Sacramento Voters Reject Streetcar

Sacramento wants to build a streetcar, and since everyone knows that streetcars increase property values, the city asked property owners to agree to pay a tax to help pay for it. Under California law, two-thirds of voters must agree, but the city must have believed that everyone loves streetcars so much that they would overwhelmingly agree to pay the tax.

Not so much. In fact, they couldn’t even get half to support it. The final vote count was something like 48 percent in favor.

Not to worry. Even though a nineteenth-century technology makes no sense in a twenty-first-century city; even though the people don’t want to pay for it; even though it has so far taken ten years to plan something that was obsolete a hundred years ago and certainly can’t respond to the almost daily changes in tastes, technologies, and travel patterns we experience today; they’re going to try to find a way to build it anyway. “We’ll look for other sources of funds,” said one city councillor. “We’re really committed to keep the project on track.” In other words, committed to stupidity.
You’ll log into the web viagra prescriptions site as usually as you’d like. The Sildamax pills can be bought from anywhere and the recommended resource is through online medical levitra on line market. But what I am going to acquaint you with viagra viagra sildenafil Source the fact that there is someone to “help” you resolve your pressing sexual problems. The answer is surely discount generic cialis browse around address not a simple task as one can think.

Congratulations to the local activists who successfully persuaded more than half the voters in the proposed taxing district that this was an inane project.

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

12 Responses to Sacramento Voters Reject Streetcar

  1. J. C. says:

    Every time a politician says ” “We’re really committed to keep the project on track”, what I hear is “We’re really committed to keeping backdoor campaign promises”.

  2. P.O.Native says:

    It’s astonishing that around 48% were willing to waste money on this or any stupid rail project.
    Here we are with hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt/unfunded intitlements and government continues to spend all the hundereds of billions of dollars they collect and then borrow and spend a trillion more each year (Federal only). The Ad Council was even spending money on ads last summer telling me to stay away from bears in the woods because they are dangerous. The debt bomb is real. Economic laws are not a religion you can choose to believe in or not. They are mathmatical facts. Fiscal deniers are far and away a bigger threat to, not just our prosperity, but our very freedom and way of life than those who are skeptical about the failed AGW theory. That’s for sure.

  3. msetty says:

    One thing is keep in mind is that downtown Sacramento is already laced with streetcar, er, light rail tracks. As someone who has an office in downtown Sacramento, I can tell you the general feeling was that “we already have this, why pay more for it?” There were some rather inane parts of the proposal, such as a routing that would have caused problematic traffic impacts near the I-5 ramps, an unneeded duplication of existing LRT trackage, and so forth. On the other hand, the politicians will certainly come up with something, since a West Sacramento extension is covered, though most of the unneeded trackage they wanted to build in downtown Sacramento isn’t.

  4. metrosucks says:

    since a West Sacramento extension is covered,

    Conveniently left out of the conversation is the fact that West Sacramento is entirely suburban, well-connected to main Sacramento by a freeway and two different arterials with bridges, and oh, the fact that it doesn’t need a super slow, super expensive toy train. Also left out of this narrative is the reality that Sacramento’s dismally performing existing toy train network probably kills more people than it actually carries.

    Of course, Sacramento is a very suburban city overall, and no amount of toy trains is going to change that.

  5. msetty says:

    The area they want to develop in West Sacramento is immediately adjacent to downtown Sacramento, and includes plans for a lot more dense development. Using a streetcar or light rail line to focus this development is not functionally different than extending a new road or expanding an existing road to serve new suburban development in far flung places like Folsom or Roseville. In addition, West Sacramento voters have already approved $25 million for the project.

  6. MJ says:

    I guess a streetcar just wasn’t part of the “city’s values”.

  7. metrosucks says:

    Using a streetcar or light rail line to focus this development is not functionally different than extending a new road or expanding an existing road to serve new suburban development in far flung places like Folsom or Roseville

    The only difference (of course), is that the road will serve its area proficiently and will receive essentially all of the travel in the area. It will also be paid for by taxes from local taxpayers who will be using the road. The streetcar or light rail line will serve as the focus of corrupt profits to embedded contractors and as the locus of billions of dollars in subsidies and outright cash gifts poured into the area in an attempt to drive development. It will be paid for by taxes collected from far away residents who will likely never use the streetcar. It will likely never be used by more than a few thousand riders a day, many of whom will be existing riders from the bus system.

    Yeah, except for that, there isn’t much difference at all.

  8. Frank says:

    I just don’t understand why Amazon just doesn’t pay for this street car like they did with the one in Seattle.

  9. Frank says:

    Why doesn’t Am azon just pay for the streetcar like they did with the one in Seattle? And why is the word Ama zon triggering the spam filter?

  10. Frank says:

    Why are my posts awaiting moderation?

  11. MJ says:

    Normally, 48% of the vote (among those who actually vote in special-issue elections) would be encouraging to the proponents of a project like this. It would be a sign that they should spend more money to put this thing on the ballot again during the next election cycle. However, the super-majority requirement suggests they probably have a long way to go.

  12. metrosucks says:

    Why doesn’t Am azon just pay for the streetcar like they did with the one in Seattle?

    Presumably, msetty hasn’t explained the incredible benefits to them.

Leave a Reply