weekend_guy
New Member
There were two parts to One City, one I think is very important, and the other which I think was useless baggage that ultimately served as an anchor to sink the plan.
The important part was to start a dialogue on how to pay for transit expansion. Had Stintz and De Baeremaker focused the discussion on the rate of property tax increase (or other fiscal tools) and the timeframe for implementation, and left the drawing of lines on a map alone, I would be much more supportive. The trouble is that they had to marry what could have been a very worthwile discussion on financial tools to every politician's wet dream of planning where routes would go. Of course, planning routes by drawing lines on a map sure is fun - witness how almost all of the debate in this thread was on the selection of routes and not on the tax policy - but Solid Snake is right: suggesting routes and technologies is a job that politicians need to be pried away from, no matter how much of a photo-op, publicity stunt, or fun job it is.
Well said and agreed 100%. The job of our local politicians should be to secure the funding and develop the financing structure, while leaving the designs to the technical folks. As you said, the line drawing is a lot more fun but it doesn't fall within their bailiwick.