Comments to the BoCC on Transit June 5th

Note: this was my address to the BoCC on June 5th that, unfortunately was edited as I read it.-cw

 

Good Evening,

 

I would like to address what I see as a disparity in the taxation scheme to pay for this transit plan. As anyone can see the Transit plan has great designs for one particular portion of the county.

 

As we look at this plan, we see significant expenditures in the First district. When we look at who pays, we see a great disparity. Yes we all will pay a sales tax…those of us who still shop in Orange, but the vehicle registration fee is disproportional to the expenditures.

 

From the data I received from the NCDOT, as of last February, the combined vehicle registration for Orange County is 100,209. The combined vehicle registration of Chapel Hill and Carrboro is 50,095. Thus District two pays half the fees and receives token increases in “on demand” bus service.

 

I know of and have witnessed the rationalizations of population demands in regards to the proposed expenditures but the question still begs to be asked… is why should the rural area pay the same and receive less?

 

I know… Carrboro Alderwoman Lydia Lavelle said ” county residentsshould NOTreceive transit services in proportion to their investment in the overall plan”….but Mrs. Lavelle nor anyone else has explained why district One is to receive 88% if the total when their investment  is only half.

 

I wonder if  Mrs. Lavelle  and those who do not mind this lopsided expenditure of this proposed legacy tax realize that Chapel Hill and Carrboro are only 7 miles wide at their widest point? And that the average one way trip for District Two residents is 12 miles?

 

At the last Public hearing we listened to transient student voters who were encountering great difficulty getting across this gulf of free busses and sidewalks. Why should District Two be asked pay half of the fees to get these seasonal voters to a study group? Why should District Two pay for looks to be a Duke/ UNC employee shuttle?

 

 

 

 

This legacy Tax plan will predominantly serve the first district

It is that portion of the county that voted every one of you on to the board, it is that portion of the county that every single one of you must cater to if you wish to be re-elected under the voting structure intentionally presented to the citizens in 2006. This voting structure provides the illusion that the second district has some control over their representatives and the At Large representatives but this is not the case.

 

The control district One has over this entire board is symbolic in the fee structure of this plan in which District Two is slated to be harnessed to serve the transit desires of a district only 7 miles wide.

 

We need transit solutions in Orange County, Self-Sustaining solutions. While buses do not fit the definition of Self Sustainability very well, but in comparison to prolong, protracted expenses Light Rail, buses appear profitable. No matter what light rail system in the country this plan is compared to, none of them compare to our population, projected growth and not a single one of them has come online on budget. When has any government expenditure not gone over budget?

 

I would ask the board to reconsider the great amount of funding to be produced by district Two and the disproportional dispersal of these funds.

While not connected to this Transit plan…I applaud the effort to finally address the 45 minute average ambulance response time for district Two, however this expenditure is late, still inadequate and derived from other sources and in light of the revenue to be produced by the Second District, provides another glaring example how District Two is harnessed to suit our southern neighbors latest fancy in Light Rail.