Duncan Resigns from Yes for Greenlight: One Small Win for Integrity

Ronnie Duncan announced he is resigning from Yes for Greenlight.

Facing mounting pressure from Tea Party groups who accused him of acting unethically, one of the leaders of a campaign to pass a transit tax referendum in Pinellas announced on Wednesday that he is resigning.

Ronnie Duncan, a former Pinellas commissioner and the chairman of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, said he's leaving his post as co-chair of the Yes for Greenlight campaign, which he helped launch earlier this month to support a referendum that would raise Pinellas' sales tax to pay for mass transit.

Which Ronnie Duncan?

It was not just Tea Party groups.  What made Duncan think he could get away with this? Anyone with any sense of transparency and ethics could spot his conflict of interest a mile away.   The Tampa Tribune editorial page also called for him to step down from Yes for Greenlight, as did many others.

Duncan should still resign from TBARTA.  The damage has been done.  His actions raise significant doubt about his abilities to lead TBARTA in an impartial way and he has tainted TBARTA's mission across the seven counties in the Tampa Bay area they are serving.

In a related turn of events, Tucker Hall, the PR firm hired by both Greenlight Pinellas and Yes for Greenlight, was dropped by Yes for Greenlight, again for putting themselves in a similar conflict of interest of serving two masters.  From the Times:

In response to similar concerns over public perception, Yes for Greenlight has also severed ties with Tucker Hall, the Tampa-based public relations firm it brought on to manage nearly every aspect of the campaign. Tucker Hall was first hired over a year ago by Pinellas County's transit agency to design its more than $400,000 public education campaign for the transit referendum.

Ultimately, the fact that the company had worked on the public campaign — which, by law, had to maintain a neutral position on the referendum — and was orchestrating the private advocacy campaign, worried Yes for Greenlight's leaders. It also fueled the referendum's opponents, who have complained for months that the public education component was little more than a poorly disguised advocacy campaign.

Yes for Greenlight's remaining leader, Chris Steinocher, stated

"There was no legal problem, but it was the same perception of conflict," Steinocher said. "Part of this was the notion of: let's make sure that how we're running the campaign doesn't become the story."

They tried to sneak one in and got caught.  If poor ethics and conflict of interest were not enough of a problem, one misstatement from Duncan and they would be welcoming legal problems.

You can read our previous posts related to this topic  

Call for Ronnie Duncan, Chairman of TBARTA, to resign from TBARTA
Ronnie Duncan, who's your master?
Connect Tampa Bay Avoids Integrity

At least someone called Duncan out this time, and it did make a little difference.

Lesson learned?  Call them out, and let transparency and integrity win.

Call for Ronnie Duncan, Chairman of TBARTA, to resign from TBARTA

The following Press Release went out today from Citizens Organized for Sound Transportation, a group of citizens concerned about the transportation issue who see a direct conflict of interest in Pinellas and are demanding Ronnie Duncan, the Chairman of TBARTA, resign. The campaigns regarding the November Pinellas referendum to raise their sales tax for rail and expanded bus service have begun.  The private pro referendum advocacy group, Yes for Greenlight, was announced last week and is being led and organized by Ronnie Duncan, the Chairman of taxpayer funded TBARTA.  

Ronnie Duncan, Chairman of taxpayer funded TBARTA, advocates for the Greenlight Pinellas Plan

Contact Information:

Sharon Calvert

813-760-1777

scalvert@tampabay.rr.com

CITIZENS ORGANIZATION DEMANDS TBARTA CHAIRMAN

RONNIE DUNCAN RESIGN FROM TBARTA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – February 10, 2014

Tampa, FL – A letter today has been sent to TBARTA Chairman Mr. Ronnie Duncan from Citizens Organized for Sound Transportation demanding Mr. Duncan resign from TBARTA immediately. Mr. Duncan is now serving dual roles. He is chairman of a state agency at the same time he is stepping into the position organizing and leading an effort known as “Yes for Greenlight”, advocating support to pass the sales tax referendum on the November ballot in Pinellas County.

February 10, 2014

Mr. Ronnie Duncan

Chairman TBARTA
3802 Spectrum Boulevard
Suite 306
Tampa, Florida 33612

Mr. Duncan:

The Tampa Bay Times reported that you are organizing and leading "Yes for Greenlight", the campaign advocating in Pinellas County in support of a referendum to increase the county's sales tax to pay for expanded bus service and light rail. You appeared publicly as a director and principal of "Yes for Greenlight" at their public kickoff event on February 7, 2014.

This constitutes a very serious and direct conflict of interest for you as Chairman of TBARTA and for the agency as a whole. Your public political advocacy while holding this influential leadership position on the TBARTA board seriously undermines the credibility of TBARTA. This is unacceptable. Your actions are counter to TBARTA's stated Guiding Principles that call for "integrity" and to " build a credible reputation in word and action". The only way the credibility of TBARTA can be restored is with your immediate and unconditional resignation from TBARTA.

Your actions cloud and severely undermine the serious work that needs to be done. TBARTA cannot be an effective state agency when you, as the Chairman of the Board, raise funds and advocate in elections.

Your activities place TBARTA and you personally as a board member and chairman in an untenable position to function effectively going forward.

You must resign immediately in order for TBARTA to regain the public trust.

Sincerely,

Sharon H. Calvert

Spokesperson, Citizens Organized for Sound Transportation

505 Cullen Ct.

Lutz, FL 33548

cc: Governor Rick Scott

TBARTA Board

Executive Director, TBARTA

###

Transportation Chaos

The debate about transportation, rail and transit is getting hotter and hotter everyday in the Tampa Bay region. There are transit referendums on the November 2014 ballot in Pinellas and Polk.  There's a steady drum beat from the rail cartel (pro rail politicians, taxpayer funded agencies and special interests) for another rail referendum in Hillsborough. 

