The possibility that the Clovis Chamber of Commerce might not support Measure C, the renewal of the Fresno County transportation tax, would be a huge blow to the effort to get it passed in November. It takes a two-thirds vote, and any significant opposition would be difficult to overcome. Here's our editorial that explains what's at risk.
This is a key statement from our editorial: And it's a little upsetting to hear people in the Clovis chamber complain about this extension of Measure C when the original initiative, passed in 1986, brought so much to their community. Funds to complete Freeway 168 were a major component of that measure, and were given a higher priority than other projects precisely to satisfy the political demands of Clovis leaders and voters.
The Clovis chamber shouldn't be as shortsighted as its leadership is suggesting. It's in everyone's best interest for Measure C to win passage in November.
What's with the Fresno Bee?
The editorial you wrote about the Clovis Chamber also said this: "Denying support to this or any other ballot measure because it doesn't contain every single thing you dream of having is childish. An all-or-nothing attitude may fill you up with warm righteousness, but it's terrible public policy in a representative democracy, in which many interests compete for often insufficient resources."
Now compare that to the accolades you issued when Assemblyman Arambula abstained on approving the Governor's Bond proposals. You said it was a legitimate stance because of the fact that the Valley was being short changed. Indeed, his leadership stance (for abstaining) was heralded for weeks.
Why then with Measure C, when organizations believe the urban community and important congestion relief projects are being shortchanged, does the Fresno Bee take a different view? I'm not talking about a different view on Measure C. I'm talking about a different view on the legitimacy of saying the proposed package isn't good enough.
Is it really appropriate to call that position childish? If so, why wasn't Arambula's position childish? And why is the Fresno Bee reduced to name calling? Does that really move the debate forward based on facts and principles?
This sounds like the City or County fight I hear about all the time as well. Grow up and act like the adults you are.
Clovis and Fresno depend on each other.
A very smart friend once asked me my opinion of Fresno when I first moved here. I said "It seems like a bunch of small farm towns that got together and called itself a town."
Now you are a bunch of small cities with property and commerical values inching up as prices in Los Angeles and Sacramento and San Fransisco climb beyond what can be sustained by a lower economic bracket. (me)
Use this to your advantage come together again and make San Juaquin Valley the haven for people that need to raise there families.
Vote yes on measure c make transportation easier for the people that are moving in now. This is an investment the valley needs
Measure C is tricky, because of all the compromise that has gotten us this far. It seems better than the old version, in that it's more focussed on making better use of the existing infrastructure, rather than being so dedicated to new freeways. Those new freeways are awfully handy, however much they encourage still more sprawl.
I'm sure there will be drawbacks to Measure C if it is passed. So far, none of the drawbacks seem to match the ill effects of no Measure C at all.
What neither Jim nor John talk about, and what their name calling ("childish", "grow up"), is attempting to stifle, is a reasoned debate on what investments and tax subsidies that Measure C proposes, and whether those are suitable investments that are going to make transportation easier or more congested. Some believe that Measure C simply a political pork barrel (people moovers, free taxic cript, farm worker van pool subsidies), that fails to make adequate investment in real congestion relief.
These debates are had everywhere, and its not small town physche to debate it.
Orange County is investing in new freeway capacity. LA has invested in subways and bus subsidies. as a result, yesterday's LA Times reports that the I-5 in Orange County is being widened to 10 lanes, and in LA it will be 6 lands, and congested.
If we make the kinds of investments that Measure C proposes, Highway 99 will soon likely be eight lanes (4 in each direction), in all communities but the City of Fresno, where it will be down to 4 lanes. (2 in each direction). But we will have a new road in Mendota ($75M), and a road between Trimmer Springs and Frankwood Blvd. ($80M).
Riverside and San Bernadino Counties created separate zones for their transportation measure, and allowed the local communities more say about what their region invested in.
Visalia is struggling with the fact that the County of Tulare has too dominant a role in the decision making and isn't making good investments in the urban community.
Debating these issues isn't a sign of weakness. It's a sign of strength of democratic institutions. What's too bad is that our media institutions don't like debate. So, they tend to like name calling and vilification. That's what really keeps the Valley in a small town mindset.
Re: Jeff Reid
Yes I made sweeping generalizations. On the other hand, I think you almost back up my point...
As far as "the media" not encouraging debate, here we are...debating.
The small-mind thinking is when a group of people feel shafted and decide to take there ball and go home. Play the game till the end. Life is not about winning and losing.
The reason I do not mention specifics is because I am out of money to buy the latest paper . . . also I continue to "subscribe" to the bee online and forget my password each and every time.
Until I have educated myself on every degree of change that measure c offers to the San Juaquin Valley I will simply submit my opinion on what I have read to date. With my folksy wisdom and opinion liberally sprinkled in.
The first Measure C funded Freeway 168 completely out of proportion to the needs of the smaller communities in Fresno County. Clovis was the beneficiary and now it's time for the other cities within Fresno County to improve their communities from Measure C funds. All of us have a stake in improving the quality of life throughout Fresno County, not just in our small corner. Having a vision for the future makes great improvements happen and we need to band together for those issues or events that will have positive impacts on us all. Measure C does just that.
I don't know who is in charge of evaluating the "proportion of needs" of the County. But, I do know that 70% of the population of the County lives in the urban community, and that if we want a vibrant, thriving urban community, and if we want to focus growth and development inside the urban region (and not sprawl to I-5), then we need to invest in the urban community. Simply put, it has needs as much as any community in the County. The best and fairest way of determining how much investment should be made in each region in our county is to consider where the people live, and where the tax dollars are generated. Old Measure C invested 70% of these dollars in the urban community, where the people live and where the dollars were generated from. If Measure C invested more than Clovis' fair share in Measure C dollars (it was the source of about $152M of the portions of 168 in Clovis), then that money came from the rest of the urban community (i.e. Fresno). It didn't come from the rural communities.
And, if you wanted a strategic investment in economic development and reducing air pollution, you would invest it where the jobs and infrastructure are, and where the congestion is.
Unfortunatley, the new measure c does none of this.
In Jeff Reid's message regarding Orange Co.'s expanding to ten lanes, while L.A. Co. is remaining at 4 lanes, and , instead investing in subways and bus service, I have the opposite reaction than Jeff's. I think LA is making the correct move by not building anymore auto lanes, because I think you can never build yourself out of congestion.
As soon as new lanes are built, five years later, you are again congested, and, then you have to start all over again with billions of dollars and even more pollution.. It is partly because of population growth, and partly due to houses being built even farther away from the urban core, because "What is a few more minutes driving?" when the freeway is wide open. After, five years, those minutes have increased because other people have decided " What is a few more minutes?"
Also latent trips increase as the freeway is newly expanded, filling up all those new lanes with traffic that would not have been considedered if the lanes were never opened. Again, you cannot build your self out of congestion, except with the more passenger efficient bus, light trail, and more dense growth patterns. Measure C does put more dollars into the other modes of transportation, which lessens pollution and congestion , and increases the great Valley way of life.