Thursday, June 18, 2015

Citizens slam Montgomery County independent transit authority (ITA) proposal (Photo)

The same proposal for a Montgomery County Independent Transit Authority was put on the table again last night, and residents didn't like it any more than they did last January. About 50 people turned out to argue for or against the ITA legislation (and around 100 people, including non-speakers), which - if passed by the Maryland General Assembly - would empower the county to create its own transit agency. That unelected, 5-member ITA, as described in the bill, would have unlimited power of taxation and eminent domain, as well as the authority to issue bonds and carry unlimited debt.

While many Bus Rapid Transit advocates feel the ITA would be the best hope of paying for a BRT plan that would not qualify for federal funding, taxpayers are not so enthusiastic about the idea.

Then again, some on the Transit Task Force, which hosted the public hearing, weren't so enthusiastic about hearing from taxpayers, either. When task force member Jim Zepp tried to ask a follow-up question of a speaker early on, Chair Mark Winston objected. "We can't ask questions?" Zepp asked. "Questions are not in order," Winston replied. "I'm not going to argue with you about it." Eventually, task force members Richard Parsons and Casey Anderson intervened to offer a compromise on the number of questions that could be asked, which Winston found acceptable. However, Anderson grew testy when Zepp later attempted to ask a second question of a panel, shutting that inquiry down abruptly.

Speaking of compromises, there haven't been any by the county yet, despite the overwhelming community opposition. One wonders why they are going forward in the face of some of the loudest resident rage in recent history (Or why the ITA hearings always start at 6:00, rather than the standard 7:30 PM start for most county public hearings).

That controversy isn't based on the misfired rollout of the legislation last winter, South Four Corners Citzens Association Vice President Larry Dickter testified. "Rather, it was and remains the very concept of an unelected, unaccountable entity, with powers of eminent domain and the authority to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, without being required to submit its capital or operating budget to the County for approval that makes the proposed [ITA] a non-starter.

Dickter and other speakers also criticized the tone ITA proponents have taken in responding to citizen and organized labor objections, and their the use of pejorative terms like anti-transit, NIMBY, and "howling unionists". He also noted that under a recent National Labor Relations Board decision, "the ITA could well qualify as a private employer subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB, and bound by federal labor law, not County statute." Dickter argued that a much less expensive alternative to the ITA would be to create a division within MCDOT similar to the Maryland Transit Administration.

Union representatives sought to ensure there would be no privatization of transit services in the county, and that projects overseen by the ITA would require Project Labor Agreements. UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO President Gino Renne said he also had oversight and transparency concerns, and thought homeowners should not pay more taxes to the ITA than developers. Echoing Dickter's question of the need for an authority independent of MCDOT, Renne asked, "is another bureaucracy truly necessary?"

"We agree the transportation infrastructure needs new sources of revenue," Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL-CIO President Joslyn Williams said. "What we don't agree on, is that to get a more reliable system, we need to privatize." Williams slammed elected officials' recent praise of Public-Private-Partnerships (often called "P3s" for short). "P3 is a branding of privatization," Williams declared. He asked the task force to examine "the failures of P3 across the world," from London to Los Angeles.

Residents and taxpayers were no more enthusiastic.

"We don't want the ITA, and we don't want the sham, scam bus rapid transit," Silver Spring resident James Williamson said. He said the sole purpose of the ITA was to enable BRT, which he predicted would be "a Silver Spring Transit Center on wheels", which elicited raucous laughter and applause from the audience. Williamson argued the few supporters of the ITA are "developers, professional transit lobbyists, or those looking for a job from one or the other." "If you think an ITA is such a great idea, put it on the ballot," he challenged the task force.

Howard Greif, representing the Greater Olney Civic Assocation, said the association continues to oppose the ITA, and the current BRT proposal. He said the association could only support a plan that funds BRT with existing local, state and federal funds, permits "documented citizen input," and which requires voter approval through a ballot referendum.

Richard Parsons said "I don't believe this is the only way, or even the best way" to fund transit projects. He suggested limiting any plan to the Corridor Cities Transitway BRT line initially, with a special taxing district along I-270 or countywide to fund it. Parsons also advocated a regional approach, that would connect with BRT systems in Frederick and Prince George's Counties.

Members of the Montgomery County Civic Federation had a different approach, discussing alternatives to both the ITA and the BRT which they felt could be more effective and less costly.

Jerry Garson suggested offering free Ride On service in the county, which he estimated would cost taxpayers $22 million more per year.