In 2010 there were transit referendums on the ballot in Hillsborough and Polk. Hillsborough had a comprehensive referendum that included rail and Polk had a transit only referendum to expand their bus service. Both referendums went down in flaming defeats, 58-42 in Hillsborough and 62-38 in Polk.

Now comprehensive sales tax referendums are on the November ballot in Pinellas and Polk. Pinellas wants to raise sales their tax 14% to expand bus service and build a light rail from Clearwater to St. Pete. Polk wants a 14% sales tax increase to fund roads and expand bus service.  

When the power brokers placed a stadium only sales tax on the Hillsborough ballot in the early 1990's, it was defeated.  But the local powers to be came back and gave us the Community Investment Tax (CIT) as a "something for everyone" tax that passed. That tax was supposed to fund road improvements for 30 years but now it's gone.  Our county commissioners borrowed against the future revenues of the tax by 2007.  The county moved our CIT dollars around faster than we could figure out where those funds were actually going. We're paying the CIT tax until 2026 but it's only to pay back the borrowed funds.  

Is Polk attempting something similar?  Tweaking their 2010 referendum to include roads for messaging purposes to help get their transit tax passed?  It may not be working.  According to this recent Lakeland Ledger article Is The Sales Tax Referendum In Trouble In Polk County?

Judging from comments I’ve heard and seen, the proposed Polk County sales tax referendum planned for the November ballot may be a hard sell. 

What’s proposed is a 1 cent increase in sales tax. The way it was originally proposed, half a cent would go to transit. The other half cent would go to road and bridge project’s. 

Here’s why:
Lack of support for transit is certainly part of it (my emphasis).

The referendum has created so much chaos in Polk county where citizens are distrustful that according to the Ledger article, one county commissioner recently proposed 

Then last week Commissioner George Lindsey proposed shifting money from transit to road building for the first five years of the tax’s life even though a 50-50 split is what referendum supporters have been selling for the past year.

This change to the ballot language will be discussed at the February 4 Polk county commission meeting.  What a mess.

Both Polk and Pinellas are going to wage a publicity campaign to get their respective referendums passed. When Tom Phillips, Director of the Polk transit agency spoke to the Tiger Bay club last October, the Lakeland Ledger reported 

To build support for the transportation referendum, Phillips said he has been speaking to civic and political groups all over Polk County and is working with other supporters on an advertising campaign (my emphasis) designed to sell transit to Polk's voters.

Tom Phillips, Director for transit agency in Polk County 

Yesterday the Tribune reports that Pinellas's PSTA is on another spending binge to use tax dollars to "sell" their flawed product. 

After spending $400,000 promoting the Greenlight Pinellas mass-transit plan last year, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority has earmarked another $150,000 for a new educational campaign and may spend more in the run-up to the November referendum.

The information campaign will be in addition to a privately funded advocacy campaign called Greenlight Yes, which will be launched Friday at the Pinellas Realtor’s Association. Realtors and construction firms are expected to pour up to $1 million into the push for the referendum to pass.

PSTA CEO Brad Miller said there will be coordination between the two campaigns (emphasis mine), both of which are expected to be directed by Tampa public relations firm Tucker Hall. He is scheduled to present details of the education campaign to PSTA’s board later this month, which could include increasing the budget for the campaign.

According to the The Tampa Bay Times, Ronnie Duncan, chairman of  taxpayer funded TBARTA, organized Greenlight Yes.

Organized by Ronnie Duncan, chairman of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, or TBARTA, the campaign is going by the name "Greenlight YES."

Brad Miller publicly admits his taxpayer funded agency will "coordinate" with the pro rail Greenlight Yes campaign and the chairman of Taxpayer funded TBARTA is helping to organize the pro rail campaign.  As a taxpayer, are you outraged? Is this coordination even legal? At the very least, it is unethical. In 2010, we watched the blatant "skirting" of our electioneering laws in Hillsborough. This activity needs to stop. Is that the intent of our state electioneering laws? If it is, then don't we need to reform those state laws?  Our state legislators are up for re-election in 2014. Ask your legislative candidates running in your district if they would support a bill to reform our electioneering laws to reign in this collusion, coordination, corruption and cronyism.

The ballot language in Pinellas does not state PSTA's property tax will be eliminated. Taxpayers are simply asked to "trust" that will happen.  Does that sound a bit like "You can keep your healthcare"?  The existing PSTA property tax may or may not be eliminated. If it is eliminated it could be brought back at any time in the future.  Comforting huh?

In Hillsborough, the transportation issue has at times looked like a "three ring circus" (Webster's Dictionary defines three ring circus: a place with a lot of busy and confusing activity.)  The Transportation Leadership Policy group has been meeting since July of last year. This committee, consisting of the county commissioners and mayors of Tampa, Temple Terrace and Plant City, has meandered all over the map. Why? Because a specific problem statement was never defined. 

The county website for this initiative Transportation for Economic Development provides links to the archived meetings, houses some presentations and provides a 50,000 foot level vision and strategy.  Finally at January's meeting some detailed data was presented that looks to begin to specifically define some problems. What took so long? 

Without a specific problem statement nor goal defined, there appears to be two views of the purpose of this committee. About half the members of this committee seem to believe its goal is to identify key economic spaces, then determine transportation solutions to connect them - a continuation of the previous Economic Prosperity Stakeholder Committee (EPSC) work tying in transportation. The other half of this committee appears to believe its goal is to identify transportation solutions (or transit solutions as some members tout) that they believe will drive economic development. At times, these two sub-groups appear to talk past themselves.

Governance was brought up at January's meeting and out of the blue Kevin Beckner proposes to restructure HART to manage county transportation projects.  The Tribune reported:

Hillsborough County leaders are drawing up plans to remake the HART bus system into an expansive agency that can oversee construction of countywide transportation projects and spur economic development.
Changes being contemplated for the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority include a larger board with expertise in economic development and the authority to build roads and rail and create new bus routes (emphasis mine).

