.
(E-mail ALL the OCTA Board Members by clicking HERE.)
Is OCTA CEO Will Kempton preparing to betray Orange County voters?
Kempton seems to be herding the stumblebums who sit on the OCTA board towards an ill-advised scheme to convert two lanes on the 405 freeway to “Express” toll lanes. This is one of three alternatives that has been presented, clearly the staff preference. This subversion of our public assets is probably very appealing to nasty little ideologues like Don Hansen and Toll Road Jerry Amante, who truly believe all the Reason foundation right-wing propaganda about privatizing public assets.
It’s not hard to recall the exact promises of the Measure M renewal campaign, which came before voters in November, 2006. The information pamphlet that was mailed to every Orange County voter is still up on the OCTA web site.
What appears in that detailed presentation was no accident, but rather the result of a two year process, guided by the brilliant tactician Monte Ward, to produce an overwhelming consensus and steer off any organized major opposition campaign. With a 2/3 threshold in an anti-tax county, there wasn’t a lot of room for error. Polls showed that there was almost a 30% automatic “NO” vote, so any controversy or campaign that could generate 50,000 votes in opposition would take down the campaign.
Renewal proponents negotiated with environmental groups to buy their acquiescence with a guaranteed 5% of the revenues going to acquisition of sensitive habitat lands.
Local cities were brought on board with a new package of funding for local streets and every one of the 34 cities in Orange County approved the specific list of projects in the capital improvement plan.
There was a transit component, but it was designed to avoid any single new project like the controversial Center-line, instead focusing on expanding the existing Metro-Link proposal, and offering a “Go Local” fund of projects to be determined later.
It’s no accident that there was absolutely no mention of subsidizing toll roads anywhere in the literature, while the word “Freeway” appears over and over again. Because if the voters thought they were voting to approve taxes that would pay for toll lanes, Measure M would have failed badly.
The information submitted to voters with Measure M renewal was quite clear that the money could only be spent on designated projects, and that voters would need to approve any changes.
As OCTA says on its website even today,
When new transportation dollars are approved, they should go for transportation and transportation purposes alone. No bait-and-switch. No using transportation dollars for other purposes. The original Measure M went solely for transportation purposes. The Measure M2 is just as airtight.
And not only was the spending of tax dollars detailed at length for specific projects without once mentioning toll lanes, but there was a clear promise of oversight, and the commitment that:
Any significant proposed changes to the Plan must be approved by the Taxpayer Oversight Committee and ratified by a majority of voters.
Now this weasel Kempton attempts to explain that using Measure M money to build toll lanes honors that commitment for one additional general purpose lane, but they are adding extra lanes with extra money.
He’s lying because, in fact, that new free lane will only replace the free carpool lane, while the two new lanes, paid for primarily with Measure M money, will now be controlled by transponders, tolls, surveillance, and punitive fines for the unwary.
So are the voters getting what they were promised – additional FREEWAY lanes on the 405? Absolutely not. They are losing the free open-access car pool lane forever.
Flacks for OCTA try to explain that there would now be two carpool lanes, but The Express lanes could only be used by vehicles who obtain transponders, and the car-pool requirement would increase to three people. Note that this is very different from the current requirement of two people in the car-pool lane, where anyone can use the carpool lane without first registering under the FastTrack surveillance system. And like the Express lanes on the 91, carpools of three or more would pay tolls some of the time, at the discretion of the OCTA board. If it is set up like the 91 Lexus lanes, drivers who sometimes carpool and sometimes drive solo would require a prepaid account, and either a $75 initial payment or a minimum monthly fee. The real goal is to discourage casual carpools and maximize revenues from the small minority of drivers who can afford to pay.
It’s clear that Kempton and his appartchiks are trying to pull a fast one on Orange County voters, so that the clear promises of Measure M will be subverted and tax money will instead be spent in a clear violation of the letter and spirit of Measure M.
However they dance, dodge and weave, there is no new freeway lane in option 3.
If they think voters would approve this change, their path is clear. Let the voters decide in an election. Don’t pretend that trying to gain consensus with an expensive orchestrated outreach program, a postcard mailing only to residents within five hundred yards of the 405 in one part of the county, is sufficient or representative.
If Kempton thinks this is consistent with what voters approved, then he can honor the commitment of Measure M, and bring this plan back to the voters for approval. If he and the OCTA directors do that, they will quickly discover that the taxpayers who will pay the vast majority of the construction cost, while suffering through five years of construction delays, aren’t very interested in Express Lanes that they can’t access conveniently. And voters don’t want to pay tolls on roads that have always been free!
Our Coverage Thus Far:
- “Lexus Lanes” on the 405? Help Stop the Latest Toll Road Outrage!
