Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the question that was on the ballot
Let's say that you are "Pro-lightrail".... Read it only one time and tell us how would you vote?
And then look at this threadabout it
If that is the full wording, where does it prohibit funds for rail?
TheMore if you paid attention you would have noted that the people of Houston did want it. The polls before the election showed people wanted lightrail and people thought they were voting for light rail because METRO and the MAJOR said it would still be built. Denying facts that have been published over and over again....is rather....well I won't finish my observation of your factless opinion.
Which polls? Which people wanted light rail? Did those same people want to fund the building or light rail or did they just want it to magically appear?
Metro made a lot of promises in 2003 and they haven't done much of what they promised.
Which polls? Which people wanted light rail? Did those same people want to fund the building or light rail or did they just want it to magically appear?
Metro made a lot of promises in 2003 and they haven't done much of what they promised.
And again, not all the blame falls on metro. The idiot politicians like john culberson (still in office) and tom delay are the main reasons. Still, there are two lines under construction now, as well as an extension of the current line. Once they become operational, its only a matter of time before other areas start crying for rail. Then it will be tens of millions more to build per mile than it is now.
And again, not all the blame falls on metro. The idiot politicians like john culberson (still in office) and tom delay are the main reasons. Still, there are two lines under construction now, as well as an extension of the current line. Once they become operational, its only a matter of time before other areas start crying for rail. Then it will be tens of millions more to build per mile than it is now.
Explain to me how I was wrong please.
The people in the areas that might start crying for light rail aren't willing to fund it so that should end the argument.
As the article pointed out the thing was designed to be confusing from the start..
Many people thought they were voting for better roads(since thats was how it was worded ) only those who follow city matters like city data and other forums understand what was actually going on.
99% of th people at the voting booth could not tell you jack about the general mobility fund The fact that you keep asking people to explain it to you shows you do not even understand it.
As the article pointed out the thing was designed to be confusing from the start..
Many people thought they were voting for better roads(since thats was how it was worded ) only those who follow city matters like city data and other forums understand what was actually going on.
99% of th people at the voting booth could not tell you jack about the general mobility fund The fact that you keep asking people to explain it to you shows you do not even understand it.
I agree with how the vote went 100% and I feel like I'm pretty well informed on what it all meant, you've said I am wrong and mistaken a couple times now. I'm not asking anyone to explain the vote to me, I'm asking YOU to explain how I was wrong.
For the second time, please explain to me how I am wrong.
For nearly 35 years, unincorporated Harris County and 15 area cities have taken $2.7 billion from METRO’s transit tax revenues, successfully preventing the creation of a robust, high-capacity transit system in the service area. The program that has prevented the emergence of that system is called the General Mobility Program.
METRO gets a penny in sales tax from every dollar of purchase in the service area, which includes part of unincorporated Harris County, the City of Houston, and 14 other small cities that are part of the METRO system. Beginning in 1978, when METRO was established by the Texas legislature, some of METRO's money was used to repair bus lanes and do other street work related to bus service.
Spoiler
In 1984, the METRO board agreed to allocate $150 million to the 16 “partners” and that became the General Mobility Program, which was approved by voters in 1988, in a sort of blackmail that traded support for a rail transit program for 25% of the tax revenue needed to create the system. In a 2003 referendum, the voters agreed to revisit that idea before 2014, and that’s why a referendum is being held this year. By now, the recipients of the funds have become dependent on the money, particularly the City of Houston. Under the arrangements, which are executed as a series of contracts with each of the entities, all but the City of Houston get back far more than 25% of the sales taxes collected in their jurisdictions. The city gets only 20%. The allocations are spectacularly unfair, and the end result is that the City of Houston has been subsidizing the other 15 GMP recipients for decades. Now there is a chance to end the program once and for all, but it’s a little convoluted in that a "Yes" vote will continue the diversion for another decade. For reasons that are cloudy and even mysterious, Mayor Parker and the METRO board, the majority of whom are appointed by her, are for continuing the program and opposed to spending that money on transit.
A tale of two stories There are two stories about why that is. One is simply that the mayor needs the money to balance the massive budget of the ReBuild Houston initiative passed by voters in 2010. What voters didn’t know was that the program relies heavily on the METRO money far into the future. The idea of ending the program in 2014 puts the ReBuild Houston effort in a pickle. The other story is that if this program is not continued several local power players will go to the legislature to get that body to take METRO apart. The threats, so far, include changing the composition of the board to allow Harris County to control it —which would be fabulously undemocratic — and making the GMP a permanent item, perhaps at a higher percentage. The mayor and most of the METRO board believe the legislature would acquiesce. While it’s difficult to envision the legislature overturning a vote of the people, it isn’t difficult to imagine them trying. Players on the "Yes" side are trying to make a case that "No" means nothing, that it only ends the GMP for the moment, and leaves it up to the METRO board to simply reinstate it. That would be another instance of a government body going against the expressed will of the people.
