Your ticket to talk trash

On Tuesday afternoon, the Municipal Transportation Agency met for the second time to consider options for closing a $129 million budget deficit. The public was treated to a proposal that everyone can hate: service cuts, fare and fee increases, and a plan to allow the sale of 100 taxi medallions. The meeting went on for more than five hours. Here are my top five quotes from public comment:

5 On the sale of taxi medallions: “It literally takes it out of the hands of the people who deserve it, professionals who love this city, and puts it into the hands of anyone who can afford to buy it. This probably means lenders and banks. Guess what they have done to the United States? We all know that.”

4 On the fact that the transit agency was recently put in charge of taxis and may sell medallions: “You have that control over the taxi industry for six or seven weeks, and you’re acting like a kid with a new toy.”

3 On the need for better service: “Mr. Ford should be required to ride Muni for everything that he has to do. He would find out what it is like and maybe it would get cleaned up. Ladies and gentlemen, you have got to stop this let-them-eat-cake attitude. We are not the peasants of Paris. You know what happened to Marie.”

2 A proposed alternative to selling taxi
medallions: “We could sell the cable car, and I think you would get $20 million for that. Anybody who needs transportation does not ride it. It is a carnival ride, basically.”

1 I have no idea what this refers to: “I am here to find a way to get the money, like Somali pirates. Sharpshooters, man. Watch the sharpshooters.”

Real intent of Prop. 1E appears wacky

“Bureaucrats can’t redirect the funding.” That was one promise in the 2004 statewide election voter guide to Proposition 63 — the Mental Health Services Act. The measure, which passed, imposed a 1 percent income tax on all persons making more than $1 million a year. Money from that tax goes into a special fund for the expansion of mental-health services throughout the state. As it stands, the government cannot use the money to simply pay for existing programs.

One existing program that the state pays for is the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program, which provides some medical treatment — including mental-health services — to Medicare beneficiaries under 21. Before you send that thank-you card to Sacramento, you should know that the program is federally mandated.

This brings me to Proposition 1E on the May 19 statewide special election ballot. It basically asks voters: May the state take about $460 million during two years from the Prop. 63 funds to help pay for the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program? (“Bureaucrats can’t redirect the funding,” but they can ask us to.)

Anywhere from $900 million to $1.5 billion has been put into the Prop. 63 fund each year since 2005. Right now, there’s about $2.5 billion in there — owing to an impossibly cumbersome application process or the natural delays in starting new programs, depending on who you ask.

Opponents of Prop. 1E say that, in addition to the obvious loss of cash, snatching Prop. 63 funds will just cost more in the form of hospital visits and prison time; plus, we’ll lose federal money to the extent Prop. 63 dollars will be used as state matching funds.

They also point out that the way the law is written, the $460 million simply goes to the general fund without controls on how the money is spent. (However, the state is required to fund the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program to the tune of $500 million a year, so it’s pretty clear that Prop. 63 adds to the pie from which the program’s slice must be cut.)

Proponents of Prop. 1E include one author of Prop. 63, who argues that we’re keeping with the spirit of the law by using the money for mental-health-type stuff, and this budget year has been ... well ... crazy.

“How can we feed our children with history?” is what some of the signs said at Tuesday’s protest of a Democratic Party event with the unintentionally hilarious moniker: “Unity Luncheon.”

Change is in the Aaron: Ex-supe backs development power grab

According to protesters (members of building-trade unions), former supervisor and historic-preservation Mafia boss Aaron Peskin is championing changes to our Planning Code that would give the Historical Preservation Commission the power to halt development around The City.

Now, it’s true that the Historical Preservation Commission and Planning Commission are negotiating changes to the code that implement Proposition J, which created the historical commission.

Administrative minutiae are my specialty, so I looked into the proposed code amendments. Frankly, there’s nothing exceptional about the changes. They simply do what Prop. J mandates: give the Historical Preservation Commission authority to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that a building be designated historic. Ultimately, the Board has to endorse the designation, which is subject to a mayoral veto.

Once a building is designated historic, any changes to the exterior must receive a permit from the Historical Preservation Commission, but a denial can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors or the Board of Appeals.

That’s pretty much it.

Remember that Prop. J passed in November without any opposition. In other words: The code is not the problem. This fight is simply about six months too late.