Janet Long - A Regional Council of Governments to Manage Bay Area Public Transit

Long is using a mandate from the federal government to propose a regional transportation governing board that would have taxing authority.

St. Petersburg, Fl
Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Author: In Search of Robin

Janet Long, Chairperson of the Pinellas County Commission, has been struggling with the dysfunctional nature of public transit governance for some time.

Here is some background from local-area print and social media:

E. Eugene Webb, Bay Post Internet,  Pinellas County Commissioner Janet Long and the Bay area transportation problem

Mark Puente, Tampa Bay Times staff writer, Pinellas Commissioner Janet Long proposes a familiar plan: consolidating Tampa Bay's many transportation agencies

Mitch Perry, saintpetersblog, Janet Long unveils a proposed Regional Council of Governments model for the Tampa Bay area

Anne Lindberg, saintpetersblog, PSTA climbs on board Janet Long’s ‘regional council of governments’ idea

Long has been frustrated with the political players in public transit in the bay area such as: the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough counties; the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority and the Pinellas Suncoast Regional Transit Authority; the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.

However, Long's real frustration has been with the public's ability to control the public transportation process by denying property and sales tax referendums that support ideas like Pinellas GreenLight and Go Hillsborough.

I have personally seen Ms. Long's ire raised at those who opposed these poorly designed special interest driven initiatives at PSTA Board meetings.

Long's latest attempt to go around the taxpayers is supported by the federal government's insistence on one regional set of transportation priorities to secure federal funding.

The federal government wants one regional plan that would cover 20 years of expected growth in overlapping metro areas such as the bay area. Local leaders would have two years to devise a plan once the federal rules are finalized.

Long is seizing on this mandate from the federal government to propose a regional transportation governing authority or commission that would have taxing authority.

Read that again: would have taxing authority. 

Should Long's plan come to fruition the public could lose the ability to control the purse strings through referendum, and you can look for light rail and every other inefficient form of transportation promoted by the big public transportation players to show up with all of us footing the bill.

Putting together a political shift of this magnitude will take a while but local City and 

 County officials weary of dealing with the transportation problem may be more willing to turn control over to this super commission than you might think.

Everyone who fought Pinellas GreenLight, Go Hillsborough and the other taxing referendums for public transportation need to go on high alert.

Waiting until Long and her political partners have this on the agenda in the State legislature will be way too late. 

The Federal mandate is real, and it needs to be addressed, but doing it in the backrooms of county and local governments is a big mistake. The public needs to be involved in every jurisdiction, and every elected official needs to be held accountable for his or her decisions in this process.

Unless you want a new and potentially quite large line item for "Transportation" showing up on your bill from the property appraiser sometime  in the next two years you better keep an eye on Pinellas County Commission Chairperson Janet Long and her "Regional Council of Governments" idea.

E-mail Doc at mail to: dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, be sure to Like or share on Facebook and follow me on TWITTER  @DOC ON THE BAY

See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos.

A Reader's thoughts on Mass Transit and light rail

We as a community need to think not only about one year from now but 5, 10, 20 years from now! – CV

St. Petersburg, Fl
Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Author: In Search of Robin

Transportation continues to be a major issue in the Tampa Bay Area. There have been multiple failed efforts to convince the public to tax itself for the development of transportation initiatives.

Here is an e-mail from a reader with a different view:

    Read your post on the "Patch." My thought is that I would be willing to pay an extra 1% in sales tax to bring another form of mass transit to the area. I believe that it would benefit the local citizens by creating jobs, eventually relieving vehicle traffic, helping seniors get around (which provides a better mental health for the aging), it would create media attention to the area

which can be a boost to local marketing and advertising therefore stimulating the economy, and finally providing tourists with a way to see areas that they may not have if they just took a taxi from the airport to their final destination (again, a possible benefit to local businesses!

    Let's say I spend $100 a week in purchases that are taxable. That means that i would be paying an extra $1 to help the local economy in a big way. Is that really that big of a burden for me?.... Absolutely not and I think that if the "Train" initiative was presented as only costing a $1 a week, (which is probably double what most people spend in taxable purchases, remember "real" food isn't taxed) that the vote would be to pass an increase in county tax!

    All that people such as yourself seem to blog about is how these things are going to cost YOU and your like minded individuals. I ask that you take the time to think about and write about both sides of the argument. Think about how your $1 could actually help others! We as a community need to think not only about 1 year from now but 5, 10, 20 years from now! The last I heard, more people are moving into Florida than out of it. 

Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion!

CV - Clearwater

You make a very good point.

The problem all along has been the bay area people behind light rail are mostly developers and real estate people. Their principal objective has been to use publicly funded light rail to start transit-oriented redevelopment of Pinellas County.

You only have to look at the meandering route of the failed GreenLight Pinellas effort to see this approach at work. The entire GreenLight effort focused on creating new centers of development and not on improving public transportation.

There was also no significant GreenLight effort to resolve the "last mile" issue.

This approach rarely works in the US.

If we had a serious transit plan that solved the "last mile" problem and put light rail where it would be effective I agree that the public would support it.

The CSX tracks offer a significant opportunity, but the "last mile" problem is huge in the CSX scenario.

E-mail Doc at mail to: dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to Like or share on Facebook.

See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos.

Disclosures:

Contributor: Bob Gualtieri for Pinellas County Sheriff, Carlos Beruff for US Senate

Sorry no Gondolas for now

Until a serious, graft and corruption free regional transit entity can be created, things are unlikely to change.

St. Petersburg, Fl
Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD
Author: In Search of Robin

The U. S. Department of Transportation's Smart City Challenge pledged $40 million to a City that would integrate modern Technology into its transportation system.

Tampa proposed a bunch of small projects while St. Pete proposed Gondolas (think Ariel tram) connecting Gateway, Downtown and the beaches. Neither City received a nod from U.S. DOT.

You can get some detail in the Tampa Bay Times editorial: Failure to think Big on transit.

The state of public transportation, as pointed out in the Times editorial is a mess. Way too many cooks and nobody can agree on a recipe.

Until a serious, graft and corruption free regional transit entity can be created, things are unlikely to change.

TBARTA is useless, the various MPOs cannot get their act together and the two big players Pinellas County and Hillsborough County seem to keep each other at arm's length on transportation issues.

The issue here is the age-old problem greed.

Everyone in the decision process sees public transportation from his or her economic benefit perspective not from the public's need. Transportation redevelopment is usually the key issue with investors, developers and special interests more concerned about the ability to make money from the opportunities along the route and little concern for the actual user. GreenLight Pinellas being a good example.

The Go Hillsborough Parsons Brinkerhoff/Beth Laythem debacle is a classic case in point. As long as the connected have their hands either in the pot or access to it, the public should not tax itself one dime for these programs. The Hillsborough County Commission should quietly fold up Go Hillsborough, take a deep breath and start all over.

In Pinellas County, the grand plan of light rail seems to be languishing quietly below the surface while PSTA is a least trying to make strides with the bus system.

Pinellas, I am sure, is watching Go Hillsborough but the problem is Go Hillsborough has become so mired in typical Tampa/Hillsborough political shenanigans it is hard to get a real read on how the public would react if everyone was playing straight.

It is going to be a long, long, long time before the guy or gal that drives his/her BMW to work opts to ride on a bus or a train for that matter.

A lot is made that the millennials ride the bus. They may ride the bus from one bar district to the next; but when they want to go shopping at the International Mall or Countryside they do and will continue to drive their electric cars.

The point is public transportation is a long and difficult struggle in the Bay area. So far, we have seen the two poorly planned and misdirected transit initiatives designed more to line pockets than move people fail. If it makes it to the ballot, Go Hillsborough will be the third.

The politicians need to think carefully. They are actually educating the people to vote against these transit issues with the lies, misinformation and carryings on like Go Hillsborough.

It is time for the serious leaders in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties to jettison the likes of TBARTA, GreenLight, Go Hillsborough, Pasrsons Brinkerhoff Beth, Laythem and their counterparts and begins to develop a long-range comprehensive transit plan for the region that the people trust and believe.

Otherwise, in 2036 you will be setting on the Howard Franklin Bridge at 9:00 AM in your electric powered whatever at dead stop.

E-mail Doc at mail to: dr.gwebb@yahoo.com or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos.

Disclosures:
Contributor: Bob Gualtieri for Pinellas County Sheriff

GreenLight bus ads a pleasant reminder

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD

You have probably noticed those ads for GreenLight are still on PSTA buses.

I think those ads and the refusal of PSTA to allow opposition access to the same ad space was one of the most maddening parts of the whole GreenLight episode. It just seemed to symbolize the arrogance of the PSTA administration and the PSTA toward the public.