So what are the effects of a "Yes" vote? First, it would end rail expansion in the METRO area. METRO’s board has specifically agreed that any additional sales tax it receives under the new GMP program will not be used for rail, period. That means the University line, which is intended to be the east-west backbone of a regional light rail system, would be dead. Its connection to the Uptown/Galleria line would be dead. And all the planned expansions to the suburbs would be dead. It would be 2025 before Houston could consider doing more rail, and by that time all the money that has already been invested in future rail would be lost, wasted, an amount that exceeds $77 million dol-lars. The effect of the "No" vote would be to return all transit taxes to Metro to create and support transit service. So the correct pro-transit vote is "No," or, as the ballot is worded, "Against." In considering whether to end our rail expansion, it’s important to understand that Houston was building the best modern light rail system in the nation. The Main Street line, already in service, has the highest ridership per mile of any modern light rail system and is second only to the 100-year-old Boston Green Line. When the three lines that are under construction right now are in service in 2014, the light rail system will have total ridership significantly greater than the much larger Dallas system at a small fraction of the cost. That’s because the Dallas strategy was almost purely political, answering the call of suburban partners for lines that stretched out to the region’s sprawling communities. METRO’s strategy is to connect Houston’s big activity intensity areas, which means the big job centers around which many people live. The 2003 referendum specified lines that would connect downtown, the Medical Center, Greenway Plaza, and Uptown/Galleria, creating what would a massive business district with riders throughout the day, not just at peak hours of commuting.
Whereas most U.S. light rail systems try to address only commuting, which largely happens in the morning and the evening and is a minority of trips, METRO was addressing all the trips, all day long. When the phase that includes the University line was completed, Houston would be in the top tier of riderships and would have 65 stations, again putting it in the top tier. The idea of halting this very smart plan is amazing. It would make Houston the only city in the world trying to advance into the realm of global great cities without a significant fixed guideway transit system. It is a goal that planners do not believe is possible. In the meantime, as the mayor and others go around telling civic groups how important this funding is to street repairs, people are looking at the streets they’re driving on and wondering what happened to the $2.7 billion that has already been spent on that. Everyone seems to agree that the streets in Houston are in terrible condition and that’s part of what Rebuild Houston is about. But you have to wonder why $2.7 billion —most of which went to the City — appears to have had no effect on street condition. While the mayor and Harris County have the money and clout to gain partners and perhaps ram this terrible deal down the voters’ throats, it’s not so clear that the voters are ready to swallow. The Kinder Houston Area Survey makes it plain that people in the region want more transit and even that they want it more than they want roads. While it is plain that the only way to move in the direction of a high quality of life is to expand the transit system, the question is will the voters understand that the way to do that is to vote "No" on the Metro referendum? Houston Tomorrow, with the Citizens’ Transportation Coalition, is leading the Houston Transit Coalition to ensure that Houston transit ex-pansion programs continue.
right before the vote they (cant remember who specifically) put out a commercial because there was so much confusion. 2 people are discussing the vote and saying "this is confusing". one person explains basically what was written on the ballot. blah blah blah metro funds, roads, city of houston. tag at the end WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LIGHT RAIL
ala' this money will go to all this bull**** and we won't let it go to the light rail.
no one read the wording, not enough people saw the commercial, and i dont believe it was only on the city of houston ballot. why would people not in the city of houston want to lose road money and allow those funds to stay in houston, go to light rail, and speed up the gentrification of the city to the detriment of their neighborhood?
metro wanted you to vote NO, which in fact was a FOR for metro and a YES to light rail. on top of everything that made all this confusing was one top metro dude endorsing the YES - anti-light rail side so they used his name and "metro." even though metro - the business, was against that side
I agree with how the vote went 100% and I feel like I'm pretty well informed on what it all meant, you've said I am wrong and mistaken a couple times now. I'm not asking anyone to explain the vote to me, I'm asking YOU to explain how I was wrong.
For the second time, please explain to me how I am wrong.
They did tell you. You made the statement the people of Houston didn't want rail. That's false.
I think the north line opens in December, right? With the other two opening next year. It's not that far away. Lets see how successful these new likes are. Could be a part, even if small, to gain momentum to build the university like which is a huge need. It sucks that the main thing that has stopped Houston from getting better mass transit is politics. The people have wanted rail do years. Politicians always comes into save the day for roads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
