To consolidate, disseminate, and gather information concerning the 710 expansion into our San Rafael neighborhood and into our surrounding neighborhoods. If you have an item that you would like posted on this blog, please e-mail the item to Peggy Drouet at pdrouet@earthlink.net

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Posted by Charles E. Miller on No 710 on Avenue 64 Facebook page
Vote for No 710 Candidates in the Highland-Park Neighborhood-Council election.

Our No 710 slate includes, Cathi Milligan for President, and Board candidates Gloria Castro, Gretchen Knudsen, Harvey Slater, Trish Gossett, Hector Huezo, Linda Boo Caban, Janet Dodsen, Ruben Del Portillo, Aaron Salcido, Alex Delgadillo and Ramira Motta.

According to revised 6/2011 guidelines, if you have shopped in the area, you qualify as an eligible factual based stakeholder, so come buy a coffee locally, save the receipt and vote Saturday, Oct. 13 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Highland Park Recreation Center on Figueroa just south of York Blvd next to the Library.

This is a competitive field and voting for these candidates will set the direction for the next 2 years in our No 710 advocacy and other important local issues.
Metro October Open Houses to be Rescheduled

Time and Place to be announced - Most likely after the election.

6 Questions with Assembly Candidate Chris Holden

Patch interviews Chris Holden as part of a series of profiles for candidates of the June 5 primary election. 


By Dan Abendschein
May 28, 2012 

 Chris Holden, one of five candidates for the 41st Assembly District, has been around politics a long time: he has been a council member in the City of Pasadena for almost 25 years, and is the son of one-time Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden.

During that time he has also worked as a commercial broker and briefly ran a Subway franchise in Pasadena.

Holden is one of five candidates in the newly-drawn 41st District, which extends south to north from South Pasadena to Altadena, then east to foothill towns out the way to San Dimas.

Holden might be the most supported candidate among local politicans - he is endorsed by the State Democratic Party and a large number of local city council members and other local elected officials.  A full list of his endorsements can be viewed on his website.

He has raised more than $200,000 to make the run for office and has about $83,000 cash on hand, according to state records.  Six of his top 7 contributors, all of whom have contributed $7,800 to his campaign, come from unions or groups representing public sector employees.

Patch interviewed Holden as part of a series on candidates running for office - interviews with other candidates in the 41st Assembly race, as well as other races going on in the June 5 primary, will follow.

The below interview has been edited for length.

Patch: The first thing I wanted to ask you is the pretty standard – I wanted to ask you why you wanted to run, but especially because famously the Assembly has been a place where maybe not a lot has gotten done and the budgets take forever to go through.  It seems like maybe you might be bogged down a little bit more than in the City of Pasadena so I was just curious why you want to run for the seat?

Holden:  I think that the time is right.  I’ve served nearly a quarter of a century on the City Council.  That’s a long time.  I’ve learned a lot.  We’ve been through difficult challenges, budget-balancing issues of our own, down economies, looking for creative ways to rehabilitate our downtown, which we have, and so we see the success of Old Pasadena.

Looking at the regional issues that we’ve been able to be a part of, I note the Gold Line rail project, which I was a part of in 1985, looking at how the rail would make its way from Los Angeles through Pasadena and lining up to go to eastern most region of the community.

We worked through the deregulation of our utility industry and when we were confronted with that, I think I was a part of laying out a blueprint for success which looked at balancing our utility in such a way that we made a reduction in the work force, we made a reduction in the transfer of our utility to our general fund and we looked at rate increases.  It was a multi-prong approach to address the issues of making our utility survive.  So here we are, lowest rates and highest reliability in the industry.
I think I have the most diversified background of anyone running with certainly the longest tenure of investment in the community and I think that gives me the skillset to go to Sacramento and not be lost, be able to hit the ground running, take some important initiatives that our community cares about and advocate aggressively for those initiative at the state level as I did on the local level.

On a personal note my kids are moving into college so there’s s transitional time in terms of my personal life that allows me the flexibility to serve as well.  All of that together formulates my decision to run as well as the expertise I would bring to the job.

Patch: What do you see as the key issues for getting the states fiscal issues straightened out?  For example, did you think the move to transfer redevelopment money over the school was effective and what other methods can the state use to help work on the budget issues?

