Daily Loaf

You would think that when an elected body is proposing the idea to citizens to approve taxing themselves for something they might never even use that they would want to put their best foot forward. We are in Hillsborough though so keep your expectations low. Very low.

The upcoming ballot referendum question is very important to those true rail supporters in the county and how it is worded along with what other goodies are sprinkled on it to entice voters to approve it is very important its passage. I suffered through enough TBARTA meetings while fighting the bypass/beltway/green swath of death (or as TBARTA named it a “freight rail corridor”) to have learned while listening to many presentations on rail referendums that they almost never pass the first time they are on the ballot. Don’t worry, Hillsborough is out to make sure we are no exception.

Photo credit: jeffmcneill @Flickr.com

Presenters from other cities that already have rail explained that to get this passed by the masses you had to give those that won’t actually get rail something in their area to get their penny. These are things like road widenings. Should we be stupid enough to vote to pay extra to widen roads that the local elected officials should have made sure were functioning at an appropriate level before ever approving all the new rooftops contributing to the congestion? Well, we were dumb enough to vote them in so it is worth a shot for them to ask us. If we are sick and tired enough of sitting in traffic we just might do it. The truth is politicians have not made growth pay for itself, they get taxpayers to subsidize it by waiving or lowering impact fees or giving developers credit for impact fees when they actually do widen a road (so we still get screwed with the bill) and now they want to ask us officially to pay for their past mistakes by using a portion of the tax that should be going toward rail for other non-rail projects. The other ugly truth that nobody seems to want to admit is that a one cent sales tax will never be enough to support rail and yet they already want to take 25% of that for these other gravy train projects.

Still the hope of smarter growth and less sprawl would get somebody like me on board. But if the county refuses to give us a growth plan that can’t be amended at the drop of a hat and it hands out controversial projects that are not even approved yet as part of the package………….. they just found themselves one NIMBY who won’t get on board this expensive choo choo.

Should they be putting roads on the gravy train list that were already supposed to be funded from developers (in trade for rooftop approvals)? I don’t think so but it looks like there are some on there including Bell Shoals which is supposed to be widened by the developer in exchange for Lake Hutto and 301 again which is supposed to be developer funded yet here they are on the gravy train list! WTF?

Should they be putting controversial projects on that gravy train list? Somebody down at the county thinks so because that final list of projects now contains widening a very controversial section of Lithia Pinecrest (Section B).

Section B is in the urban area but it is right through an older established neighborhood.  It is apparent to me that it has become a battle of the local residents who oppose the widening vs. the Brandon Chamber who is pushing for the widening. And it seems as if several of our Commissioners are quite cozy with the Chamber’s wishes. This article describes Commissioner Al the New Blair Higginbotham urging Chamber members to get out in front on this project.

There are currently over 250 signatures on a petition to oppose the widening of section B. Should commuters needs be above the actual residents living in the neighborhhod who don’t want to lose their land or homes to eminent domain should the widening be approved? I don’t think so.

So when I found out that this controversial section which has recently been in a study done by HDR (same folks that brought you the design for the cracking reservoir by the way) was on the list for the non rail projects to be added to the rail referendum I was surprised. The final recommendations of the actual PD and E study on the road itself have yet to be presented or voted on by the County Commission during a public hearing yet county staff find it appropriate to put it on the ballot referendum? Yep.

I brought this up at September’s Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPO) meeting because they do have a say in this and many of our commissioners  sit on that board as well. I spoke on the record against adding such a controversial project to such an important question and I was informed that this section had been dropped from 4 lanes to 2 lanes (which it already is). Councilman Scott made sure to inform me that the final decision was with the BOCC though. Here is Mitch Perry’s report on that very meeting.

And here are my exact comments that day:

I’M HERE TODAY REGARDING SOME CONCERNS OVER LITHIA-
PINECREST.
I KNOW YOU’VE SEEN ME BEFORE WHEN I WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE
RURAL AREA, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE OUT OF HARM’S WAY FOR THE
MOST PART, SO — SO WHY AM I HERE?
WELL, THERE’S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
URBAN AREA, AND THAT STUDY IS NOT FINISHED YET, SO I THINK
YOU GUYS NEED TO KNOW THE CONTROVERSY THAT IS OUT THERE,
ESPECIALLY WITH SECTION “B.”
EVEN THOUGH THIS IS AN URBAN AREA, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD,
AND THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOSE THEIR PROPERTY AND
POSSIBLY THEIR HOMES IF IT’S WIDENED.
SO I WAS CONCERNED WHEN I HEARD THAT THIS COULD COME UP
AS — AS PART OF THE BALLOT QUESTION ON THAT RAIL
REFERENDUM THAT A LOT OF YOU WANT SO BADLY, AND I THINK
IT’S A MISTAKE TO ADD A SECTION THAT IS SO CONTROVERSIAL TO
SOMETHING AS — AS IMPORTANT AS THE RAIL QUESTION.
I MEAN, THAT’S GOING TO BE HARD ENOUGH TO GET APPROVED LET
ALONE TACKING ON CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS, SO I — I ASKED
ABOUT IT, AND INDEED IT CAME UP ON A PRELIMINARY DRAFT.
NOW, I’VE HEARD AS LATE AS THIS MORNING THAT IT HAS
POSSIBLY BEEN DROPPED OFF IN THAT SECTION, BUT I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE YOU GUYS AWARE THAT THERE IS A LOT OF
OPPOSITION IN SECTION “B.”
AND SO TO ASK PEOPLE TO TAX THEMSELVES FOR A ROAD WIDENING
AS PART OF A RAIL REFERENDUM WHEN YOU ONLY CHARGE — IF I
READ THE REPORT CORRECTLY — 12% OF THE LEGAL IMPACT FEES
TO DEVELOPERS IS DISTURBING, AND THEN YOU’RE GOING TO ASK
TAXPAYERS TO PAY FOR MORE WIDENINGS IN GENERAL, LET ALONE A
CONTROVERSIAL PROJECT.
AND REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE UP HERE BATTLING THIS BEFORE?
IT WAS THE ARGUMENT OF THE FEDERAL FUNDS, WE’RE DOING IT
THIS WAY FOR THE FEDERAL FUNDS.
WELL, GREAT.
NOW YOU’RE GOING TO ASK FOR THE FEDERAL FUNDS AND PEOPLE TO
TAX THEMSELVES ON A REFERENDUM?
SO — AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THAT
LAST MEETING, IT REALLY SEEMS LIKE THIS IS SPECIAL
INTERESTS THAT WANT THAT SECTION WIDENED.
THE RESIDENTS THAT ACTUALLY LIVE THERE DON’T, SO I DON’T
KNOW IF THIS IS MORE OF A COMMUTERS VERSUS RESIDENTS ISSUE,
BUT A LOT OF THE EVERYDAY RESIDENTS SEEM TO BE VERY
OPPOSED, SO I HOPE YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, AND
ALSO HOW CAN WE AFFORD THIS?
I MEAN, THERE’S A LOT OF THINGS OUT THERE THAT, YOU KNOW –
THAT ARE NONCONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE PAID
FOR, AND, I MEAN, WE’VE GOT OTHER THINGS TO SPEND OUR MONEY
ON LIKE SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUITS IN THE COUNTY, SO PLEASE
TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION SINCE THIS ISN’T APPROVED AND
DON’T TACK IT ON TO SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS A RAIL
REFERENDUM.
THANK YOU.

and here is the response from MPO Director Ray Chairamonte later in the meeting:
>>RAY CHIARAMONTE: OKAY.
GOING BACK TO THE LITHIA-PINECREST ISSUE, I WANTED TO LET
THE BOARD KNOW THAT YESTERDAY THAT THE TRANSPORTATION TASK
FORCE TURNED IN A REVISED LIST OF PROJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED
FOR THE 25% PORTION OF THE POSSIBLE REFERENDUM, AND THEY
DID TAKE OUT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THAT SECTION OF LITHIA-
PINECREST FROM BLOOMINGDALE TO 60 TO — THEY TOOK IT DOWN
TO TWO LANES IS WHAT THEY SUBMITTED TO THAT, WHICH I AGREE
WITH THAT POSITION AND HAD SPOKEN TO THEM BEFORE.
I THINK THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS PUT VERY
CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS ON THE REFERENDUM, SO I THINK WE’RE
MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO ADDRESS THE CITIZENS’
CONCERNS.

So imagine my surprise when I get the final list of projects on the list and there is section B as 4 lanes just weeks after I was told on the record it would only be on the list as two lanes. According to my research this is not the work of the MPO, this is the work of county staff headed up by Lucia Garsys. Yep, that Lucia Garsys a former planner who was the recipient of the first round of Pat Bean’s ill-fated raises. I emailed Garsys to see what her story is on this and at the time this post was submitted I have not heard back yet. Glad to see she is working hard for those six figures. And from what I can tell the Transportation Task Force (TTF) has the ultimate say on this gravy train list not the MPO and guess who is the Chair of the TTF? Commissioner Ken Half-Truth Hagan (uh-huh).

This is starting to smell just like the games played by the county regarding the Bypass and it stinks. Looks like this section got added back to the list possibly in the same fashion that Pat Bean’s raise got approved, in the dark!

It seemed to me that somebody………or lots of people at the county were pushing the Chamber’s agenda. Then I read this article by Ernest Hooper praising Ken Hagan over rail (course he was also pretty nice to Kevin White and seemed to sympathize with one of the biggest sprawl pushing land use attorneys in the county, Vin Marchetti, over a controversial project ironically off Lithia Pinecrest so go figure) but this statement about Hagan only helps confirm my suspicions

In the end, Hagan realizes unclogging arteries such as Brandon’s Lithia-Pinecrest Road or New Tampa’s Cross Creek Boulevard will be as important to passing the initiative as visions of trains zooming through the city.

Hagan has to know there is controversy brewing about Section B (although he was not present at the MPO meeting the day I spoke on the record about it.)

Also interesting is this meeting hosted by the Brandon Chamber meeting to discuss rail in eastern Hillsborough. I am guessing they will be pushing for the widening of section B but it is just a hunch. Commissioners Mark Sharpe and Mayor Pam Iorio will be in attendance.

I hope those true rail proponents (like Sharpe and Iorio) do something about this gravy train list otherwise somebody like me who would have voted yes on this referendum would not only vote no but actively campaign against it because I don’t think the residents in section B deserve this and I don’t think this tax should end up being just one more form of developer welfare.

Some people call rail a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem and I have to wonder if maybe they are indeed right. Do you think they had shady politicians in the 19th century?

Posted in Activism, Politics, Tampa Bay Politics | Leave a comment