Marc Norton wrote:
> Rescue Muni co-founder George Musser was recently quoted in the
> press saying that he would lie down on the tracks if Muni tried
> to push through a fare increase at this time. Unfortunately,
> George wasn't at the January 12 Steering Committee meeting.
George is no longer a member of Steercom. He resigned to take a job in
New York City. I wouldn't want people to get the impression he simply
skipped the meeting. Ken Niemi, also a co-founder of Rescue Muni, is
now the chair of Steercom; I am the new vice chair.
> One would think that opposing unnecessary and unwarranted fare
> increases would be a no-brainer for an organization whose
> justification for existence is the of support public transportation.
It's more complicated than that.
For starters, I doubt any Steercom member would support a fare increase
with no strings attached. No one is suggesting that riders cough up
more cash for a system that isn't truly held responsible for meeting
certain service criteria, like reliability.
But I think a number of us are realistic about the possibility that a
fare increase, as part of an overall Muni reform package, might be
necessary to fund the service we want. Would I prefer other funding
sources first? Sure. I'd love to get car drivers paying more, for
instance. And I think we'll see some of those funding ideas come about
as we move toward getting Muni off the general fund and onto a more
stable, less politically uncertain, source of funding.
As part of an overall package, that fare increase might indeed be
necessary. Given the choice of reliability vs. low fares, I'll take
reliability. As for poor people who find even a few cents burdensome,
I'm very concerned about them. But reliability hits them in the
pocketbook too. When some $20,000/year temp answering phones in a
downtown office is late to work, she gets written up, maybe even fired.
Blaming Muni isn't sufficient. If you can't get to work on time, it's
going to have an effect on you.
> (At this same meeting, the Steering Committee REJECTED, by a vote
> of 0 to 4, any support for making the downtown crowd pay its fare
> share for Muni through the establishment of a downtown transit
> assessment district.)
We rejected a completely unrealistic plan to do so. A downtown
assessment district isn't happening. It doesn't matter whether it's a
good idea or not. It serves only to inflame for RM to take a position
one way or another, so long as it remains an unrealistic option.
Furthermore, I do not take it as fact that a DTA would constitute
downtown paying its "fair share" of Muni's costs.
We can waste time and energy entertaining the moral indignation of those
who want to extract more money from downtown, or we can consider
realistic funding options and realistic ways to improve service.
Sorry, but easy sources of funding have been exhausted. So we're left
sorting the difficult from the utterly implausible. Getting more out of
Parking & Traffic will be difficult; downtown transit assessment is a
total fantasy.
> Clean out the riders pockets, and let downtown off scot-free...
> Is this really what Rescue Muni has become?
No, it hasn't. RM did not take a position in favor of a fare increase,
and certainly did not take a position in favor of "clean[ing] out the
riders' pockets." RM is neutral, as of today, on both fare increases
and downtown assessment. Furthermore, downtown does pay into Muni as it
stands today, through a variety of taxes. You may not consider it
enough, but they are not getting off "scot-free." Such wild and
egregious generalizations do not advance a dialogue on RM or Muni,
assuming that's what you're trying to do.
> Actually, both of these policy decisions by the Steering Committee
> are completely contrary to the positions advocated by the
> Governance Committee, which spent the last two months discussing
> and debating Muni funding issues.
All members of Steercom participated in the Governance Committee
process, too, and were quite aware of the issues.
> I also propose that the next general membership meeting adopt the
> following resolution:
>
> "It is the policy of Rescue Muni to oppose any fare increases
> at this time."
The membership, under our bylaws, has no power to adopt policy on the
floor. They can vote to reject Steercom policy, but do not have the
power to set original policy.
A discussion of fares will be in order, though.
Richard Petersen wrote:
>If Rescue Muni is wondering why more people do not want to become >members this just might be why.
So far, this is not a problem. We are growing pretty rapidly at the
moment. We will likely grow even faster when we launch an actual
membership drive next month.
>Right now I am an advocate for an anarchistic structure
>(basically none).
We did that for a while, in RM's earliest days. It didn't work. And
we've grown about 400% since then.
I think it's important to add one more thing: Dealing with Muni funding
is inherently controversial. Some RM members want more funding, period,
and view Muni's problems as being a simple lack of cash. Others believe
the problem is centered in Muni mismanagement, antiquated work rules,
and cumbersome bureaucracy. So long as RM seeks the membership and
support of both groups, some accommodation must be reached.
In my opinion, the best way to do that is to link the two. Link
additional funding to improvements in service and structural reform. If
the organization doesn't do that, if it ignores either side of the
equation, it loses half its base. Now, that may be insufficient for our
most ideological members who firmly believe the problem is only one or
the other, but I think most people who consider Muni's situation
seriously will conclude that both problems are real.
The Governance Committee came up with some good ideas, but not all of
them were acceptable to the Steercom, particularly without the other
side of the equation in place. The Steercom exists in no small part to
keep the organization from floating too far in either direction. My own
sympathies lie more with those who want to see Muni's management
contracted out, but if we embraced that agenda with nothing else, we'd
have exactly the same problem, in reverse.
What Marc didn't tell you when he started this thread is that the
Steercom supported the Governance Committee's measure to raise more
money from parking taxes, parking fees, parking fines, meter revenues,
gas taxes, and auto license fees. All six are revenue sources that I
hope can stave off fare increases while paying for service
improvements. That we are neutral on two other revenue sources, for the
moment, says more about our desire to synthesize a balanced position
than about our long-term priorities.
And we need to synthesize that position in a way that doesn't simply
exclude everything in a circle of politicized dependencies. If we must
improve service, keep fares low, make sure Muni employee pay remains far
above market value, find realistic sources of funding, etc., etc., etc.,
we may find ourselves unable to do anything; something will have to
give.
Given this frustrating circle, I can understand why panacea solutions
like downtown assessment would be attractive. But you can't do a DTA
without the consent of those being taxed (under 218, the property owners
in the assessment district get to vote in proportion to their share of
the taxes they pay). I'm not holding my breath for downtown to tax
itself. If they express an interest in doing so, I'm all ears.
-- Daniel