What is needed is some intelligent management and reduction of the crazy salary to Jim Hartnett. Buses go to places not needed at times not needed and most of them are empty. what is needed is some traffic engineers and fewer politicians

My primary barriers or concerns regarding getting around in San Mateo County

Potholes, unwarranted traffic control devices, artificially low speed limits on east/west arteries, speed bumps/humps and other traffic quieting devices.

Jack Hickey -- "My primary barriers or concerns regarding getting around in San Mateo County...unwarranted traffic control devices, artificially low speed limits on east/west arteries, speed bumps/humps and other traffic quieting devices."

The roads are regulated for a reason, Hickey. Don't like it? Move to Russia, where there are no real road regulations -- and where your chances of getting killed are sky-high.

Public transit is being subsidized by taxes and fees collected for maintenance of our streets and highways. Public transit should get it's funding from ridership and other beneficiaries of their services, such as businesses with whom these riders interact.

This is a larger regional and state issue and one that a San Mateo County "sales tax" should not be expected to solve. A holistic view of the how tax funds are currently earmarked for transportation are managed(and wasted)and actually spent or not spent is warranted. The survey of priorities should be on a parallel course to a discussion of systemic failed cost management. And yes, as an anecdote, agree with Janet's remarks about SamTrans busses---see many with "out of service signs" driving empty up and down El Camino Real and/or lined up and parked by University Avenue off- ramp for lengthy periods of time. Makes it hard to justify the expense incurred for those new articulating busses.

Agree with Jack Hickey!

"It allows the county to exceed the standard 2 percent tax limit"

This statement hides an important fact:

They want to raise sales tax rates so that it eventually goes well over 10%.

Utter madness.

Sam Trans press release Web Link

EXCERPT
"AB 1613, authored by Assembly member Kevin Mullin, gives the District the authority to place a sales tax of no more than one-half percent before voters to fund specific projects laid out in an expenditure plan. The ballot measure would require concurrence from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and approval from two-thirds of county voters."

If that 2/3 voter approval is correct, it would be a waste of time and resources to pursue this.

In 1991, the county put a 1/2 % sales tax called The Best Schools Proposal, Measure A, which needed a simple majority. I led the campaign which resulted in a resounding defeat of the measure with NO votes over 60%.

I will oppose this sales tax if it is placed on the ballot.

(June 8, 2017) "California counties lead the list of most expensive rental housing jurisdictions in the nation, according to a new national report released today by the National Low Income Housing Coalition."

See: Web Link

To hell with this. The Supervisors convinced the sheeple to approve a sales tax increase because it "was desperately needed", except it turned out it really wasn't. NOW they want us to approve more sales tax over and above the previously approved unneeded tax. HELL NO!! Where did the previous increase go?

More taxes??? With the current Federal Income Tax elimination of SAIT deduction, I would never vote for any tax increases. WHY?

More taxes for Transportation? No. This is just the latest hot topic that they think they can cash in on to get people to vote for more tax. We are already paying a huge tax on each gallon of gas, property taxes and a pretty significant sales tax, if that can't make do with that huge amount of money we need a new board of supervisors and transit district board.

The survey is really a gimmick to organize supporters. To take the survey you must register. You must provide your e-mail address to register.

"The input you provide through this online tool will be used to help develop a roadmap to faster and better transportation throughout our county. Your participation will help to define key investment priorities for the future. And don’t worry — your contact and personal information will be kept safe and confidential, and used only for the purposes of this effort. Let’s get moving!"

I responded to THEIR e-mail address:

From: Jack Hickey
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:02 PM
To: survey@GetUsMovingSMC.com
Cc: Don Horsley ; Ray Mueller ; Warren Slocum
Subject: My primary barriers or concerns regarding getting around in San Mateo County

Potholes, unwarranted traffic control devices, artificially low speed limits on east/west arteries, speed bumps/humps and other traffic quieting devices.

Jack Hickey

SamTrans is spending tax dollars to promote their additional 1/2% sales tax.

Web Link

Note the photo of a smiling lady in a wheelchair being helped off a RediWheels bus for the "New Transportion Investment Will:" video on their website.

This seems like a Sacramento folly just like the gas tax that the state imposed last November to pay for transportation problems.

What happened to the last state tax increase to pay for transportation problems?

Government should plan ahead and budget accordingly rather than always sticking out the hand for a tax increase.

NO tax!!

Jack Hickey said

"SamTrans is spending tax dollars to promote their additional 1/2% sales tax." That is true $300,000 taxpayer money to "educate" the taxpayer.

San Mateo County Supervisors also gave away $350,000 of taxpayer to join this scam.

The Supervisors should give $650,000 to the opposition of this effort to level the playing field.

Michael, where did you get those dollar figures? I have a PRA request in to Samtrans.

Isn't SamTrans supported by a permanent 1/2 cent sales tax? And we have 1/2 cent Extended Measure A for transportation and Measure K for housing and transportation? Seems like we paying for poorly managed transportation and public services.

"Isn't SamTrans supported by a permanent 1/2 cent sales tax? And we have 1/2 cent Extended Measure A for transportation and Measure K for housing and transportation?"

And keep in mind that there's ANOTHER sales tax in the pipeline for Caltrain funding. Note that while that sales tax is sold as "additional" funding, the truth is that the governments are trying to free up funding for OTHER transportation agencies; Caltrain DOES have funding, but it relies on other agencies donating money to it.

The Caltrain funding is easy to solve without additional taxes: just codify the funding they already receive.

But of course, the governments don't want that, since that would require fiscal management; it's easier to just tax and tax and tax us.

We need another tax revolution.

Another local newspaper is reporting Palo Alto Councilman Cory Wolbach has taken a "day job" helping San Mateo County and SamTrans soft-sell their plans for another 1/2 cent addition to the sales tax.

