Prop 6, the gas tax


#1

The latest poll shows the gas tax winning. The good news is finally people are thinking for themselves instead of believing all the crap they see on commercials.


Ballot measures other than Prop 10
#2

Funny how those same people seem to have no appetite for supporting politicians who would never have instituted that tax in the first place.
Here in my newly adopted state of AZ (gas currently at about $2.90 a gallon) we are fighting a similar battle as Tom Steyer tries to spread his stench across state borders via our Proposition 127. Fortunately the latest polls show it trailing by more than 12 points.


#3

Congratulations on the strong poll on Prop 6


#4


#5

#6

Again, any time the government asks for more money just vote against it. Yes on Prop 6:


#7

I will vote no. I need my train.


#8

Same here - i’d vote no. I see alot more paved roads and bike lanes in san jose - paid for by this tax. I hope the gas tax was higher so that people would drive less, use public transport or car pool.


#9

We need to invest in our crumbling infrastructure. People always say things should be built cheaper and that there are a lot of waste in public projects. Sure. I wish they were cheaper too. But who else are going to build besides the government? Would you rather drive on dirt roads?

I am not interested in a “what if” fantasy land where public infrastructure projects cost one tenth of what they do today. Keep harping on that but not provide any workable alternative is irresponsible.


#10

Bay bridge was $6.4B vs $1B planned budget. That’s not a small error. That’s more than 6x the original cost. That’s why there’s not more infrastructure projects. You’d struggle to find a project that’s not at least 2x the original budget. We should have at least twice the number of projects we do. Until people are held accountable the misuse of funds will continue.


#11

I’d love to find a workable way to lower our infrastructure costs. It seems pretty intractable. I remember reading somewhere costs in America is twice as high as in France. I don’t think California is unique in the outrageous costs either. Other states are just as bad.

Even at 6B would I rather have Bay Bridge than not? Yes, I’d still want it. Do I wish it were cheaper? Most definitely.


#12

:+1:


#13

You run out of money fast at those prices. It shouldn’t be that difficult to hit the price estimate unless they know it’s a total lie when they get voter approval. I also wonder where they get extra money. The project had a budget and spent it. The money must come from taking away from other projects or delaying them.


#14

In the Annual Highway Performance and Cost-Effectiveness Overall Rankings - California rank 42 out of 50.

With such poor cost effectiveness, throwing more money will NEVER improve things. First priority of California is to improve cost effectiveness. What is the motivation to improve cost effectiveness if more and more money can be thrown at the problem?


#15

how many years they took for the construction at 101 university, expanding a lane or two? like a year job turns into 5 years
how often we saw 1 dude working and 4 dude watching in the gov construction site. maybe put those 4 dude to work at the same time can increase the speed and cost-effectiveness


#16

540% increase in costs and they still get to keep their jobs and pensions!


#17

#18

Accountability? Is it a dirty word?

What would happen if you are 500% over budget for your new home construction? Or 500% over budget for your flipping project? And then the new house is unsafe to live in?

“general contractor Webcor/Obayashi had to issue more than 12,000 requests for information and 1,603 change order requests to fix errors or omissions in the project design, the lawsuit says. It rebukes the authority for responses it says “were often late” and included code updates, clarifications or significant revisions that seemed to illustrate deficiencies in the construction drawings.”


#19

#20