The Tribune takes liberty with including rail as if there's a plan for rail in Hillsborough. There's not!  HART manages our local bus service and their 10 year Transportation Development Plan approved late last year supports expanding bus services.  There is no rail component in it. 

Mayor Buckhorn provided insight for why HART was being nominated to manage transportation improvements - it's the agency that can accept federal rail funds. Also proposed was adding economic development as a responsibility of some restructured, super sized, super spending HART agency consisting only of elected officials. An agency consisting only of elected officials managing a huge bucket of transportation dollars should raise a red flag for potential cronyism and corruption. Economic development should not be the responsibility or our local transit agency. 

Let's be realistic.  HART deals with transit, not transportation. They operate and manage our local bus system.  They do not manage roads, bike paths, sidewalks or economic development. With managed/toll lanes coming in the future, tolls which are user fees paid by vehicle users, must go back into road improvements NOT diverted to transit. 

And the Eye just reported about some power brokers proposing  election rigging a March 2015 rail referendum to avoid county voters and stack the deck with city voters. We're sure the rail cartel would love that.

Tom Phillips, Polk county's transit agency director, wants that new transit revenue as the Ledger reports

Phillips said the proposal comes at a time when a successful transit system in Polk County could fit into a regional transportation system that includes the SunRail commuter rail system coming from the Orlando area and light rail that may be coming from the Tampa Bay area.

SunRail coming to Polk County?  Guess Polk is considering it according to this Ledger article

The prospects of expanded passenger rail service becoming part of Polk County's future transportation network will be the topic of a public forum at 6 p.m. Tuesday at the Lake Eva Complex. 

Polk transportation planners and local officials have discussed investigating the feasibility of extending the Sunrail line — if it is extended to the edge of Poinciana — into Polk County to Haines City, which has not had regular rail service since the 1970s.

How will that be paid for in Polk county? Another tax increase? Light rail coming from Tampa Bay to Polk?  When will that happen?

Adding to this mess is federal dollars to fund new rail systems are dwindling at the same time older, legacy rail systems are in dire need of major rehabilitation. Greenlight Pinellas requires almost a billion dollars of federal grant money.  What happens when they don't get all those dollars?  Local taxpayers are on the hook.

What does this all mean in Tampa Bay?

Transportation chaos!  But it is orchestrated chaos.

Taxing Danger Zone in Pinellas

NoTaxForTracks Pinellas kicked off their official campaign this week opposing the county referendum to increase Pinellas sales tax by 14%.  Most of that money would go to fund a high cost light rail system from Clearwater to St. Petersburg and there are exactly NO plans to go over the Howard Frankland bridge.

NoTaxForTracks yard signs

It was nice to see that the Tampa Bay Times in their report acknowledged the brand name "NoTaxForTracks".

If the name of the campaign, "No Tax for Tracks," sounds familiar, that's because it's the second generation of the Hillsborough-based group that worked to successfully defeat a similar referendum in 2010. There, residents defeated a ballot measure 58 percent to 42 percent that would have raised the sales tax to pay for light rail, expanded bus service and road improvements.

What's different in Pinellas from the 2010 Hillsborough NoTaxForTracks effort is this:

1. A taxpayer funded pro rail advocacy campaign Greenlight Pinellas was launched mid last year. Ironically, as the Eye previously reported, Greenlight Pinellas may be having a negative impact to their effort as support has dropped since their campaign begun.
2. It is a longer campaign cycle and it is unknown whether that will help or hurt either side. However, as previously stated, the more information Pinellas voters and taxpayers have learned, the more they appear to oppose the referendum.
3. The opposition NoTaxForTracks PAC in Pinellas has been created prior to the pro rail PAC being announced.

Just like the taxpayer funded marketing campaign of  Greenlight Pinellas, it should be disturbing to taxpayers and voters that Ronnie Duncan, who is chairman of the taxpayer funded Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation (TBARTA) agency is leading the effort to create the formal pro rail advocacy PAC.
The Tampa Bay Times reported

Supporters of the tax increase have yet to launch a formal campaign, though efforts to create one are underway, according to Ronnie Duncan, chairman of the Tampa Bay Area Regional Transportation Authority, who is leading the effort and has declined to say how much money advocates have raised. 

In an interview earlier this month, Duncan said he expected opponents of the referendum would begin spreading their message early.

What is the same in Pinellas that was encountered in Hillsborough is the coordination and collusion of pro rail politicians, taxpayer funded agencies and deep pocketed special interests versus a grassroots opposition, as Tampa Bay Times indicates:

While the referendum's supporters are counting on many of Pinellas' business and political leaders to make large contributions to an advocacy campaign, the opposition does not have the same deep pockets. Similarly, in 2010, Hillsborough's No Tax for Tracks group raised only $24,000, while the pro-transit group Moving Hillsborough Forward collected nearly $1.6 million to promote the issue.

What gets totally avoided and intentionally ignored in these rail boondoggles is the fiscal aspect, as if money does not matter. Just like in 2010, the pro rail contingent refuses to acknowledge the high cost to build, maintain and operate a light rail system. Light rail is the highest subsidized mode of transportation. 

Politicians and taxpayer funded agencies advocating for rail see large amounts of federal dollars dancing in their heads without regard to the cost, effectiveness or efficiency for use of YOUR tax dollars. Special interests see their pockets being lined at the expense of the taxpayer. 

What we knew in 2010 in Hillsborough is the same today in Pinellas -  that light rail has nothing to do with transportation and everything to do with taxpayer subsidized transit-oriented development.  This was confirmed by Brad Miller, CEO of PSTA at a meeting I attended last summer where he honestly acknowledged why rail is part of their initiative - the rail component is necessary for economic development. But economic development does not equate to economic growth or prosperity or long term job creation. Don't be fooled by their use of the term economic development.

