Home > Resource Center > In the News Home > Greenbelt Alliance in the News

Greenbelt Alliance In the News

November 7, 2004

Agreement called key to transit tax victory

Subheading

Taking cars off the street is good for rush-hour traffic and the environment, Skaggs said.

"It's just gotten so bad," Skaggs said as she left a polling station at Heather Farm Park.

But if major business backers of the Measure J campaign had their way, Measure J would have tagged more money for roadways, not transit. If environmental groups that supported the measure had their way, transit would have gained even broader funding.

Compromise is the story of Measure J's success; it is the first countywide tax measure to gain two-thirds approval, said advocate Amy Worth.

"This was truly a triumph of collaboration," said Ethan Veneklasen, deputy director of the Contra Costa Council, a business group that lobbied heavily for the tax. "I think that's what won this thing."

Transit advocates and road builders found middle ground in the belief that without the tax, Contra Costa County would not have the money required to leverage increasingly scarce state and federal dollars.

The Greenbelt Alliance and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition, for instance, wanted more transit and a clearer vision for growth controls -- mainly, a defined urban limit line. Despite not getting its wish, other advocates swayed the alliance to stay neutral on the tax measure.

On the other side of the transportation spectrum, the Contra Costa Council came to the table two years ago with a spending plan that had more money for roads. The business group didn't get everything it wanted, but major capital projects like a fourth bore through the Caldecott Tunnel became a campaign focal point.

Compromising on a spending plan that appealed to all regions and all voters was key. Stamping out opposition was essential in reaching a two-thirds threshold. In the end, Measure J secured 70.5 percent of the vote.

"We know we can't do it all with road and highway projects, and that transit is a critical component we need to support and enhance," Veneklasen said.

In the week leading up to the election, supporters began worrying about the strategy. Polls showed "yes" voters shifting toward the undecided camp.

Supporters felt that a slew of statewide ballot measures, along with a bevy of Bay Area initiatives, would cloud the ballot and fatigue voters. Just a week before the election, the campaign -- which spent more than $800,000 -- took to the airwaves with television commercials to move voters back into the "yes" camps.

The last-minute spending was made possible thanks to heavy donations. The California Alliance for Jobs, which lobbies for heavy construction work throughout the state, poured $140,000 into the campaign.

It paid off.

The move toward television was key to reaching new voters and to remind voters of the importance of the "down ballot" issues, said Jim Earp, director of the jobs alliance.

What they were reminded of was compromise and a wide-ranging plan.

"The key I think is what voters perceive as a plan that will actually solve the problem," Earp said. "If you go too far one way or the other, then voters won't vote for it, they'll think it's a waste of money."

With the victory, Measure J moves into a second phase -- and it appears compromise will be needed once more.

Aside from spending money to bore a fourth tube for the Caldecott Tunnel or taking e-BART to Antioch, Brentwood and Byron, the measure mandates creating a new countywide urban limit line by 2006.

The line denotes where urban development can occur -- outside the line is off limits, but land located inside the line is fair game.

If cities ignore the county's development limit, or fail to create their own, they could miss out on $360 million in local street repair funds.

But as the next phase of Measure J gains steam, ideological and economic lines are being drawn just as quickly as the development barrier.

West and central Contra Costa County cities have largely decided to keep the line firm. In east Contra Costa, cities want to move the line into rural or marsh lands, opening 4,000 or more acres for development.

The final decision on where to place the line will be in the hands of voters in the November 2006 election.

Environmental groups want to ensure the line remains firm until at least 2020, though early ideas show the line might be up for shifting every five years. Redevelopment and in-fill development in core areas should be stressed, not sprawl, the groups have argued.

Without strong growth-control measures, traffic will increase - negating the influence of transportation projects, they said.

Most East County cities, however, want to add more land for development. New houses will provide development fees to pay for transportation, cities argue.

Compromise, it seems, might be in order over the next two years, if a voter-friendly measure is to reach the ballot.

###