MCCF President Paula Bienenfeld, while expressing the Federation's "absolute opposition" to the ITA, also endorsed the free Ride On concept. She also referred to the successful approach in Houston TX, where - without increasing taxes or creating an ITA - the city boosted transit ridership by using data to analyze existing routes and make changes. They came up with a new route system that placed more of their existing buses "where people use and need them" the most. "No one wants the BRT, and certainly no one wants the ITA," she said in her testimony. "Stick a fork in it."

Nancy Abeles of Bethesda argued that the new tax burden the ITA would place on residents and businesses would "further weaken our ability to compete in the region."

Route 29 resident Harold McDougall said he feels the ITA and tax proposals reflect a growing gap "between the citizens and the people who make decisions that affect their lives."

County Executive Ike Leggett testified and accused ITA detractors of making false statements. Leggett said he never proposed a $1.8 billion BRT plan. Silver Spring resident Harriet Quinn begged to differ, saying Leggett's plan was actually $3 billion.

Strathmore-Bel Pre Civic Association representative Max Bronstein criticized the "vague and elastic language" of the ITA legislation, and argued that self-driving cars would make public transit obsolete.

Steven Poor was more blunt, saying there was "only one way to repair this proposal - throw it away." He noted that using state legislation would, in effect, give other counties a hand in our taxation policies. Poor predicted the ITA would prove as effective and efficient as the WSSC and WMATA, to knowing chuckles from the crowd.

I thought Geri Rosenberg of Communities for Transit (which supports BRT) had a good suggestion - requiring ITA appointees to be transit riders. When the task force was asked by Bienenfeld who among them took transit to the meeting last night, only Del. Marc Korman (D-District 16) raised his hand.

Bonnie Bell of the Greater Goshen Civic Association, and also representing the Clarksburg Civic Association, said the County Council actually does have the power now to exceed the cap on property taxes if it wants. But that requires a politically-risky unanimous, 9-member vote, and "We all know that isn't going to happen," she said. "We do not support taxation without representation," Bell said, holding up a mockup of a license plate similar to the District's "Taxation without Representation" model.

Carole Ann Barth exhorted developers to finance the system if they want it. If they're not willing to do that, "you can't expect the rest of us to get on board."

"If MCDOT can't do their job," resident Cary Lamari said, "put someone in there who can do the job," not an ITA. "Give Gino the job," Lamari advised, pointing to union leader Renne. "I bet you it gets done."

Updated: The article was corrected to note that the 50 speakers were only about half of the total attendance at the meeting, and to correct the name of James Williamson of Silver Spring, whose testimony was quoted.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

It would be helpful if you could document this "overwhelming opposition" by providing pictures of the audience, and an estimate of the attendance.

From what you actually posted, it's not clear that anyone actually attended.

Anonymous said...

Great summary. Thanks for covering.

Robert Dyer said...

5:12: I mentioned in the opening paragraph that about 50 people spoke.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for this excellent coverage and report!

Anonymous said...

Free Ride On! Boycott TD Bank!

Anonymous said...

50 people, out of 1 million County residents. That's one out of every 20,000 residents, or 0.005%.

Not the revolution that you were hoping for.

Anonymous said...

I don't get this concept that self driving cars will eliminate the need for mass transit. Everybody will buy a brand new self-driving car? Poor people? Young people still building up savings? People that don't want a car?

Or is it the idea that with self driving cars rich people will not have to worry about traffic anymore so they will not have to worry about funding mass transit?

Anonymous said...

Seems like a way to fix this would be to have the ITA board be elected. That is the way it is done elsewhere. Also tax increases to be approved through elections. Is there a reason this wouldn't work in MD?

Anonymous said...

Free Ride On! Boycott TD Bank!

Anonymous said...

The Task Force limited testimony to 50 people. A lot of organizations sent a representative to speak.

Anonymous said...

My mother spoke there, in opposition of it, on behalf of a county-wide citizens' organization. Originally they planned to allow only 40 speakers, and she had a fairly good position in the 10-20 range. Then they expanded it to allow 50, and her speaker position was "magically" moved to the 40-50 range i.e. later in the testimony. I didn't see the hearing so not sure if she was able to swap for a better spot with another person testifying, as she was planning to do.

Anonymous said...

6:11 AM The future really isn't that folks have their own self driving cars, it's that people will share them. Think about the car sitting in the garage while you're at work or sitting in the driveway. Total waste.