The Pinellas taxpayers should be aware that the sales tax revenue will go directly to Pinellas county because PSTA cannot collect sales tax. The ballot language in the referendum contains NO accountability nor financial/cost information. Don't you want to know where and how the next billions of your tax dollars are going to be spent for this initiative? This lack of transparency should be a red flag to voters and taxpayers.

According to this Tampa Tribune article published on January 21st,  Pinellas must close a budget gap beginning in 2015.  

County officials are projecting they will have to make up a $4 million shortfall in 2015, despite a projected 3 percent increase in property tax revenue and a 4 percent increase in sales tax collections. 

Commissioners did not discuss how to make up any deficit this year, but with a referendum looming in November on raising the sales tax to pay for expanded transit, they may be reluctant to raise property taxes as they did in 2013 when facing an $8.3 million shortfall. 

Then they raised the general fund property tax rate by 5 percent. That was despite a 3.4 percent increase in property taxes, the first in five years. The budget included a pay raise of roughly 2.8 percent for county employees.

Remember Pinellas county property taxes went up in 2011 as the Tampa Bay Times reported

The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority plans to raise its tax rate by 30 percent (emphasis mine), but is likely still to curb service on some routes. 

The tax roll, which shed 4.5 percent of its value this year, reduced the transit service's prime source of money. PSTA officials have said the rate increase could stanch the bleeding of reserve money until they persuade voters to approve a sales tax increase (emphasis mine).

Pinellas county revenue is up but a budget gap looms. Why? Because as Barbara Haselden explains in this video from the NoTaxForTracks Pinellas kick off event, Pinellas county has a spending problem not a revenue problem. Barbara's presentation is a scathing indictment of PSTA's fiscal mismanagement using PSTA's own information. 

Stop Greenlight Pinellas

Now the question becomes should taxpayers trust Pinellas County/PSTA with an additional  $100 million a year of your tax dollars to spend? They've already raised property taxes but continue spending. There's no disciplined accountability in place with their rail referendum. 

Shouldn't fiscal due diligence and prudence be done first? Because as Haselden indicated at her kickoff, this 14% sales tax increase looks more and more like a bailout for PSTA's fiscal mismanagement.

Second verse, same as the first. Proving yet again, the politicians are incapable of learning a new tune.  But like the old Kenny Loggins tune said they're "gonna take you right into the (taxing) danger zone!"

Dumb Tampa Bay tweeters of the day

Here's a couple of nominees for dumb tweet of the day.

First up Brad Miller, CEO of PSTA:

Another benefit of #GreenlightPinellas - investing in #transit - only 13% of Pinellas bus stops have shelters - lowest of top cities in FLA
— Brad Miller (@BradMillerPSTA) January 2, 2014

 So PSTA needs $100M per year tax hike for some more shade at the bus stops?

Not to be outdone, TBARTA tweeted about some new bike path scheme in London:

London could soon have elevated bike paths http://t.co/04vN0GTimA
— TBARTA (@TBARTA) January 2, 2014

Well, if you follow the link,  there is some plan (dream?) in London to build 220km of elevated bike paths in London.

[T]he design team has focused on a 6.5km trial route from Stratford to Liverpool Street Station, following the path of the overground line, a stretch they estimate would cost around £220 million.

If you do the math,  the entire 220km (about 135 miles) of bike paths would cost around £8 billion, or $12.2 billion.

Yeah, that'll happen.

Both Brad Miller and TBARTA seems to be missing some basic math skills.

I'll call it a draw for today, but we'll be looking for the tiebreaker!

Better Idea: How About We Keep Our Own Money

Today's Tampa Tribune includes this commentary from the Washington Post regarding our federal gas taxes aka the Highway Trust Fund.

A major federal program is on desperate financial footing. It’s too important and popular to cut drastically. But a combination of changing social patterns, technological innovation and bad policy design has thrown its accounts far out of balance, and it has begun to eat into general spending that should go to other national priorities.

We all understand there is a funding issue and there are numerous reasons why as the commentary points out. However, the solution is NOT liberal Rep. Blumenauer's proposal to send more of our hard earned money to the bottomless spending pit of no accountability in DC. The solution is to devolve our gas taxes back to the states which is what Senator Mike Lee's Transportation Empower Act  will do. A simple Google search by the Washington Post certainly would have found Senator Lee's bill that:

• Transfers almost all authority over federal highway and transit programs to the states over a five-year period
• Lowers the federal gas tax to 3.7 cents from 18.4 cents over the same time period
• During the five-year phase out, states will receive block grants that come with vastly fewer federal strings attached

States know their own unique transportation needs much better than anyone in DC. Because there is a federal funding issue, the states have already begun figuring out how to fund their own transportation projects - from their own taxes to toll roads to public-private partnerships, to private sector funding and solutions, etc.  States are innovating while the federal Highway Trust Fund becomes more bankrupt.

Highway Trust Fund is bankrupt

Looking at how we got in this fiscal mess serves as another good reason to empower states and allow them to keep their own gas taxes. Let's look historically at what the Feds have done to one of the largest buckets of our tax dollars in DC. The Highway Trust Fund was implemented in 1956 as a user fee to fund roads, highways and bridges and to build out the federal interstate system. Since then, the House Transportation Committee has grown to become the largest committee in the House. This big bucket of money has turned into pork barrel spending for wasteful projects, has politicized transportation projects and began diverting user fee gas taxes elsewhere. In addition, it has unequally distributed the funds across the states, like Florida. 

Florida has always been a donor state even when our population was exploding over the last decades. The state has historically only received between 70 and 80 cents back for every dollar we send to DC. Today we get back a bit more but Florida is still a donor state. 