- Perfect Circularity: A 405 Toll Lane for the Sole Purpose of Funding a 405 Toll Lane?
- OCTA’s Will Kempton to Betray OC Voters?
- Proposal Unites Enemies in Costa Mesa, against HB Mayor Don Hansen.
- 405 Toll-Gate For Dummies: How the proposed toll lanes are illegal.
- My Modest Proposal to build “Expensiveways” on the 405
- A Taxpayer Bailout for the Failed 73 San Joaquin Hills Toll Road?
- Seal Beach and Westminster to Join Costa Mesa in opposing 405 tolls
- OCTA expects BILLIONS in revenue from 405 Tolls!
- 405 Toll Projection – $2.95 for Three Miles!
- Cooking the Books with Two VERY different sets of numbers…
- How We Can Defeat the 405 Toll Lanes! And … Meet Your OCTA Board!
- Huntington Beach Mayor Hansen Rebuffed by his own City Council
AND NOW, somebody has created the excellent…
No 405 Tolls.Com!
E-mail ALL the OCTA Board Members by clicking HERE.
Clearly the legal Avengers of Orange County has found its Nick Fury.
You don’t even know what I’m talking about there, do you, Mayor Q? It’s a compliment. Well done^3.
The OCTA Board is made up of elected officials from the city and county level. I am certain that voters will react negatively to a decision to take their carpool lane and add tolls on the 405 freeway. It is also likely that if the OCTA Board decides to go with Option 3 to create these toll lanes there will never be another extension to Measure M in the future. I can just see the negative slate mailers identifying specific elected officials that voted to create toll lanes on the 405.
Let’s not forget that Cofiroute USA, the company with a $38.5 million contract to operate the 91 Express Lanes, is a frequent campaign contributor.
Cofiroute gave $3,900 to the failed State Assembly campaign of OCTA director Toll Road Jerry Amante.
There are no campaign contributions from freeways.
Cofiroute also gave $250 to OCTA Director and Huntington Beach Council Member Don Hansen for City Council in 2011, despite the fact that Hansen is termed out and cannot run for City Council again.
Have we determined yet where Hansen stands on this? So far he doesn’t return my calls. Let’s not assume all Republicans (which is all board members but Galloway I think – oh and Pulido) are servants of the devil! Some of them want what’s good for business in their city, and their voters, more than their campaign contributors or “ideology.” We need to start getting a head count.
I think?
And guess what – the whole deal is being fast-tracked so that OCTA board will vote on a “locally preferred alternative” before the exiting board is termed out. It does not matter what future board members might think, they’re trying to lock this down NOW. And is it any surprise given the fact that most people who vote for local officials don’t ask about what they think about more toll roads in OC? No, they ask about positions on “local” issues. Its time to abolish this vague agency all together and have direct elections of members.
Kempton is the CEO, but he works for the Board. It is their crazy idea, don’t waste time on soldiers, go at the generals! This is yet another way to prop up the floundering tolls roads. Event the 91 that was the model of financial success has seen drops in revenue, and will see more as improvements paid for by Measure ‘M’ are implemented on the 91 fwy.
This is a $$ grab by the toll trolls, some that are termed out this November, think this may be their last grasp for public monies…
Yeah, maybe you can help me understand this. Toll trolls. We’re talking about people like Amante, right? Who else is termed out in Nov, and who else is a toll troll? In what way will they profit personally or otherwise from these tolls? Or is it just favors for friends who will be there when needed?
The Board. We need a majority to go for either Alt 2 or Marcario, against Alt 3:
1. Paul Glaab, chairman, Lag. Niguel mayor, in till January
2. Greg Winterbottom, vice chairman, “Public member,” out in January
3. Tustin mayor-for-life Jerry “Toll Road” Amante, out in December!
4. Supervisor Pat Bates, in till 2014
5. Ex-Fullerton Councilman Don Bankhead, out in December (if not already? I’ll check)
6. Supervisor Campbell, out in January (and not coming back)
7. Orange Mayor Carolyn Cavecche, in till Dec. 2013
8. Fountain Valley councilman Larry Crandall, out in December
9. Garden Grove mayor Bill Dalton, in till Dec. 2013
10. Anaheim councillady Lorri Galloway, in till Dec. 2013
11. HB Mayor Don Hansen in till Dec. 2013
12. public member Michael Hennessy, in for three more years
13. Lake Forest Mayor Peter Herzog, out in December
14. Supervisor Moorlach, good till 2014
15. Supervisor Nelson, good till 2014
16. Supervisor Janet, good till 2013, but presumably 2016 or 17.
17. Santa Ana mayor, the Small Dark Lord Miguel Pulido, out in December!
and 18. acting CalTrans director Brent Green.
