Hey Jim,
In your blog, you say Measure C is great. How is it great to the people that drive down Herndon, Shaw, Freeway 41?

The last time we voted on Measure C, it failed because a few folks said there weren't enough dollars allocated to public transit, bike & walking trails. This time, another special interest group says there's not enough for roads? Let's stop squabbling over our own needs and look at the big picture. Here's the overview of spending distribution:

"One of the most unique elements of the Measure C Program is the Local Transportation-Purpose Funds Program. Twenty-five (25%) percent of theproceeds of the retail transactions and use-tax is allocated to each city
and to Fresno County for local priority improvement projects. The distribution of the funds is based on a formula incorporating street miles (25%) and proportionate population (75%), and most importantly, the funds
are distributed immediately back to the communities." (http://www.measurec.com/cityfacts.asp)

If the City of Clovis feels that Shaw & Herndon need improvements, they could prioritize the city allocated funds. Problem solved.

Now is the time to stop polarizing and start collaborating. Compromise is required. Should Measure C fail, how much money will be available for ALL OF Fresno County; Shaw & Herndon included? NOTHING. I call for a vote by the Chamber membership.

Debilyn,

Are you calling for a vote of the Clovis Chamber membership, or the Fresno Chamber membership? (Be careful what you wish for).

Oh, your problem solved doesn't solve the problem, because the congestion that the Clovis Chamber is talking about isn't limited to portions of Shaw and Herndon in Clovis. They are concerned about funding in Fresno as well.

Of course, if all of the money (not just 25%) went back to the communities based on the formula you described, then the problem would be solved. Then Fresno and Clovis could each fix congestion in the urban area. And since 40% of the County's unincorporated population lives in the urban area, they would certainly be willing to pitch in a 40% share of their funds.

Then, the rural communities could fix their problems based on their own priorities and goals (i.e. they can choose buses and trails rather than new lanes if they want). Problem solved.

Wonder why the Mesaure C Committee rejected it when I suggested it?

Jeff,
OK, so you want the dollars distributed proportionately to the payers? Do I have that right? What process would you recommend for joint projects or multi-municipal projects? Given what I've observed about the political process here in Fresno County, the areas with higher incomes would get great roads and the rural communities would continue to see their infrastructure crumble. How would you address this? The urban areas have more people, more cars and fewer roads. The matter is more complex than your solution suggests. I know and trust several members of the Measure C committee. They've done a fine job of balancing multiple community needs...Clovis included.

Hi Debilyn:

The formula you described references lane miles and population. It doesn't rely on sales taxes generated or the income of the residents of the community. So, I don't see the rich versus poor issue that you allude to.

And it should be noted that Fresno is a fairly impoverished community, even vis-a-vis several rural communities. Median family income in Kingsburg, Fowler, Selma, and Reedley is higher than Fresno's. Sanger's is pretty much on par with Fresno's.

The urban community is 70% of the population, and by happenstance is also the source of 70% of the sales tax monies. And using the formula you described, it will probably get a bit less than 70% of the monies (since the County of Fresno has lane miles disproportionate to its population.)

You are right that there are regional projects that may not be funded sufficiently under the formula strategy that you reference and which I simply expanded on. Herndon and 41, and 99 are all important regional projects that aren't sufficiently funded in the proposed measure. And all of those corridors are going to be level of service F within the 20 years of this measure, and this measure doesn't do anything to address that. That's what the Clovis Chamber is worried about. (and most of those road segments aren't even in Clovis).

Besides the buses, this measure over invests in fluff such as van pools, free taxi script, a reserve for future technologies that no one knows what it is, and subsidies for certain politically favored housing developments. The process was to buy off a few of the committee members to buy their support, not to strategically invest in congestion relief, air quality improvement, or economic development.

Regarding the freeways this measure invests more in two segments of highway 180 east (Temperance to Frankwood Blvd, and Frankwood to Trimmer Springs Road), that will cost more than all of the Measure C funds used to build the 168 segments in Clovis. And of course Clovis is twice the population of Sanger and Reedly (which is where these new freeways intend to spur new housing development.)

I also know many of the Measure C Committee members, and participated as one myself. What I recommend, however, is that you not simply rely upon your trust in friends to review this. I recommend that you review it yourself.

I have also reviewed what what other communities who have passed successfully passed measures approached the issue. (and how Fresno County previously approached this issue in the old measure c). And they were much more concerned about return to source and fixing congestion problems than this measure does.

This measure tells everyone who lives or works in the urban community to drive on congested roads, or get out of the car and ride a bus.

I don't know where you live, but I know your business is in Fresno. If you are personally willing to get out of your car and ride a bus to work, then vote for this Measure. But, if you like most of the voters want to ride in your car (for convenience and personal security reasons), and simply want others to ride a bus, I think the fair thing to do is to vote no, and to try to get this thing right. 20 years is too long, and $2.2 billion is too much money, and our future growth scenarios are too great, to get it wrong and economically blight our urban community.

Jeff,
I have not owned a car in at least 13 years. I rely on the bus or my feet to get me every place I go.

With rising gas prices I am sure I am not the only one that sees the bus as a savings.

Just for the hope that I can get 15 minute bus rides anywhere in Fresno would make this worth voting yes on for me.

Cheap affordable transportation is the key to growth. This has been true since the wheel was invented.

This is just a case of a prosperous suburb saying "we got ours (Fwy 168), forget the rest of the county."

If Measure C fails, I hope we never hear a peep of complaint from the Clovis Chamber of Commerce about lack of infrastructure in this County.

As for me, I live near the border of Fresno and Clovis. I can shop in either city. I know which one I will prefer now.

Mike D said it best; It's time for Fresnan's to boycot Clovis. It won't be that hard, we have everything in Fresno.

The problem with C is the way it was put together and the people who thought they knew what the Voters of Fresno County Want. What Jeff had to say should of have been considered but the $400 Million pay off to the bus crowd won over common sence. Madera did get it right and that is by spending 96% of the money on Roads. When the dust settles we will see if measure by committee or measure written to improve roads in all parts of a county will win out with Voters. Measure T was able to get the support of the Madera County Tax Payers and many other groups who opposed the previous measure. The feel good Measure C is having problems becasue they tried to give candy (Buses, Bike Lanes and rail improvments)not new roads, Freeways and road improvements to the people and voters who pay the tax. We will see what the voters of Fresno and Madera think of their transportation measures. Good luck Madera.!!!