With sharing, you'll get a car to arrive when you need it.

Anonymous said...

@7:27
Leggett's political operatives manipulated the list, at the last minute moving people that they knew questioned the need for an unaccountable ITA and had slots in the first 20 to the last slots of the night. They placed chamber of commerce and lobbyists who are on the Task Force in the earlier slots. So the task force got to testify to the task force ahead of the people who signed up to testify to the task force.
That tells you all you need to know about Leggett's ITA...it's political, not about transit.

Anonymous said...

@7:29 sounds expensive.

Steve D. said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...
6:11 AM The future really isn't that folks have their own self driving cars, it's that people will share them. Think about the car sitting in the garage while you're at work or sitting in the driveway. Total waste.

With sharing, you'll get a car to arrive when you need it.

7:29 AM"

Don't bet on it. Your self-driving car is going to get stuck in traffic just like everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Steve, in the future there will be traffic lights that will monitor traffic. They will prevent there from ever being a backup regardless of the number of cars on the road. Sure none of this will happen very soon. But we should run on the assumption that they will. We certainly should not invest in any more infrastructure improvements until these technologies become widely used in 15 years.

Anonymous said...

"We certainly should not invest in any more infrastructure improvements until these technologies become widely used in 15 years."

Are you being sarcastic? I sure hope so....

Anonymous said...

"The future really isn't that folks have their own self driving cars, it's that people will share them. Think about the car sitting in the garage while you're at work or sitting in the driveway. Total waste.

With sharing, you'll get a car to arrive when you need it.in the future there will be traffic lights that will monitor traffic. They will prevent there from ever being a backup regardless of the number of cars on the road."

Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown... the mysterious. The unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you, the full story of what happened on that fateful day. We are bringing you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony, of the miserable souls, who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friend, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty. Let us reward the innocent. My friend, can your heart stand the shocking facts of grave robbers from outer space?
-Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space

Anonymous said...

12:00 PM - "in the future there will be traffic lights that will monitor traffic. They will prevent there from ever being a backup regardless of the number of cars on the road"

Do you realize that we've had "traffic lights that monitor traffic" for a few decades now?

And do you realize that there is a physical limit to the number of cars that can pass through a given intersection in a given time period, regardless of the control system used?

Anonymous said...

Remember, this is the council that fought to stop Uber, were using Windows 2000 last year (I'm assuming they're up to Vista by now) and continue an arcane liquor system that won't allow residents to buy a bottle of wine at the grocery store. This isn't the most forward looking group.

Anonymous said...

Dyer forgot to sign in. LOL

Anonymous said...

MoCo should set up a ITFCWBMSDIITTA (In The Future Cars Will Be Magic So Don't Invest In Transit Today Agency) whose responsibility will be to shoot down all new ideas about transit funding in the government because in the future cars will be magic.

Anonymous said...

This ITA will be creating the equivalent of horses and buggy whips with the new separate bus system.

Anonymous said...

"In The Future Cars Will Be Magic So Don't Invest In Transit Today"

Electric rickshaws!

Anonymous said...

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent."

Wait, is that from the ITA meeting, or just the Preamble?

Back to Center Court.

Why fight the establishment of ITA?

You have no vote. They are appointed. You have no say.
They have the power to keep raising your taxes. No caps.
How do you fight them? Good question.

Take a good look at the "representatives" we have had the power to vote in.
Just remember, next election, what and who they actually represent.

Unlimited taxation power is unneccessary and unacceptable, regardless of scheme, ie. plan.

Anonymous said...

The arrogance of power coming from the County Executive and Council is stunning.
We're at the point where they think anything can be rammed down our throats, even if there's overwhelming opposition.

These people will only back down if they believe for a second that they'll lose power.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:18 PM - Dylann Roof, is that you?

Anonymous said...

Free Ride On buses with the frequency and routes of the proposed BRT wouldn't be too bad. I am guessing the same people would come out of the woodwork complaining about something else if that was proposed.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @7:29am, I was the 6th person to sign up to testify. I ended up being #50 on the speakers list. Others had the same experience. Not an accident, the list was jiggered deliberately. Mr. Dyer, thanks for your coverage. Maybe you could investigate and find out how and why that happened, thanks. Paula Bienenfeld

Robert Dyer said...

Paula, I too signed up early, and was similarly placed late in the hearing. A preponderance of the evidence suggests many known critics were pushed later into the evening. I continue to investigate the ITA issue on several fronts.