EE + FF: YES on FF / NO on EE - Safer + Smoother Streets for Everyone
There are two competing measures that both would fund safety improvements and repairs for Berkeley’s streets and sidewalks. They’re complicated to unravel and they relate to an area where I have a couple decades of work experience (transportation policy), so apologies in advance for the very long writeup.
TLDR: I’m voting YES on FF and No on EE.
For more, read on …
What’s the same about these measures?
Both would increase parcel taxes and specify that the funds may *only* be used to pay for specific uses written into the measures. Both require that the city maintain at least 2022 levels of funding for street repair, so this tax will add to existing efforts. Both exempt low-income homeowners. Both have oversight provisions that are based on existing approaches used in other Berkeley decision-making. Both were placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Both need a majority vote to pass. If both pass, whichever one gets more votes will be enacted, and the other will not.
Why YES on FF?
I’m voting YES on FF because I think it is better in several ways:
- FF focuses on safety, on eliminating fatal and severe traffic crashes, AND it will dramatically improve the conditions of Berkeley’s streets and sidewalks at the same time
- FF uses the best practice among transportation planners -- it says that when the city fixes a street, they must do any safety improvements that fit with the relevant city plans and policies. This is a way to continuously improve safety and also do the most cost-effective improvements. FF specifically calls out implementing the city’s streets plans -- the 2019 Vision Zero Action Plan, 2020 Pedestrian Plan, 2017 Bicycle Plan, and the 2012 Complete Streets Policy.
- FF has a “split roll” revenue, so commercial properties pay a slightly higher rate than residential properties -- that’s good progressive taxation. FF’s parcel tax would charge residential properties $0.17/sf, or about $170/year for a 1000 sf house. The tax is $0.25/sf for commercial properties.
- FF raises more money and will invest in more cost-effective street repairs, so it will get more done.
- FF has an informed Oversight body - the majority are members of the public (appointed by the City Council) who have to have a professional background in related fields, plus a few members from the Transportation/Infrastructure and Environment/Climate Commissions
- FF also requires the City Auditor to regularly conduct performance audits and that the City Manager publish an annual report accessible through an online dashboard
- FF is endorsed by many elected officials and organizations: 7 (of the 9) Berkeley City Councilmembers (and 7 former ones), the current + former City Auditor, all 5 School Board members, any many more. Plus the Sierra Club, Berkeley Firefighters, League of Women Voters, and a bunch of volunteer transportation groups. As of an early look at their endorsements page (9/14/24), they had 17 organizations, over 35 current/former elected officials, 50+ community leaders, and dozens of individuals.
Why NO on EE?
I’m voting NO on EE because I think it’s worse:
- EE focuses on paving, not safety, and specifies the order that streets have to be repaved, starting with the ones with the lowest pavement condition index -- without any consideration of how much the streets get used and whether it fits with the rest of the city’s planning. Indeed, EE’s “Findings” include a bunch of critiques of the city’s approach to street safety, particularly its focus on the most vulnerable road users -- pedestrians, cyclists, and people with disabilities.
- EE charges commercial and residential properties the same amount, which is less progressive and also raises less money to fix the streets. EE’s parcel tax would charge all properties $0.13/sf, or about $130/year for a 1000 sf house.
- EE’s Oversight body sounds like a mess: each of the 8 council districts gets one person selected at random (!!) by the city clerk, plus five at-large members. This method is based on how the city set up its Redistricting Commission -- that seems like it might’ve been a good idea for that purpose, but in this case could end up with people with little understanding of transportation engineering or planning. The proponents’ stated purpose is to make the Oversight Committee independent of the rest of city government.
- EE’s endorsements are entirely individuals -- no councilmembers, no organizations
- It looks to me that “Berkeleyans for Better Planning”, the group that’s promoting this measure, is an entity that only came into existence to put Measure EE on the ballot.
My big picture takeaway is that FF was designed by professionals trying to use the city’s systems to make our streets safer and in better repair, while EE is designed by residents who don’t trust the city.