Even though the State ruled the ads did not violate any "campaigning rules" it still seemed a stretch to me to use Public funds to promote a self serving cause.

My view of these little mobile billboards has changed now that the election is over and the people of Pinellas County have soundly sent a message to the PSTA. The message is pretty simple; the public will not be hoodwinked by big rolling billboards, big campaign contributions, and lots of politicians saying something they never really investigated is a good idea.

These days I just can't help but smile every time I roll up behind a PSTA bus with the GreenLight ad plastered all over its back end.

Now those GreenLight ads represent what I really love most about Pinellas County - how genuinely intelligent our citizens are. How they can see through the fog of deceptive politics, special interests and big money and how much they really do understand what this County needs in its public transportation system and what is does not need.

 Most importantly how willing they are to go to the ballot and vote their convictions.

Next time you pull up behind a PSTA bus with the GreenLight logo still on it just smile and be glad you live in a County where the people have a voice and they use it.

As a final thought, if the PSTA is going to leave those ads up for a while, they might want to consider an over lay on the ad - a picture of Mr. Miller and Chairman Welch with the caption "We're Sorry". I'll even chip in a few bucks to help cover the cost.

Just a thought.

E-mail Doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net. Or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Twitter@DOCONTHEBAY. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos

Sunday November 16, 2014 A GreenLight Media Perspective

Opinion by: Eugene Webb PhD

Generally the carping about the GreenLight sales tax massive defeat has subsided. There are a number of lessons to be learned from this referendum, many by the politicians and planners but there is also an interesting media conundrum in the GreenLight outcome.

The two large print media out lets in Pinellas County, the Tampa Bay Times and the St. Petersburg Tribune, openly supported the GreenLight referendum.  Both laid out strong supporting editorial positions and neither gave much detailed coverage to the opposition.

The local electronic media, with the exception of 10 News, while generally supportive of Greenlight, also gave only passing coverage of the opposition.

Mainstream media passed off No Tax for Tracks as an underfunded, grassroots, tea party, and extremist effort with little chance of success.

That million dollars of GreenLight campaign money could also have put some stars.... eer dollar signs in mainstream media's eyes.

Local social media, for the most part, was where the GreenLight opposition made its media case. 

With the exception of the area's largest social media site, stpetersblog, local social media bloggers were those presenting the opposition's case. Even though stpetersblog's publisher supported GreenLight, the Blog's coverage tended to be reasonably balanced.

When you add up about 6000 yard signs, numerous appearances by No Tax for Tracks supporters, 3 or 4 local social media sites and about $100,000 in campaign contributions and compare that to the support of both local newspapers including editorials, a good chunk of the electronic media, some of the biggest power players in the County, over $1 Million dollars in campaign contributions and a stunning defeat, it is no wonder some people are scratching their heads and asking some questions.

There is no question the sales tax referendum was one of the worst referendums ever concocted in Pinellas County, but the fact is along with good grassroots politics, social media was the only place people could get the true facts about GreenLight in their homes.

Patch, Eye on Tampa Bay, The Sunbeam Times and Bay Post Internet  were the social media sites that consistently presented the GreenLight facts, uncovered illegal activities at the PSTA and exposed the poor management lack of control at the PSTA.

With the Tampa Bay Times in business trouble laying off staff and borrowing money to operate, and the Tribune now reducing staff, the status of print media and its relevance to the pulse of the community are really in question.

I would not be naive enough to think that social media was the primary reason GreenLight failed. But when the GreenLight facts were presented in a social media format election results and page view statistics tell a startling story.

Next election cycle I suspect that the public will be looking to social media once again for the comments, opinions and facts they can count on.

E-mail Doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net. Or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Twitter@DOCONTHEBAY. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter. See Doc's Photo Gallery at Bay Post Photos

The PSTA Pinellas County Interlocal Agreement Review.................... You Should Know Before You Vote

Beginning tomorrow Monday September 15, 2014 Dr. E. Eugene Webb presents a 20 Post Series reviewing the PSTA/Pinellas County Interlocal Agreement.

This Agreement approved by both the PSTA Board of Directors and the County Commission will go into effect if voters approve the Sales Tax Referendum.

It does not become a law as the actual Ballot referendum will, but the Interlocal Agreement takes effect immediately up on the certification of the vote should the GreenLight sales tax be approved.

