Measure M Doesn't Deserve New Life
by Larry Gilbert

The transportation tax should be allowed to expire in five years

Orange County's Measure M, the "temporary" half-cent transportation infrastructure sales tax, is due to expire in 2011. We now have the Orange County Transportation Authority preparing to ask voters for a 30-year extension of this tax.

To me, an additional 30 years is a lifetime.

In the business world we analyze perceived or actual problems and take corrective action if necessary. I accept that our county's population will increase and the need for road improvements is valid. That said, let's look at the proposal for extending Measure M and consider alternatives.

In its Draft Transportation Investment Plan for the proposed Measure M extension, the OCTA proposes spending 43 percent of the proceeds from the tax, $4.871 billion, on state and federal freeway construction.

According to the American Petroleum Institute we pay 32 cents per gallon in state fuel taxes that are to be used for these same roads. Only Hawaii and Nevada have higher tax rates.

That means you and I already pay over $5 in road-use taxes every time we fill our tanks. Why does the OCTA feels compelled to continue collecting this Measure M tax?

Maintenance or expansion of our highways in the federal (Interstates 5, 405 and 605) or state systems (the 22, 55 and 57 freeways), and city streets are not the responsibility of the county. All our lobbying energy should be dedicated to making the state and federal government fulfill their infrastructure obligations. Even Gov. Schwarzenegger acknowledged in a recent speech in San Diego the state's responsibility to fix our system of roads. That said, why is an extension of Measure M necessary?

We are a net-donor county when it comes to where the state spends our property taxes. While Orange County gets back about 7 percent of our property taxes, Los Angeles County gets back about 25 percent, and San Francisco gets back about 75 percent.

The governor has just acknowledged the need for the state to address our decaying roads, bridges and levees and proposes spending $222 billion for repairs. In response, state Treasurer Phil Angelides, a likely Democratic challenger for governor this year, stated that "$47 billion would come from already approved federal transportation authorizations and existing state fuel taxes."

Voting to extend Measure M would be telling our elected officials in Sacramento that "we can take care of our own roads, thank you." That would enable the Legislature to continue spending our tax dollars elsewhere. We should not be willing to continue being shortchanged by relieving the state of its infrastructure responsibility. The governor's budget plan 2006-07 includes "$255 million that will go to local governments to spend on local streets and roads."

Just a few months ago we drove a stake in the heart of the OCTA's misguided CenterLine project that was to use over $1 billion in Measure M funds to start a light-rail line. Now, however, the Irvine City Council has voted to create a mini-CenterLine, connecting the planned Great Park and the Irvine Spectrum, using some of these same tax dollars that each of us is forced to pay. Once you start laying tracks who knows how much wider in scope the system will expand?

Another fact to consider; while the OCTA plan states that "more than $1 billion is earmarked for Interstate 5 in south county" to relieve some of the current and projected traffic congestion, the quasi-private-sector Transportation Corridor Agencies is about to vote on an extension of the Foothill (241) Toll Road. The additional 16 miles of toll road, from Oso Parkway in Ladera Ranch to I-5 at the southern end of San Clemente, would significantly relieve congestion on the I-5 and would be built without taxpayer money.

OK, so we have some potholes on our county roads that need fixing. Let me suggest cutting the Measure M tax rate in half, to a quarter-cent, if it's extended rather than simply continuing it at the current rate of an extra half-cent in sales taxes.

I recommend a "no" vote on the upcoming Measure M extension as currently as proposed. Wouldn't it be nice to actually vote to reduce a tax?