tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928622184607631910.post4353273953672214862..comments2023-10-22T01:56:21.243-07:00Comments on Where Do We Go from Here?: Petaluma’s Measure Q: The Argument Over Government Efficiency Dave Aldenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04365271229524041881noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928622184607631910.post-84233368148226835002014-09-10T11:21:52.979-07:002014-09-10T11:21:52.979-07:00Barry, thanks for the kind words on the former. O...Barry, thanks for the kind words on the former. On the latter, there are several benefits I could ascribe to the Rainier Connector, although economists might argue for weeks about the value of each. (1) Rainier would add a key missing link in the traffic grid and well-gridded cities, because of the additional trip routes that are available, are more efficient. (2) Rainier would allow more cross-town trips, so people would have increased options of places to do business or friends to visit. (3) If Rainier decreases traffic congestion, which I suspect is unlikely, trips would be quicker. (4) There are potential development parcels that can be best accessed by Rainier, so there may be short-term jobs in housing construction and long-term property tax revenues. The latter, as always, comes with the uncertainty about whether they're adequate to cover the long-term incremental costs of the new development. (5) Of course, Rainier itself would also provide short-term construction jobs. It's hard to assign firm values to some of those benefits. So, it's ultimately a judgment call whether the benefits are worth $100 milliion plus long-term maintenance, although my assessment is that the benefits fall well short of the costs.Dave Aldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365271229524041881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928622184607631910.post-82790803966353953202014-09-09T14:03:49.000-07:002014-09-09T14:03:49.000-07:00Dave, I have a comment and a question.
1. Your...Dave, I have a comment and a question. <br /><br />1. Your discussion of natural, normal inefficiency is simply brilliant for me. It makes perfect sense to the intuitive sense I have always felt about both families and government, and your analytical articulation of it is valuable (and cognitively efficient).<br /><br />1. The thing I do NOT know, really, and want to know about the decades-long argument about the much-ballyhooed Rainier Crossing is this: what actual benefits would it truly provide for our community, economy and character? And what would the actual costs and consequences amount to?<br /><br />You have probably addressed this in precious blogs. Can you direct me to them or inform me of the secret key to doing a search for same?<br /><br />Thanks, BarryBarry Bussewitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18267945167112914159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928622184607631910.post-38495115951157171152014-09-09T09:25:08.823-07:002014-09-09T09:25:08.823-07:00Roger, thanks for commenting. You raise an intere...Roger, thanks for commenting. You raise an interesting point about whether the city is poisoning the well for future tax measures by promising the Rainier Connector when fulfillment of that promise will definitely be deferred and perhaps never met.<br /><br />Personally, I don't think that'll possibility will happen. I suspect that, if the tax measure passes and if Caltrans finds money for the modifications to 101, then the Rainier Connector will be built. And Caltrans generally finds the funds it seeks for "investments" in our "economic prosperity", even when the work proposed is neither.<br /><br />But if the tax measure passes and Caltrans can't find the funds, then yes, the failure to build the Rainier Connector will likely increase cynicism about government, which isn't a good thing.<br /><br />On your other points about the value of the Rainier Connector and the success of more urban cities, I concur.Dave Aldenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04365271229524041881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928622184607631910.post-50174441866617767032014-09-08T11:33:03.406-07:002014-09-08T11:33:03.406-07:00I am not super well informed on the tax so perhaps...I am not super well informed on the tax so perhaps you will correct me, but my thoughts is that its a bad idea in general to tell people you want a tax to build something (in this case the Rainier connector) that you know is very unlikely to be built with the funding, or that is even a good idea to be built. Because if Rainier doesn't get built people are going to remember that's how it was sold and its going to be very hard to go back to the voters the next time you want money for something. There is always going to be needs for more tax money so I have no problem with that and I don't agree that government is always inefficient (that's untrue) but I do have big concerns over telling people you want a tax for something that has a very little chance of actually being built. The voters will remember that you failed to deliver the next time you go to them.<br /><br />Hope this makes some sense. I personally don't feel the cross-town connector is worth the many millions it will take to build it. We have other more pressing needs for scarce tax dollars. <br /><br />As for how it impacts the urbanist agenda, the proverbial quote is the road to hell is paved with good intentions and in this case - paved is a good word. Cities never set-out to make themselves chain store suburbia strip malls like Petaluma is doing. But it happens because the business and pro-development concerns always criticize any candidate who opposes developers as "anti-business" and "anti-growth". Ironically, its the cities like San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland that push developers the hardest and oppose the strip mall growth approach that are doing the best economically and are where people want to live and are doing better then cities that have bent over to developers like our City Council is doing. So, when I see candidates labeled as "anti business" by the Chamber of Commerce or opposed by the public sector unions who only care about getting their big pensions funded - those are the candidates I want to support.<br /><br />My two cents, or maybe just one cent. RogerLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16655641695242908016noreply@blogger.com