Today at least 25%, and perhaps as high as 40%, of our federal road user fee gas taxes are now diverted elsewhere, mostly to transit and high cost rail systems but also to sidewalks, trails and bike paths. Instead of doing the fiscal due diligence for a new, separate long term, sustainable revenue source for mass transit, Congress simply did the easiest thing back in the 1983. Congress created the Mass Transit Account in 1983 funded by our user fee gas taxes and began mandating the diversion of dollars from the existing Highway Trust Fund to transit and other activities (sidewalks, bike paths…) The result of this? The Highway Trust Fund is now bankrupt. It has basically been bankrupted since 2007 when gas tax revenue did not cover spending. Since 2008, Congress began diverting tax dollars from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund. In 2010, $30 Billion was appropriated to the Highway Trust Fund because of mandates to fund transit.

Highway Trust Fund gas taxes diverted to non-highway projects

Throwing more money at the Federal level to perpetuate the problems and fiscal mess they have created is not the answer. In support of Senator Lee's bill to devolve the tax back to the states, this article from Heritage describes the benefits of getting the Feds out of the middle of our transportation funding:

Benefits of Empowering States

The policies in the Transportation Empowerment Act would directly benefit the motorists, truckers, and bus operators across the country that fund the highway program. Specifically, these bills would: 

• Empower states to make transportation decisions. Ending the current Washington-centric approach would discourage pork-barrel spending from Congress and incentivize states to plan and fund their transportation priorities.
• End cross-subsidies between states and modes of transportation. Motorists in South Dakota or Texas, for example, would no longer subsidize the commute of federal employees in Washington, D.C., or Manhattan residents. Instead, they would be free to spend on programs that improve mobility at home.
• Reduce congestion, enhance mobility, and improve safety. Reform-minded state transportation officials would be free to deploy resources to modes that reduce congestion and enhance cost-effective mobility, engaging with the private sector for capital-intensive projects.
• Force efficiencies in transit. Absent federal subsidies, states that still value and can support transit systems could continue this spending, but those that do not would be forced to re-evaluate their programs, consider alternate modes, or contract their transit operations out to the private sector.

Do you want your federal gas taxes raised 15 cents a gallon, to go who knows where and a good chance not to Florida, in this economic environment? Do you want your federal gas taxes indexed to inflation, basically on auto-pilot where no one can be held accountable if and when inflation comes roaring back? When was the last time the Feds spent our gas tax dollars efficiently, cost-effectively and fairly?

The interstate system is built out. It's beyond time for states to keep their own gas taxes and be empowered to determine their own transportation needs. It's time to get the Feds out!

Reject Rep. Blumenauer's proposal to send more money to DC. Support Senator Lee's Transportation Empowerment Act bill (S. 1702) and Rep. Tom Graves accompanying House bill (H.R. 3486) and empower the states.

Support for Rail Drops 8% After Costly Taxpayer Funded Advocacy Campaign

The Tampa Bay Times reported yesterday on a recent poll they sponsored with Bay News 9 and AM 820 News Tampa Bay of 625 registered voters regarding the Pinellas County 14% sales tax increase for light rail:

in Pinellas, where 55 percent of voters surveyed said they would back the referendum, 36 percent said they would oppose it, and 9 percent were unsure. 

In Hillsborough, where voters defeated a similar referendum in 2010, 51 percent of respondents said they would support raising the sales tax to pay for buses and rail, and 44 percent opposed the idea. Five percent were unsure. 

The survey's margin of error was 5.7 percentage points in Pinellas and 5.4 points in Hillsborough

The Times refers back to a previous poll they did in December 2012, prior to the taxpayer funded Greenlight Pinellas marketing campaign when they asked: 

"Would you be supportive of spending public or tax money to bring light rail mass transit to parts of the Tampa Bay area?"

At least in 2012 the Times honestly used the term "light rail" which is what the Greenlight Pinellas plan proposes. The poll results in 2012:

In Hillsborough, 56 percent of those surveyed said "yes." In Pinellas, 60 percent responded affirmatively.

After PSTA's Greenlight Pinellas marketing campaign spent $750,000 of taxpayer dollars this year campaigning for $100 million a year in higher taxes for a light rail boondoggle, what's the result? Fewer voters support raising their taxes 14% for a train few will ride. The relative percentage change between the two polls reflect that support for higher taxes to fund light rail DROPPED 8.3% in Pinellas and 8.9% in Hillsborough in one year. 

Vote NO on Greenlight Pinellas light rail boondoggle

Reporting further on the recent poll, the Times apparently considers the 8% drop in support as "slight" and admits:

The slight drop in support comes as Pinellas winds down a taxpayer-financed campaign (emphasis mine) called Greenlight Pinellas to educate the public about its transit proposal.

Finally someone publicly admits that Greenlight Pinellas is a taxpayer financed campaign. Greenlight Pinellas is ethically challenged and violates, at a minimum, the intent of our electioneering laws which prohibits taxpayer funded entities from using tax dollars to advocate against taxpayers, e.g. campaigning for higher taxes.  

What is obviously missing from this Times article is the internals of the poll related to who actually was polled. The only information provided is they polled registered voters vs likely voters and a couple of age groups, 18-54 or 55 and older. What was the breakdown of these 625 registered voters - how many were from Pinellas and how many were from Hillsborough? What is the political party affiliation, how many were Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc.? What was the age and gender demographics?  Where did they reside, was this a cross-section of voters across the entire counties? What were the actual poll questions? Inquiring voters and taxpayers want to know.

Only in the journalistic alternative universe at the Times is a poll reflecting an 8% DROP in support for light rail, after a $750,000 taxpayer funded marketing campaign, considered "strong support". This circular logic appeared in the coordinated Times editorial appearing on the same day as the poll results:

Supporters of Pinellas County's November transit referendum should be encouraged by a new poll that shows strong support for funding expanded bus service and a new rail system as part of a modern transportation system.