Your tax dollars at work!

Forget it,

while I am not usually politically active, you people are taxing us to death, (literrally)

I can afford it and will fight it to the the last day of the election.

But for people who can't afford more taxes, don't you [portion removed] understand you are hurting the poorest people the most.

Sales tax is a regressive Tax,

You're the same [portion removed],who tax soda, hamburgers, candy, You should set up a dept. called the good health police.

[Editor's note: Name-calling violates our terms of use. Keep it civil.]

Broadcasting this topic by e-mail to your friends and relatives in San Mateo County will go a long way toward defeating this tax. Include public officials in your e=mail. That might keep it off the ballot.

$745,000 has been budgeted for this PR.
See: Web Link

FINANCE ITEM # 6
SEPTEMBER 6, 2017

SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

TO: Finance Committee
THROUGH: Jim Hartnett
General Manager/CEO
FROM: Seamus Murphy
Chief Communications Officer
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE A GRANT FROM COUNTY OF SAN MATEO FOR
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES TO INFORM 2018
TRANSPORTATION REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES
ACTION
Staff proposes the Finance Committee recommend Board approval of the following:
1. Authorize the General Manager/CEO, or his designee, to enter into an agreement with
the County of San Mateo (County) to receive up to $265,000 of County Measure K
funds for the San Mateo County Transit District (District) to conduct public outreach and receive public input regarding transportation issues to inform 2018 transportation revenue opportunities.
2. Take such further actions as may be necessary to give effect to the resolution.

SIGNIFICANCE
The public outreach and engagement program will increase community awareness of
current transportation conditions, programs and services; and will provide the public and key stakeholders with an opportunity to help inform the creation of an expenditure plan that the Board will consider placing before voters in 2018 as part of a countywide transportation funding measure.

BUDGET IMPACT
There is no budget impact associated with this action. As a separate item on this agenda, the Board will consider a proposed amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Operating Budget, which includes the addition of $265,000 in revenues from the County and $380,000 in new expenditures for this project. A contribution of $100,000 in current District sales tax revenues from the previously-adopted FY2018 Operating Budget will complete the funding plan for this project.

BACKGROUND
As the regional and local economies continue to thrive, traffic congestion throughout the County has intensified. In addition, the District has a documented long-term structural deficit and shrinking operating reserves that hamper its ability to meet the County's mobility needs.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1613 would exempt a new 0.5 percent retail transactions and use tax from the existing 2 percent local limit as long as the tax is used for countywide transportation purposes and is authorized by the Board, with concurrence from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and approved by County voters in accordance with State law.
This outreach effort will educate the community about the County's transportation problems, needs, and potential solutions, and will seek input on the prioritization of those solutions. If AB 1613 becomes law, the outreach effort will inform the expenditure plan for the 0.5 percent transactions and use tax that the Board will be authorized to place on the ballot for voter approval. This project also will inform the District's decision on whether to seek such a tax.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
• Priority 2: Strengthen Fiscal Health
Goal 3: Implement existing and new best practices.

Prepared by: Shayna van Hoften, Legal Counsel 415-995-5880
Project Manager: Seamus Murphy, Chief Communications Officer 650-508-6388

Sales tax is a regressive tax that disproportionately punishes lower income people for purchases and services that they do not necessarily have great control over.

We live in one of the highest cost of living areas not just in the United States, but the world. A sales tax increase does nothing but increase inequities.

Absolutely NO to any sales tax hikes!

"We live in one of the highest cost of living areas not just in the United States, but the world. A sales tax increase does nothing but increase inequities."

Not to mention the supes lied to us the last time they wanted a half cent sales tax bump. Turns out we didn't really need it. So why do we need this one?

Admin for the GetUsMovingSMC website is David Tick of TBWB Strategies 400 Montgomery St. San Francisco.
This is from their website(Web Link

"Need funding? For Facilities? Services? Technology? Programs? Staff?
TBWB helps you package and pass a ballot measure to meet your needs."

Web Link

This is definitely campaign activity funded by tax dollars.

Who hired TBWB?

Usually I have no problem with voting for a tax that goes towards improving mass transit. Having lived on the East Coast in Boston and New York as well as Europe, I believe that functional mass transit systems can only improve the quality of life for it's regional citizens. Anything that gets people out of their cars and onto bikes, busses and trains is a winner from my viewpoint. However, in this case, I'm worried that we are putting the cart..., well - actually putting the bus in front of the bulldozer. My point being - until we get some idea of how much more "development" is going to occur on the peninsula it makes little sense to deal with mass transit unless we approach both development and transit as a symbiotic entity. Right now, it seems that every city is building up and down the 101/Caltrain/ECR corridor with little concern as to how it affects its neighbors upstream or downstream. There is no "Grand Plan", therefore traffic issues are dealt with on an "as needed" basis. Case in point - the Willow/101 exchange. By the time they finish it, it will need to be redone... next on the list is Woodside Rd/101 then Holly Rd/101, 92 & 101 and on and on...
At what point do we have a moratorium on building until transit has caught up to our current housing density?
Our roads are at carrying capacity during much of the day now. How much more can they hold before a single accident brings the entire peninsula to a halt?
Before I vote for a tax dealing with mass transit I want to see some long range planning across San Mateo County that includes light rail, Dumbarton extension and agreements amongst all cities that guarantees improvements and expansion coupled with development. Any new development should have lightrail included. We need to start the process NOW.
More bandaids won't solve our problem. .05 tax?!? Considering how much $$ are wasted sitting in traffic, I would actually pay a higher tax to see things done. We need a lifeboat not a pool noodle. But until I see something worthy on the table, I'm voting NO