You need to look this Agreement over before you vote.

The Inter local Agreement focuses on bonding, financing, redevelopment and the light rail train. It allows your tax dollars to be pledged to bonds for up to 50 years and renewals for 40 more years, allowing the tax to exist for 90 years.

This series of Posts includes the actual language from the Agreement along with comments and analysis.

You need this information before you vote.

The Posts will go up on Bay Post Internet each WEEKDAY at 5:00AM for the next four weeks. Follow along and add your thoughts through the "Comment" link.

Please follow these Posts, Like them on Facebook, Tweet them on Twitter and e-mail them to your  friends. 

E-mail Doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net. Or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter.
Disclosures: Contributor to No Tax for Tracks.

Greenlight - The 50 Year Mortgage

Below are two lengthy Sections from the Interlocal Agreement between PSTA and Pinellas County that was approved at the June PSTA Board of Directors meeting.

SECTION  7.  PLEDGE OF SURTAX NET PROCEEDS.

 (A)  In  order  to  finance  or  refinance  projects,  PSTA  may  issue  bonds  or  notes,  enter  into  lines  of  credit,  incur  loans  or  other  indebtedness,  enter  into  concession,  lease  or  similar  agreements,  and  may  secure  payment  obligations  under  such  bonds,  loans,  notes,  lines  of  credit  or  other  indebtedness  or  pursuant  to  such  concession,  lease  or  similar  agreements  with  a  pledge  of  and  lien  on  the  Surtax  Net  Proceeds  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of Section  212.055(1),  Florida  Statutes,  and  other  applicable  law,  including  any  indebtedness  refinancing  such  bonds,  loans,  notes,  lines  of  credit  or  other  indebtedness.  Prior  to  the  initial  issuance  of  any  indebtedness  by  PSTA,  the  Pinellas  County  Attorney  shall  approve  the  trust  agreement  or  trust  indenture  (the  "Trust  Agreement")  pursuant  to  which  such  indebtedness  is  to  be  issued.  The  County  and  PSTA  agree  that  it  is  their  intent  that  such  approval  be  provided  by  the  County  Attorney  prior  to  the  date  of  the  Surtax  Referendum.  Notwithstanding  the  foregoing,  PSTA  shall  at  all  times  comply  with  its  debt  policy  referred  to  in  Section  10  hereof.

(B)  Notwithstanding  anything  herein  to  the  contrary,  to  the  extent  permitted  by  law,  in  order  to  effectuate  the  purposes  in  PSTA's  Greenlight  Plan,  PSTA  may  enter  into  leases  or  public  private  partnerships  with  concessionaires,  and  may  secure  its  obligations  to  make  lease,  concession  and  other  payments  under  lease  and  concession  agreements  with  a  pledge  of  and  lien  on  the  Surtax  Net  Proceeds  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Section  212.055(1  ),  Florida  Statutes.  (C)  Nothing  contained  herein  shall  be  construed  to  limit  the  amount  of  indebtedness  that  may  be  incurred  by  PSTA  to  be  secured  by  the  Surtax  Net  Proceeds.

Comment

This Section provides the authority for the PSTA to obligate sales tax proceeds to the payment of bonds issued by PSTA. Once obligated, these funds cannot be reduced or used for any other purpose by PSTA or the County. The bond covenants will determine how the money is to be spent, and while the County may have some say in the structuring of the bonds, PSTA will really be in the driver's seat, because they will actually be spending the bond proceeds with limited County over sight.

We have already seen how liberally PSTA interprets rules related to spending money.

SECTION  9.  REDUCTION AND TERMINATION OF SURTAX. 

Upon the earlier of: 

(A)  completion  of  all  steps  to  finance  (including  without  limitation  debt  incurrence,  and/or  execution  of  public-private  partnerships  or  leases), acquire,  and/or  construct  all  projects  and  capital  improvements  contemplated  in  PSTA's  Greenlight  Plan,  as  mutually  determined  by  PSTA  and  the  County  (if  the  parties  cannot  mutually  determine  whether  PSTA's  Greenlight  Plan  has  been  completed,  the  parties  shall  engage  a  nationally  recognized  transit  consultant  acceptable  to  both  Parties  to  make  such  determination); 

(B)  PSTA's  decision  to  discontinue  such  steps  to  finance,  acquire  and/or  construct  substantially  all  of  the  projects  and  capital  improvements  contemplated  in  PSTA's  Greenlight  Plan; 

