Voters allowed too-easy money for the SFMTA

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency board of directors took a vote on Tuesday that could put The City’s taxpayers in the hole for a whopping $170 million in revenue bonds — not counting interest payments that can come close to doubling such bond issues.

At first glance, it might seem rather odd that a local agency can dump so much into its public bond debt without obtaining direct approval by a citywide voter referendum. But guess what, you — the San Francisco voter and taxpayer — virtually gave the SFMTA an open checkbook to do that.

This permission was somewhat stealthily included in Proposition A, a 2007 ballot measure approved by 55 percent of San Francisco voters. Prop. A was sold to the citizenry as a measure for giving the SFMTA greater authority over parking administration, a change touted as a painless way to give deficit-ridden Muni an extra $26 million a year in revenue.

The fact that SFMTA, which is projected to have long-term debt, will be able to borrow against future earnings should concern taxpayers and transit riders alike. These bonds must only pay for system improvements; the money cannot legally be used toward the SFMTA’s currently projected two-year operating deficit of $80 million. Of the $170 million approved by SFMTA directors, $50 million is for fixing up creaky city-owned garages, nearly $50 million is pledged for long-term Muni system improvements, and a third $50 million would buy back and refinance the SFMTA’s existing debt at the historic lows of the current bond market. The extra $20 million was added just in case of any cost overruns.

We won’t argue with the seeming reasonableness of these expenditures. But unfortunately the SFMTA is all too familiar with cost overruns. A recent independent audit found that the transit agency has wasted an astonishing $90 million on its pending capital projects by consistently going over budget.

As of now, all that needs to be done for authorizing final release of these bonds is an approval vote by the Board of Supervisors, which is penciled in for the March schedule. Our supervisors are not exactly known for refusing to spend money that can be allocated by a simple majority “yes” vote. But if enough public protest arises, they might well prefer playing the role of tough fiscal watchdogs and put a lid on those suspect work orders instead of rubber-stamping the bond issue.

editorialsOpinionSan FranciscoSFExaminer

Just Posted

A large crack winds its way up a sidewalk along China Basin Street in Mission Bay on Friday, Sept. 24, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)
San Francisco’s sinking sidewalks: Is climate change to blame?

‘In the last couple months, it’s been a noticeable change’

For years, Facebook employees have identified serious harms and proposed potential fixes. CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg have rejected the remedies, causing whisteblowers to multiple. (Eric Thayer/The New York Times)
Facebook’s problems at the top: Social media giant is not listening to whistleblowers

Whistleblowers multiply, but Zuckerberg and Sandberg don’t heed their warnings

Niners quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo led a late-game comeback against the Packers, but San Francisco lost, 30-28, on a late field goal. (Courtesy of San Francisco 49ers)
The Packers beat the Niners in a heartbreaker: Don’t panic

San Francisco is no better and no worse than you thought they were.

A new ruling will thwart the growth of solar installation companies like Luminalt, which was founded in an Outer Sunset garage and is majority woman owned. (Philip Cheung, New York Times)
A threat to California’s solar future and diverse employment pathways

A new ruling creates barriers to entering the clean energy workforce

Federal officials have endorsed booster shots of the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for many fully inoculated Americans. (Kevin Mohatt/New York Times)
When Californians will get COVID-19 boosters

Eligibility currently limited to those inoculated with Pfizer vaccine

Most Read