Opinions On Proposition 104

[FloppyRunner]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Normally, I'd agree 100% with this. What you don't seem to understand is WHY many people were against 104. It's not so much that they're opposed to additional light rail, or improving transit in general ... it was the language of the proposition ("may be used"). Also, I was against it because we are already paying taxes to support additional light rail. This is essentially double taxation. Now that it passed, we shall see how much will actually go to streets & public transit. Knowing how other past initiatives turned out (the freeways for example), there will often be excuses along the way as to why there isn't enough money to fulfill what was promised to the voters. Believe me, I've been here long enough to know how many things don't materialize because of lame excuses and poor management.

Quoted for emphasis...

[Pink Jazz]

Interestingly, for such a conservative city, Mesa is fully embracing light rail and is one of the biggest beneficiaries of Proposition 400 money for bus service. Mesa now has the third best transit network in the Valley (after Phoenix and Tempe) ever since Proposition 400 went into effect. However, compared to cities such as Chandler, Gilbert, or Scottsdale, Mesa probably has a higher portion of its local population dependent on public transit, which is probably why there is significant support for public transit (including light rail) there despite the conservative politics.

Hopefully someday Chandler and Gilbert get light rail service, preferably my Pink Line idea via Chandler/Williams Field/Power. One could ever dream for Scottsdale getting light rail service as well, but the residents and local government are opposed to it to keep the undesirables out.

[Bondurant]

Originally Posted by FloppyRunner

Quoted for emphasis...

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

Of course it was going to pass. This city continues to evolve as more people move here from larger metropolitan areas and bring their urban sensibility with them. The "mom and pop" small town mentality of Phoenix continues to dwindle and that's a good thing. Just like with the first light rail vote, the airport monorail, Cardinals stadium, 101 freeway extension etc. you will always have myopic NIMBY's who try to stop progress and ultimately they end up on the wrong side of history as usual. After these get built, you don't hear anyone complain. My message to the NIMBYs is this: There is always Albuquerque. Large metropolitan living is not for everyone.

It's not about being a NIMBY, it's about a deliberate bait and switch written into the initiative. Money will by diverted to other areas. Sell the idea of improving public transportation, spend elsewhere. Stanton and Co. did a brilliant con on the "for the greater good" crowd.

[phx1205]

Originally Posted by Bondurant

It's not about being a NIMBY, it's about a deliberate bait and switch written into the initiative. Money will by diverted to other areas. Sell the idea of improving public transportation, spend elsewhere. Stanton and Co. did a brilliant con on the "for the greater good" crowd.

Actually, using some of that money for a new downtown Suns/Coyotes arena isn't a bad idea. Smart move to build in some flexibility

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by phx1205

Actually, using some of that money for a new downtown Suns/Coyotes arena isn't a bad idea. Smart move to build in some flexibility

Smart move if the wording is very loose and flexible and they want to use some of it for that purpose or it may bite them in the butt like the rental-car tax which was deemed unconstitutional, because the money from the tax was going to University of Phoenix stadium and other cactus league venues and wasn't going to road infrastructure improvements.

[PoppySead]

Originally Posted by Magnum Mike

I beg to differ with you, I am a Phoenix native, a professional (Software Engineer) for a big company in the Phoenix area, and I share the same hobbies and philosophies (on the 2nd Amendment) as Ted Nugent. This is not about where we stand politically on the issues you mentioned, or the companies with high paying jobs that get attracted to the Phoenix area, we've had plenty of such companies during better economic times, this is about a proposal to supposedly "Improve" the transportation infrastructure for the Phoenix area which will cost us, our children, and possibly grandchildren, $32 billion, with wording in the proposal that does not specifically IMPLY that the $32 billion WILL be spent on such improvements. If you read the proposal, you'd understand why we're against 104, the words "MAY BE USED FOR" sound like we'll be paying $32 billion over a 35-year period for a lot of unknowns, which may or may not include the items that were mentioned in the proposal.

We're not against improving transportation in the Phoenix area, and I'm sure nobody is against attracting good companies here, we are against wasting $32 billion for what they say to improve transportation, but the implications in the wording would mean that in 10-15years, it could be spent on other items. The words "May" in this proposal would be like giving somebody you don't know $4,000 and telling them to get you a car, without knowing exactly what you're getting. Would you do that? Probably not.

Agree, as far as what they will really spend it on who knows. I'm surprised it passed with our governments reputation as abusers. It should have been shot back for rewording. We WILL spend it on transit. Naive bunch we are. Glad I don't live in town. I wish them luck.