The results show a promising base of support for Greenlight Pinellas supporters to build on in the coming year, and they reflect the impact of a public information campaign that got an early start in presenting the transit package in clear and practical terms.

This poll at least shows that supporters will be speaking to a receptive audience (emphasis mine).

A better use of PSTA's taxpayer $750,000 could have been spent on improving their bus service almost immediately; rather than a failed advertising campaign for a rail that won't materialize for at least 10 years, if ever at all.

 

Happy New Year!

Keep repeating it until you believe it

How ironic. 

Pinellas county commissioners voted Tuesday to put the light rail referendum on the 2014 ballot and the Tampa Bay Times reported that commissioner and PSTA Vice Chair Ken Welch got irked with opponents of the 14% sales tax increase who showed up to make a public comment. 

Commissioner Ken Welch said he was irked by some of the misrepresentations and accusations of corruption leveled by some of the opponents.

The issue, Welch said, is one of the most important voters will ever make and the debate should be based on facts and not misinformation.

We agree that any debate should be based on facts and not misinformation. So why isn't Commissioner Welch taking to task those who continue to falsely repeat the Pinellas rail plan includes a train going over the Howard Frankland bridge? Does he not consider that misinformation?

WFLA reported Wednesday on the Pinellas county commissioners vote:

On Tuesday night the Pinellas County Commission voted to put the Greenlight Plan on a referendum on next November's ballot

The Greenlight Plan is a complicated (emphasis ours) network of buses, trolleys and light rail connecting the entire county. The cost for building the rail, adding vehicles, and operating the network is $20 billion through 2050.

The money would greatly expand the current bus system, with new equipment, routes, and hours of operation. Later, a light rail system will be put in place to take riders from downtown Clearwater to downtown St. Petersburg. There will also be a light rail connection to downtown Tampa (emphasis ours).

The Tampa Tribune also reported on the Pinellas commission vote and stated not only does the Pinellas rail plan go across the bridge, it goes to the airport.

The plan also includes a link to both Tampa and Tampa International Airport, likely through light rail across Howard Frankland Bridge.

Here's another false report from WMNF:

There are also plans to connect to Tampa when the Howard Frankland Bridge is replaced around 2025.

Whatever powerbroker collaborated handing out the talking points to the local media, they got it dead wrong on the bridge. Taxpayers should beware because even the ballot language the commissioners approved to put on the ballot is misleading and includes NO accountability requirements or financial impact information. 

Title: Levy of Countywide One Percent Sales Surtax to FundGreenlight Pinellas Plan for Public Transit. 

Summary: Shall the improvement, construction, operation, maintenance and financing of public transit benefitting Pinellas County, including an expanded bus system with bus rapid transit, increased frequency and extended hours, local passenger rail and regional connections be funded by levying a one percent sales surtax from January 1, 2016, until repealed, with proceeds initially deposited in a dedicated trust fund?

The only regional connection falsely represented on PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas map is going over the Howard Frankland bridge. 

Commissioner Welch - Talk about misinformation - these statements are absolutely false. 

The PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas technical plan includes

Future passenger rail from St. Petersburg to Clearwater via the Gateway/Carillon area

24 miles of rail from downtown St. Petersburg through the Gateway/Carillon area to downtown Clearwater
16 stations
57 minutes travel time

The PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas financial plan includes capital costs

light rail transit costs of $1.68 Billion

PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas's own documentation cannot even consistently state what their own plan is. Passenger rail or rail or whatever rail they state, rail in this plan is light rail and we all know it. PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas's documentation as well as the referendum ballot language should clearly state that "fact". 

And nowhere in this plan are any costs associated with going over the Howard Frankland bridge.  Again PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas's own documentation is misleading but we updated their map to clearly reflect there is no train over the bridge in their plan.

No plan and no funding for rail across the bridge

The FDOT is looking at options for the Howard Frankland Bridge. They held public hearings on the bridge in early October. FDOT was looking at several options including additional capacity with high cost, under utilized rail or more cost-effective, highly utilized managed/bus toll lanes or simply replacing the existing infrastructure (no new capacity). The Tribune article at that time reported

State and federal money would be used for the new span if the bridge is replaced with one the same as today’s, but if other features are incorporated, FDOT could ask local entities to come to the table (emphasis ours), District 7 spokeswoman Kris Carson said over the summer.

Subsequent to the public hearings in early October, the Tampa Bay Business Journal reported on October 30

Florida Department of Transportation Secretary Secretary Ananth Prasad said the state is committed to building an estimated $25 million substructure to accommodate light rail on the replacement span of the Howard Frankland bridge.

Our previous post stated that at a previous transportation event a question was raised regarding the bridge because HART's current ten year plan in Hillsborough county is expanding and improving their bus service and has no rail component. The answer was:

FDOT project work plan just came out that includes strengthening the substructure to accommodate light rail or less in the future. First phase will focus on replacement and later phases on managed toll lanes and/or transition to transit/rail corridor.

But the fact is there is no current plan nor funding source for a train across the bridge. As the Eye previously reported, the numbers for the PSTA/Greenlight Pinelas plan do no begin to add up or make fiscal sense.  But rail across the bridge is fairy dust and unicorns.

Light Rai over the Howard Frankland is fairy dust and unicorns

As far as any accusations of corruption that also irked Welch, we have state electioneering laws to prevent taxpayer funded entities or agencies from using tax dollars to influence voters to approve or reject a referendum.  WFLA  reported this on December 5th when the Pinellas county commissioners approved the PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas plan 

"We just passed a resolution in support of the Greenlight Pinellas Plan," proclaimed St. Petersburg City Councilman, Jeff Danner

City leaders approved the plan which, with a one cent sales tax, will fund a future public transit rail line, among other things.

