Last week, the San Antonio Express News published a pair of op eds for and against construction of a downtown streetcar. In opposition was Representative Lamar Smith, whose congressional district includes parts of both San Antonio and Austin.
A streetcar, he wrote, would be expensive, impractical, and would “likely make congestion worse.” “There are better uses for the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars now slated for streetcars,” Smith observed, adding that most residents of San Antonio seem to oppose it and should at least have the chance to vote on it.
Writing in support of the streetcar was planner Bill Barker of Imagine San Antonio, a smart-growth group. Barker was previously the Senior Management Analyst in the City of San Antonio’s Office of Sustainability. Barker’s argument in favor of the streetcar was simple: the people who oppose the streetcar are evil, so should be ignored.
Who are these evil people? He reveals they are members of the American Dream Coalition, which is “based in rural Oregon.” “The problem,” wrote Barker, “is that the American Dream Coalition has hijacked the term ‘American dream,’ redefined it for its own purposes and used it to disguise its real private objectives.”
All of its products are manufactured as per different safety standards in order to prescription for cialis purchase maintain proper safety during the heavy lifting works. You will not be able to give the user what they want i.e. an erection, it is important that your mind and body work together. online viagra sales It is ought to be taken only after consulting a medical practitioner about the whole treatment and its subsequent medication. http://www.learningworksca.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MissingPiece_Web5081.pdf levitra online is an expensive but extremely effective medicine which has made it a sure shot cure for erectile dysfunction or impotency in men. As a nootropic drug, deprenyl has very vardenafil vs viagra few to none side effects which vary from individual to individual.
“The American Dream Coalition doesn’t believe that communities should collectively decide their fate,” Barker continues. “It would argue that SA2020 should step aside and let private markets decide the future. It believes that privatization should rule and that there should be as little as possible of shared assets such as public schools, public parks and public transportation.”
The Antiplanner is flattered that someone from San Antonio thinks rural Oregonians such as myself can have such a strong influence on Texas politics. Of course, he’s absolutely right about my view of communities “collectively deciding their fate,” since such collective processes inevitably result in the politically powerful trampling on the rights of the politically weak.
If Barker truly believed in collective decision making, he wouldn’t object to letting people vote on the streetcar. But he obviously fears that outside agitators from rural Oregon will somehow deceive San Antonio voters into rejecting an expensive and clunky streetcar that he supports.
The Antiplanner would also point out that the American Dream Coalition’s “real, private objective” is to let people make their own housing and transportation choices, paying the full costs of their choices but uninfluenced by government subsidies, regulations, or punitive taxes. Apparently, twenty-first century planners consider that goal to be un-American. After all, if people make their own choices, why would government need planners to make those choices for them?
The problem is the federal grants and matching funds just lead local governments to avoid the question of whether the project is worth the total costs.
Barker is in favor of ‘collective decision making’ as long as it is on his terms, which means deferring to duly appointed Top Men. Allowing the proletariat of San Antonio to vote on streetcar spending might run the risk that those who don’t share his ‘vision’ could influence the outcome.
To be fair, it looks like Imagine San Antonio has many other arguments in favor of a street car on their website. The two letters to the editor don’t really address each others’ points directly so I doubt the writers had any idea they’d be published together.
t looks like Imagine San Antonio has many other arguments in favor of a street car on their website
Oh, quick, let me guess.
In favor of building streetcars:
1. Contractors make tons of money
2. Developers make tons of money
3. Local government gets a shiny new toy to be proud of
4. Local taxpayers get screwed
Against building streetcars:
1. Contractors don’t make tons of money
2. Developers don’t make tons of money
3. Local government doesn’t get a shiny new toy to be proud of
4. Local taxpayers don’t get screwed
That about sum it up?
Get a load of this on the issue of a vote: http://www.viasmartmove.com/modern-streetcar/
“PUBLIC VOTE FOR STREETCAR NOT ALLOWED BY STATE LAW
By VIA on Friday, March 28, 2014
The legal counsel for VIA Metropolitan Transit has determined that VIA is not permitted to hold a referendum on the modern streetcar project.
The state legislation that governs VIA specifically requires the agency to hold a referendum for any new tax or for any increase in an existing tax rate. Since the streetcar system will be built using existing local funds and no new tax or tax increase is needed, a referendum is not permitted.
The legislation also restricts referendums related to rail projects to transit authorities that have principal municipalities with populations greater than 1.9 million or less than 850,000. San Antonio has a population of just under 1.4 million.
“The short, simple answer is, VIA is not permitted to hold a referendum on the streetcar project,” said VIA Board Chairman Alex Briseño. “Similarly, referendums are not held for other transportation projects in the region, such as toll roads and highway interchanges. We will continue bringing our community transit options to meet the current and future transit needs, spur economic growth, and support the vision of SA2020.”
That piece linked in the last post must be what msetty refers to as
“treetcar opponents will continue their act like the chimps at the zoo and keep on flinging their mendacious poo.”
A law that prohibits voting unless you have more than X people or less than Y people was passed with the sole intention of preventing the targeted populace (ie San Antonio) from getting a vote.
This is the type of law that should be found unconstitutional, as it is not rationally related to an legitimate governmental purpose and it discriminates against certain citizens and governments.
A law that prohibits voting unless you have more than X people or less than Y people was passed with the sole intention of preventing the targeted populace (ie San Antonio) from getting a vote.
Note that, as written, the law also applies to Dallas, which has already spent money on a streetcar.