> Roads have gotten *way* more than 1/2 cent for ten years.  Roads have
> gotten--and will continue to get for the foreseeable future--lots and
> lots of non-road-specific general fund monies that came from taxes.

Yawn.  Of course, you left out the rest of the sentence and the context.
I was speaking of the 1984 Measure A.  Why throw in this non sequitur?
Transit has gotten more than the 1976 1/2 cent tax too.  It gets
another 1/4 cent of the sales tax from state TDA funds.  It also gets
Federal assistance.  But general transit and road subsidies weren't
the issue or the point.  But you can't tell from the tiny amount quoted.

Let's review.  I said:
> In article <1992Oct15.170355.24319@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> > In article <r396uek@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> > |> In article <1992Oct14.011000.6530@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt) writes:
> > |> > In article <r20998s@sgi.sgi.com>, jeremy@classic.asd.sgi.com (Jeremy Higdon) writes:
> > |> > |> Voting yes on [measure A] will result in a .5 cent higher sales tax
> > |> > |> from March 1, 1995 through Feb 28, 2015, than we will otherwise have.
> > |> >
> > |> > This is debatable.  The sales tax in Santa Clara County is "maxed out"
> > |> > to the maximum allowed right now.  When the existing Measure A expires
> > |> > there will be a half cent "up for grabs".  Don't bet on that half cent
> > |> > of taxing authority going unclaimed if the new Measure A fails.
> > |>
> > |> Fortunately, we will get our chance to vote on all of them!  Many other
> > |> counties in the state do not use this extra one cent sales tax allowed.
> > |> There is no a priori reason that we should either.  I think this is a
> > |> pretty weak argument.
> >
> > It wasn't intended so much as an "argument", per se.  My main reason
> > for making the point is that if you are suggesting (as I think you are)
> > that voting measure A down this November will result in a half-cent sales
> > tax decrease in 1995, I wouldn't bet on it, and neither should you.  The
> > only thing certain about measure A's defeat is a bleak future for public
> > transportation in Santa Clara County.
> 
> So you think we should grab it for Measure A before some other cause
> does.  I think we have a decent chance of holding off other causes, and
> also that it's not a given that some other cause might not be better,
> like even a better transit measure.
> 
> But it should be simpler than that.  I don't think Measure A justifies
> an essentially permanent 1/2 cent tax, given that transit already gets
> 1/2 cent, and given that roads will have gotten a 1/2 cent for ten
> years.

It's pretty clear that the subject is additional 1/2 cent sales taxes above
the minimum 7.25%, and not general transit and road subsidies.  Given that
transit gets .5% already, and roads will have gotten .5% for ten years, I
think we have spent enough on transit and roads not to justify spending
another .45% (approx) on transit and .05% on roads for 20 years, especially
since it will most likely become permanent.

Sheesh!  Not enough traffic on this newsgroup for you Adrian?

jeremy

Newsgroups: ba.transportation