u/CJRoses

The Bay Area transit tax is proposed to increase sales tax another .50% on the November 2026 ballot. Let's take another look.

The labor costs of Bay Area transit agencies don't make sense when agencies claim they are broke and then want regressive taxes, which disproportionately impact the poor, to underwrite the compensation. Below you will see the Muni cost structure - but you could pick any Bay Area transit agency and will get to BART later.

I guess you could say "isn't great to see transit workers getting paid like doctors and lawyers." But by every measure these cost structures are not sustainable and are running transit into the ground. Voting yes on the transit tax is further underwriting these comp packages - of course you may agree with it, but the issue here is transparency. What is also astonishing about Muni is its employees have a 26% absentee rate ie Muni workers are out every fourth day on average.

Make any of this make sense.

https://preview.redd.it/4qg2zqjc4dkh1.png?width=733&format=png&auto=webp&s=b1177d29aa39aed48cf8b257bb2292373a31e22b

Fremont sales tax proposed to go from 10.25% to 10.75% - let's take a look.

The labor costs of Bay Area transit agencies don't make sense when agencies claim they are broke and then want regressive taxes, which disproportionately impact the poor, to underwrite the compensation. Below you will see the Muni cost structure - but you could pick any Bay Area transit agency and will get to BART later.

I guess you could say "isn't great to see transit workers getting paid like doctors and lawyers." But by every measure these cost structures are not sustainable and are running transit into the ground. Voting yes on the transit tax is further underwriting these comp packages - of course you may agree with it, but the issue here is transparency. What is also astonishing about Muni is its employees have a 26% absentee rate ie Muni workers are out every fourth day on average.

Make any of this make sense.

https://preview.redd.it/tipcle860dkh1.png?width=733&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e6fb841223bea2abbd8ae49da54a8a3002d4be6

Reason number #12 to vote against the Bay Area Transit ½ cent sales tax - a Sacramento-imposed transit tax masquerading as a "citizen's initiative." ( Last week's reason # 18 below.)

Reason #12 - Extortion. BART's blackmail; BART threatened in a press release on Feb 5 2016 to close TEN BART stations beginning in January 2027 - if it didn't get their tax proceeds from the November 2026 vote.  BART then backed off that made up threat later in the same month (Feb 26) and came up with a new plan calling for "up to 15" closures (ie 15 is the worst-case scenario) beginning July 2027; not naming any stations. 

Meaning BART has not identified a single station for closure and BART's own current plan makes clear that actual station closures would require -further evaluation- and a subsequent decision by the BART BOARD.  In short, there are no known station closures if the tax doesn't pass.  No one knows if, when and how there will be closures but BART has floated "10" and "15" for the obvious tactic of scaring up the vote.

This extortion or scare tactic was in lieu of providing voters an actual turnaround plan.  Won't bother to cover any threats Caltrain may have made up.

Of course, there are other avenues for revenue that BART Caltrain et al have not fully explored, for example redirecting funds from questionable transit capital projects. The advocates for this tax claim that this is not legally possible - not true.  It has already been done multiple times in fact, quite recently. 

Earlier this year Newsom allowed Bay Area transit agencies to borrow hundreds of millions from money allocated to the SBVTA for BART extension to San Jose.  And again, in the 2023-2024 state budget, transit agencies were explicitly allowed to flex roughly $4-5 billion in transportation funding, from capital funding like the San Jose BART extension, to operating purposes to prevent immediate service reductions.  Funds have also been redirected from high-speed rail.

Next week #10.

#18:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RedwoodCity/comments/1vdzw2w/attention_redwood_city_taxpayers/

10.375% ...sales tax above 10 percent....?

Believe it's time to draw a line in the sand on the constant taxation in the Bay Area and the state where state/county/city revenues grow and tangible benefits don't. Front and center for Redwood City is the Bay Area Transit (½ cent sales) Tax on the November ballot (yet to have a proposition number).  It is a boondoggle - a likely $70 billion tax deceptively disguised as a $14B tax. 

It is high-speed rail's - mini-me.  

The ballot will say it is a $14 million "temporary tax" meanwhile BART, Caltrain et al literally provided no turnaround plan for voters; just threw out "temporary" to get it passed.  Its ongoing extension is more likely than not.  Nothing more permanent in CA than a temporary tax. There are 20 major problems with this tax.  Let's focus today on #18.

(And I get it - BART could throw cash out of a helicopter or Caltrain could let multiple employees steal tens of thousands of dollars and build residences in its stations unbeknownst to management; and people will still “support transit” and vote for this tax.) 

The proceeds of this tax include $50 million dollars a year for SamTrans. So over the 14-year life of this "temporary" tax SamTrans would receive $700 million; or after assumed multiple extensions (five) around $3.5 billion.  So you say - "Boy, SamTrans must be really hurtin" as you heard this tax is to cover transit agency operating deficits.  No, actually SamTrans is currently running a $13M surplus.  Yes, you got that right $3.5B ($700M minimum) for a transit agency running a surplus.

How can they do this?  It is truly how careless they (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) are with taxpayer dollars banking on voter naivete and propaganda (mailers/commercials) from their funders which include big tech employers, contractors with our transit agencies, and employees who will benefit. And this is a REGRESSIVE tax - going after the poorest among us - so much for “affordability.”

Next week: #12.