"We'll have 11 months for a campaign (emphasis ours) to go out and reach the voters and talk about this project," Danner added.

Jeff Danner is not only a city councilman, he the Chair of the PSTA Board of Directors and the Board represents PSTA. Webster's Dictionary defines the word campaign 

a series of activities designed to produce a particular result

Let's connect the dots.

Greenlight Pinellas is funded by taxpayer funded PSTA and is really PSTA's symbiotic taxpayer funded sister. In this WFLA video, taxpayer funded PSTA CEO Brad Miller is wearing a PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas campaign button.

PSTA CEO Brad Miller wears PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas campaign button

Greenlight Pinellas, associated with PR firm Tucker Hall, is PSTA's marketing campaign using your tax dollars and their time to advocate and campaign to get voters to vote for the referendum.  As the WMNF article stated

The ballot initiative will likely be promoted by a local PR firm, Tucker Hall.

What a convoluted mess to deceive taxpayers. PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas are one and the same. Wearing campaign buttons and handing them out with other campaign goodies at taxpayer expense is not education, it's advocacy. It is unethical and corrupt and taxpayers in Pinellas should demand that Greenlight Pinellas cease, desist and immediately be defunded. 

The PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas financial plan includes light rail capital funds totaling almost $2.6 Billion. The light rail capital costs as we stated above are $1.68 billion. We've asked the question before - where is that extra billion dollars of capital funds going?  To special interests? Does this plan take out lanes of traffic and require huge sums of tax dollars to pay for right of way? Does anyone know? With no accountability specified, who knows where all this money is going. 

As WFLA reported in the video, this rail boondoggle is complicated and "the biggest part of the puzzle is light rail".  Here at the Eye we agree  - the PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas plan is a complicated tangle of ambiguity, false statements and unanswered questions.

Oh the irony of Commissioner Welch -  being irked at opponents of this mess?

But someone must believe if false statements keep being repeated, then you will believe it.

Sounds hauntingly familiar….

Taxpayer funded agencies elephant in the room is light rail

The Eye attended an ASCE-American Society of Civil Engineers luncheon recently where the subject was regional transportation and the audience was probably largely those in the engineering industry. There were numerous local speakers who presented on the transportation issue:  TBARTA, PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas, MPO Pinellas, MPO Hillsborough.  We noted there was one transit agency glaringly missing and that was HART, Hillsborough County's transit agency. This is the second time we've noted that a regional transportation event has been held in Hillsborough County and no one from HART was invited to speak. Here's our report.

Bob Clifford, Executive Director of TBARTA, kicked it off.  Clifford stated, "transportation equates to economic vibrancy". Normally, we hear that transportation aka transit creates or enables economic development. It appears that economic vibrancy is buzzwords for power brokers to define livable, walkable, sustainable, smart growth communities in a positive sounding manner. In this press release, that includes TBARTA's support for the Greenlight Pinellas rail referendum plan, Pinellas County Commissioner Ken Welch states

“Greenlight Pinellas will help create and sustain a vibrant, progressive and prosperous economy,” said County Commission Chair Ken Welch. 

We do agree with Clifford when he stated that technology will be a big changer and we must embrace new technologies. Yes! The technologies are coming out of the private sector so let's reduce the burdensome regulatory inhibitors to them.

Ray Chiarmonte, Executive Director of Hillsborough MPO spoke next, and he championed that all the local central planning planner's plans are, for the first time, being updated at the same time, e.g. all the comprehensive land use plans and long range transportation plans. The MPO completed a survey recently that about 3500 participants completed. The MPO is currently analyzing the results but Chairmonte pointed out something like "we need to plan for what younger people want". That struck me as odd because if he was referring to the 18-34 age group, those folks are normally not at their peak wage earning or taxpaying years nor perhaps as concerned with family priorities. Chiarmonte stated all modes of transportation are included in their plans so we assume that includes light rail again.  Many in that "younger" age group today will be 15-20 years older if any light rail system could ever get built. We'll wait to see the final survey results and leave that for a post for another day.

Sara Ward of the Pinellas MPO then presented. She stated that Pinellas is different from other counties because it is basically all built out - that is true. She mentioned Greenlight Pinellas and said there is a lack of understanding of rail technology. She did not elaborate on what that lack of understanding was but Ward went on to say they had one on one meetings with employers and PSTA.  Wonder what was discussed in those meetings? Advocating for the rail referendum, urging employers to push their employees to take rail, offering some benefit or just what?

Cassandra Borchers, Chief Development Officer for PSTA and Jeff Danner, Chair of PSTA rounded out the presentations. Cassandra spoke first about why they want the rail referendum. She stated "it's been talked about for forty years". We're sure a gazillion taxpayer funded plans have been written, but according to Cassandra those "plans were never implemented". She then stated, "$1 invested in public transportation generates $4 in economic returns". She quoted no source to back up such a blanket statement. We found that statement came from a so-called fact sheet from the APTA aka American Public Transportation Association. The APTA is a lobbying organization paid to lobby for the transit industry as their website states:

Vision Statement

APTA is the leading force in advancing public transportation.

Mission Statement

To strengthen and improve public transportation, APTA serves and leads its diverse membership through advocacy, innovation and information sharing. APTA and its members and staff work to ensure that public transportation is available and accessible for all Americans in communities across the country.

Is that the fox watching the hen house? The 2009 study that Cassandra's statement comes from was done for APTA, funded by the Transit Cooperative Research Program that is directed by the Transit Development Corp, which is the education and research arm of APTA. So APTA did a study for APTA directed by APTA? How about that for circling the wagons for your own self-interest?  

Of course APTA wants the government to spend more money on transit because it benefits them.  Here's some links from those NOT in the transit industry that provide some different views on government spending being the answer to our economic woes. 

Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth: Answering the Critics

Additional Infrastructure Spending Would Employ Few New Workers

Obama vs. the Evidence: Infrastructure Spending Is No Job Creator

Cassandra should at least provide a source for a statement such as that.  But her main point was that we are at a crossroads and either we continue BAU or we change our pattern….But her answer for changing our pattern is to spend billions of tax dollars for a train in today's still uncertain economy.

Last Jeff Danner, PSTA's Chair spoke on behalf of Greenlight Pinellas - yes on behalf of Greenlilght Pinellas. He stated PSTA adopted the Greenlight Pinellas plan as if these  two entities were unconnected. PSTA created and funded Greenlight Pinellas with almost a half billion dollars; these two entities are one and the same. For what appears to be legal reasons to skirt our electioneering laws, PSTA created Greenlight Pinellas to be able to funnel taxpayer funds to an advocacy group for the rail referendum. 

Danner said that the Pinellas County commissioners will be voting on Dec. 10th to put the rail referendum on the 2014 ballot. Danner warned that if that rail referendum doesn't pass, which swaps $30 million of property taxes for $130 million of increased sales taxes, then services will be cut 18-28% through the next decade. With technology and innovation coming in the private sector for transportation, long before a rail can ever be built, we anticipate a lot more transportation choices will become available. These new private sector services could blow a hole through taxpayer funded public transit.

So why is there a light rail (emphasis ours) component in the Pinellas referendum?  Because, according to Danner, the conclusion was that "light rail was better". Better than what? He did not say except that bus rapid transit was the second choice. But the real reason for rail is land use and their belief that rail stations create economic development. However, the reality is that economic development along light rail corridor only occurs when all kinds of tax incentives are given to land developers to build transit-oriented development (TOD) high density projects like what happened in Portland. 

"The Portland City Council on Thursday approved a tax incentive plan that will give tax breaks to transit-oriented housing projects near MAX light-rail stations and two other Portland eastside locations." 

Projects with 15 or more units would be required to contain at least some housing for people with low incomes."

There is no scientific evidence that subsidized economic development along a rail corridor would not have occurred elsewhere unsubsidized. A some what  bizarre remark Danner made was that these activity centers aka TOD would spring up along the rail corridors where today there are "vacant KMarts".  Like magic huh? If all this light rail TOD is so great, why doesn't the proposed ballot language that voters will be voting on specifically state they are voting for light rail?

There were some questions and answers after the presentations:
Question from Karen Jaroch, who is on the HART board, stated that HART's 10 year plan is expanding bus service and PSTA's plan does not include going across the Howard Frankland so what is going to happen with the Howard Frankland bridge?
Answer:  FDOT project work plan just came out that includes strengthening the substructure to accommodate light rail or less in the future.  First phase will focus on replacement and later phases on managed toll lanes and/or transition to transit/rail corridor. We will add that there is a huge cost difference between building and maintaining highly utilized bus/managed toll lanes and an underutilized light rail corridor over the bridge.

Barbara Haselden, who is leading the grassroots NoTaxForTracks -Pinellas effort opposed to the Pinellas referendum, took exception to all the "busy" buses reflected in PSTA's presentation. She said PSTA's own bus study last summer indicated that seven bus routes make up 60% of PSTA's bus ridership while the rest ran virtually empty. She questioned why PSTA doesn't optimize their existing bus service to run more cost-effectively, efficiently and provide service where their demand is. The response given by PSTA was that those virtually empty buses were "feeders" to those seven routes. We were left wondering what PSTA's answer will be when the multi-billion dollar train runs empty most of the time.

These comments were interesting from PSTA: "HART and PSTA are working more together than ever" but then added "merging systems do not save any money".  Remember the merger study that HART and PSTA was forced to do in 2011?  The result was they both rejected merging.  Then state senator Jack Latvala, who apparently did not like the "no merger" answer, forced another study for $200K to be done this year. Looks like that study may bite the dust too. We certainly hope so! 

Last question was about autonomous vehicles. Again, It was acknowledged that changes in technology are happening and the question is how do you deal with it? Quick Answer: don't roll your dice on 19th century rail technology. 

The presenters concluded with the rhetoric: that  finally there is the "political will" to put this referendum on the ballot in Pinellas and the infamous "let the people decide". We heard the same thing in Hillsborough.  What's different in Pinellas is that PSTA is egregiously using taxpayer funds via Greenlight Pinellas to market and promote their own rail boondoggle. The PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas presentation marketing the rail referendum actually states, "Get social, tell friends, neighbors and colleagues and wear a Greenlight pin" (see below). Isn't that blatantly advocating for the rail referendum in violation of our electioneering laws? Taxpayers should demand Greenlight Pinellas cease and desist this activity.

Demand PSTA/Greenlight Pinellas cease and desist - they are advocating for
the rail referendum with your tax dollars

We were reminded that the Pinellas plan is a comprehensive one - it includes everything from rail to expanded bus service to regional routes to trolley services…..trying to sell there's something for everyone…..But that could be this referendum's  downfall.  Too often these comprehensive plans with little or no accountability fail to deliver what was promised the taxpayers.  The end result is either the plan or services are cut or "they" come back for more of your hard earned tax dollars. Will taxpayers in Pinellas trust all these promises after seeing so many others broken?

This audience did not seem all that enthused as there was no clapping at times normally deemed appropriate. It was difficult to tell if there was support for what was presented or not, except from one woman who owned a business and perhaps wanted a piece of the business pie out of the deal. We hope this group and others, where all these taxpayer funded agencies are getting a free platform to speak, get the opportunity to also hear the opposing view.

With the high cost rail leading the Pinellas referendum, perhaps now we can speculate why HART is conveniently missing at these regional transportation events. HART's future plan is based on fiscal realities and a common sense approach to building out their bus service. PSTA's aka Greenlight Pinellas, TBARTA and MPO's plans for light rail are stuck in a fiscal fantasyland.