Or maybe some of these people who are “out” are just gonna re-appoint themselves? How does it work?
Mayor Dalton of Garden Grove is termed out as of November of this year, 2012. He may run for city council. Supervisor Nguyen was just re-elected in the recent election and will term out in 2016.
Each city council appoints a member to serve on the OCTA Board.
sentence 1 – OCTA page says Dalton’s in till Dec 2013 – maybe they made a mistake.
sentecne 2 – yes we know. Except the supes’ terms on the board evidently go up to january of the odd year. Jan 2017.
sentence 3 – that doesn’t sound right. There are 50-something cities, and only ten members from cities, mostly mayors.
I asked Sharon QS who’s gonna take Bankhead’s place now that he’s recalled from Fullerton Council, and she says it will PROBABLY be Bruce Whitaker (in which case I will lobby him, I know the guy.) But it’s not necessarily him – he would have to get the votes of 4 or 5 north-county Mayors. La Habra, Placentia, etc. That’s how it works up there.
Seats on OCTA are voted on by City Selection Committee of the Orange County Assoc of California Cities. Fullerton held a large city seat, this would be again voted on but no newbie ever gets elected. These are usually well connected or long time council people. Supervisors have two seats. Almost no small city ever gets a seat. This alignment was done by Senator Correa after the Irvine Airport and Center-line were defeated. But you have the names of those terming out in 2012 that want to see this boondoggle happen. Lots of favors to repay…
“Supervisors have two seats.” What does that mean? Each supervisor gets two votes to each other member’s one?
“No newbie ever gets elected. They’re usually well-connected…” Everybody on the Fullerton council is a “newbie” now, except SQS, who doesn’t seem interested or believe she could get the votes of all the Republican North-county mayors. The next logical choice is Whitaker, unless you’re saying it could be from another northern city? Sharon’s pretty sure it will be Bruce. Will call him tomorrow.
Favors to repay with the boondoggle, and especially tempting when you’re terming out? I’m going to write one more piece, 405 Toll-gate for Dummies. I’m still hearing from board members that aren’t grasping a few things, I’m starting to think they’re dumb or willfully dumb – they’re not grasping that we already do have the money for Alt 1 and 2 and NOT enough money for the Alt 3 toll roads, so the toll roads are UNAFFORDABLE; and they’re not grasping that voting for the toll roads, as Quimby shows here, will be illegal and not stand up in court.
Today or tomorrow. “405 Toll-gate for Dummies: How the Alt. 3 Toll Lanes are UNAFFORDABLE and ILLEGAL.” Then we list all the Board members with their contact info and start the head count. Let’s see what justifications the toll-trolls can dredge up. A few of them really do seem clueless.
‘M’ money is way short of expected returns due to sluggish economy. Projections are running so far behind budgeted amounts the Board is having to consider cuts in numerous areas. The recent cut and realignment of buses/trains was just one step. Without new revenue streams more cuts will be forthcoming.
And a correction to my earlier post, all 5 supervisors have a seat/vote.
Board is comprised of…
5 Supes
10 Councilmember/Mayors (2 per Supe district)
2 Public members
1 Large City Councilmember/Mayor
1 Cal-Trans Representative
Okay, this is the comment that provoked an OCTA member to call me, to straighten things out. Well, they called to straighten out a few things, but started with this.
Now, this is mostly right actually. Except for the “1 Large City Councilmember/Mayor” that doesn’t exist. And also the Cal-Trans Representative doesn’t get to vote. So there are only 17 voting members. And as of right now, until Bald Tire Don Bankhead is replaced, make that 16.
Here’s how the 10 councilmembers – in fact usually mayors – works: There are two from each of the five supervisorial districts. These members are elected by the mayors in that particular district – one each by two different methods.
It’s a system invented by Lou Correa back when he was an Assemblyman, and the big cities – Santa Ana, Irvine and Anaheim – were feeling dissed. In each district, ONE member is elected by one-mayor-one-vote; and the OTHER one is elected by mayors whose votes are weighted by the population of their cities – so big-city mayors’ vote counts for more.
Irvine’s got a problem, and never gets on the board (or as my source delicately puts it, “Irvine has struggled.”) Because all the nearby Republican mayors hate Agran and his Agranistas, and Irvine doesn’t QUITE have the population to stomp all over the rest of its district.
Santa Ana on the other hand DOES have the population to stomp all over its neighbors, which means they are ALWAYS represented on OCTA, which in practice means that Miguel Pulido is not only Mayor For Life but also OCTA Board Member For Life.
What else did I learn? Let’s see… Yes, they get paid, but not much. $100 per meeting.
The “public members” are chosen by the Board. That doesn’t seem right. I think they should be elected by us.
Okay, Carry on.