(C)  the occurrence  of  a  Force  Majeure; 

(D)  the  fiftieth  50th  anniversary  of  the  date  the  Surtax  is  first  levied  and  each  20th  anniversary  thereafter; 

(E)  a payment  default  under  the  Trust  Agreement;  or 

(F)  PSTA  applying  Surtax  Net  Proceeds  for  a  purpose  other  than  PSTA's  Greenlight  Plan, 

the  County  and  PSTA  shall  meet  to  discuss  the  particular  event  described  in  clauses  (A)  through  (F)  that  has  occurred  and  shall  consider,  depending  upon  the  event,  revising  this  Agreement,  revising  or  adding  to  PSTA's  Greenlight  Plan,  seeking  further  authorization  for  additional  uses  by  PSTA  of  the  Surtax  Net  Proceeds  or  reducing  or  increasing,  if  there  has  been  a  previous  reduction  and  subject  to  the  limitations  of  the  Surtax  Referendum,  temporarily  or  permanently,  the  Surtax  Net  Proceeds.  If  the  Parties  are  unable  to  agree  on  what  action,  if  any,  to  take,  after  making  a  good  faith  effort,  the  County  may  take  any  legally  required  action  to  reduce  the  Surtax  Net  Proceeds  distributed  to  PSTA.  In  determining  what  action  to  take,  if  any,  pursuant  to  this  Section  9,  the  Parties  shall  comply  with  the  provisions  of  Section  29(B)  hereof. 

Any  reduction  of  Surtax  Net  Proceeds  distributed  to  PSTA  as  a  result  of  an  action  or  event  described  in  clauses  (C),  (E)  or  (F)  above  shall  be  temporary  and  the  County  shall  promptly  begin  distributing  the  full  amount  of  the  Surtax  Net  Proceeds  to  PSTA,  including  all  amounts  that  were  held  back  and  actual  interest  earnings,  if  any,  actually  derived  by  the  County,  when  the  County  determines,  in its  sole  discretion,  that  such  event  or  action  has  been  cured  or  no  longer  exists.  The  foregoing  shall  not  impose  a  duty  on  the  County  to  invest  any  of  such  withheld  amounts.  The  County  shall  determine,  in its  sole  discretion,  whether  any  reduction  of  Surtax  Net  Proceeds  distributed  to  PSTA  as  a  result  of  an  action  or  event  described  in  clauses  6  (A),  (B)  or  (D)  will  be  temporary  or  permanent.  If  the  County  determines  to  permanently  reduce  the  distribution  of  the  Surtax  Net  Proceeds,  to  the  extent  and  as  permitted  by  law,  it  may  take  such  action  as  it  deems  necessary  and  is  legally  required  to  reduce  the  amount  of  the  Surtax  levy  in  accordance  with  this  Section.  Notwithstanding  anything  in  this  Section  9  to  the  contrary,  any  temporary  reduction  shall  be  limited  to  an  amount  that  will  not  impair  PSTA's  ability  to  meet  all  of  its  then  outstanding  financial  obligations  under  the  Trust  Agreement. 

Comment

This Section sets up the conditions under which the sales tax would terminate. Note that (D) sets the life expectancy of Greenlight at 50 years but allows for two 20 year extensions.

That's 90 Years!

TWO generations.

A baby born on January 1, 2015 when this Tax starts, will pay the tax their entire life, their children will pay it and it is not inconceivable their grand children may also pay it.

This amount of indebtedness for this length of time to develop 24 four rail stations for a train generally going to the wrong places; buying and selling a bunch of land and building tracks and buildings so a very few can get very rich is very, very wrong.

The law you are being asked to approve with your YES vote is just over 5000 words long. The Interlocal Agreement where the County attempts to put some control on PSTA is over 7000 words long. And we have just begun.

Don't mortgage your future, your children's future and grandchildren's future for a train that does not meet the core public transportation need and will cost millions more than the Greenlight plan contemplates.

Send the County, PSTA, TBARTA and Greenlight back to drawing board just like they did in Hillsborough County.

Greenlight is a plan that we don't need and cannot afford.

Vote NO November 4

 Talk to you fiends and neighbors and be sure they know what they are voting for.

It's not public transportation. It's all about the money.

E-mail Doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net. Or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter.
Disclosures: Contributor to No Tax for Tracks