For more info:
Background/History
For those of you who want a little more detail, some history might help:
In 2022, the city put Measure L on the ballot, a very large bond to pay for affordable housing, street repair, and a bunch of other good stuff. I endorsed it and 59.4% of voters said Yes. But it needed a 2/3 majority, so it failed because of a campaign led by former waterfront commissioner Jim McGrath (see Berkeleyside “What’s Next…” article).
[10/31/2024 update: See the comments for Mr. McGrath's objection to my characterization of his views and the history leading towards putting EE + FF on the ballot]
According to street safety folks I’ve talked with, during 2022-2024 city officials and transportation planners, and advocates tried to work with McGrath and Measure L opponents, to see how they could incorporate their concerns and craft a measure that would pass. The group also used the citizen initiative route so this new measure would only need a 50%+1 vote. They made several concessions (e.g., FF funds couldn’t be used for the safety improvements on Hopkins that No-on-L folks dislike). Folks I talked to said that was a good process and overall led to a better Measure FF that has attracted broader support (note the endorsement list described above).
But in the end, McGrath and some of his allies weren’t satisfied with the compromise and decided to mount their own citizen initiative. I’ve been in those sorts of negotiations, I know they’re tricky, and I acknowledge that I haven’t heard McGrath’s side of the story. So I’m not casting aspersions on anyone about that process. And I did hear from someone I respect who was pitching support for EE, but I wasn’t convinced. I’ll be interested to see how this election comes out.
Posts
3 comments:
The condition of Berkeley streets is bad due to years of underfunded neglect with an average Pavement Conditions Index (PCI) rating of 57 out of 100. The City Auditor's non-partisan analysis projects that neither voter initiative will generate sufficient revenue to achieve Berkeley's average Pavement Conditions Index (PCI) rating of 70 out of 100 without further additions.
The Auditor analysis projects that the condition will continue to deteriorate by another 3 points to 54 over the next 12 years under EE/Fix.
For the extra 4 cents, the Auditor found that FF/Safe meanwhile will stop the deterioration at 57 with no further losses plus bring a substantial amount of meaningful pedestrian and bike rider safety improvements, not included in EE.
Another compelling argument that was made by Liza Lutzger who has been deeply involved: " FF was written specifically to allow Berkeley to qualify for over $1 billion in regional, state and federal matching funds to make street improvements, effectively leveraging the taxes we're charged. On the other hand, Measure EE's restrictive framework prevents the city from securing these awesome matching funds due to its excessive limitations."
I find it interesting when people who have never met me, or tried to contact me, characterize me in a posting like this. It’s easy to find out my side of the story—I’m in the phone book. I’m a bicyclist who has served on the Bay Trail Board and ride a lot. I spent nearly a year trying to negotiate a consensus measure. But I knew how unlikely that was when Ben Gould told me had no interest in a consensus measure that would have an easy path. I knew how unlikely that was when Karen Parolek refused to support paving Hopkins to calm things down. I read what became measure FF and saw the poison pills and back doors that meant the streets I ride my bike on would not be paved in favor of expensive efforts intended to make it harder to drive, not safer to bike. Jeff Hobson doesn’t know what he is talking about—but I was there. After years on the Public Works Commission I decided to try to get the streets I ride a bike on paved.
Mr. McGrath, I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and I'm sorry if I incorrectly characterized your work. You're right, I didn't take the time to get your side of the story, as I acknowledged in my writeup. I'll admit I didn't even think of looking in the phone book (and I'm old enough to remember that they exist). And you're right that I wasn't there, so maybe I have misunderstood the situation from the reports I heard.
I think it's also possible that different players involved had different understandings of what happened, and that you and the people I talked to (and whose writeups I read) don't agree with each other.
I also note that the only part of my writeup that you object to are the final two paragraphs, in the tacked-on 'background/history' section. Maybe I shoulda/coulda left those out -- I don't have time now to rewrite, but I'll put a note in there to point out your objections.
But I think the far more important question is what Measures EE and FF would do if passed. That's the focus of the first page-plus of my too-long writeup. I don't see the poison pills you see in FF (again, maybe I'm wrong, but I do know a little about transportation policy from having worked on it professionally for nearly 20 years, and it looked pretty good to me).
I'll be interested to see what the voters think.
Post a Comment