CH:  I think that part of our challenge is we keep robbing from Peter to pay Paul.  We’re taking from one good to pay for another good.  Redevelopment served the cities that used it well, it served communities well, it served Pasadena in a profound way, because it revolutionized our downtown.  It was also used effectively to bring a shopping center to Northwest Pasadena.  We see across our community how it was also used to help auto dealers, like Symes in East Pasadena.  We recognize that in our community we were able to use it effectively to stimulate job growth and the redevelopment of our communities.

But I also support public institutions – I want to see resources go to public education in a way that brings our school system from the bottom to the top.  The funding doesn’t match it as a priority so we need to make sure we find out how to identify new ways for restructuring as well as generating the right kind of revenue that can go into our public schools.

We also have look at investing in new opportunities.  Green technology, infrastructure improvements, and transportation projects.  One of the greatest job stimulators is public transportation projects.  The light rail is putting people back to work.
Also, certainly looking at community colleges to provide vocational training for these kinds of jobs as well as retraining for people who are getting back into the work force who have to get repositioned for some of these new job opportunities.  That is the approach I am want to pursue as well as the ports in the Alameda Corridor and how we can increase trade with Pacific Rim countries and see more businesses do business with California.  I think that is what we want to encourage.

Patch:  Well it sounds like then you take the long view on the budget, because right now the conversation is more about what can we avoid cutting rather than what can we invest in.

CH:  Yeah, I think the governor’s proposal on the tax approach is right.  We’re going to have to do that so we can stop the bleeding or at least slow down the bleeding so we can get to the place of looking at long-term solutions. Our budget in Pasadena is the perfect example – we had to address the structural deficit but we couldn’t do it overnight because if we did it would have wreaked havoc on our general fund and our ability to provide general services to the community we represent.
I think we have to look at the long term but we have to do some immediate short term adjustments, which the governor is proposing, and then start the discussions of pension reform, which is what we did in Pasadena --we had to move in that direction.  But it came from buy-in from the employee unions, by sitting down at the common table and moving us collectively in that direction, so that there was more cost sharing, but not looking to kick people out of the program who are vested in the program – that I don’t support.  But I do think that looking at ways to adjust contributions to the retirement plan I think is something to look at.  Eliminating pension spiking, eliminating double dipping, things of those nature that have created an increased burden to the pensions structure, there are some things we can do there.  A bureaucracy the size of Sacramento, the California budget, I would think there are some ways to make some additional adjustments.

But I’m also open to a broader community discussion about that.  I’m not trying to go in and use a weed whacker to get our house in order.  We have to be very thoughtful about how we do that and very meticulous in how we go about that and very inclusive.  Part of what happens right now is you see Sacramento operating separate and apart from the rest of the people of the state.   When you look at local government it is a very open and engaging process.

Patch:  I’m glad you mentioned pension reform.  I was going to ask about that – you’ve got a good number of donations from union contributions, much like many Democratic office holders.  Do you think there is political will to get that work done and do you think unions are willing to be part of the solution?

CH: I think they’ll be part of the solution.  I don’t think they want to be the only solution, but I think being part of the solution, there will be openness to that.  I think we all recognize that collectively we are all Californians, and if Rome is burning, we are all part of putting out the fire.   You know it is not just one group that is going to put out the fire; we have to look at a collective strategy where we are all grabbing a bucket and looking to extinguish the flames.

So it’s sort of the collective will, not just the unions but the business community and the residents of this state sort of recognizing, not unlike the example I used before of what we had to do locally at the [Pasadena Water and Power] utility.  It was the Water and Power Department restructuring and cutting its size.  It was the general fund losing that transfer that went to basic services and it was the residents saying 'OK, we’re in this too, so we’ll look at a rate adjustment that is fair and reasonable because we can see you are making some changes -- that mean we’re not the only one bailing us out of the problem.'  

Right now, I think there is a problem with people feeling that Sacramento is doing its part to get its house in order so it does not fall exclusively on one group or another to bail us out of the problem.

Patch:  I also want to ask you about education.  It seems that increasingly there are new voices in the state party that are a little more reform oriented, a little more geared towards charter schools.  Of course, traditionally teachers unions have not looked so favorably on those and it seems like there might be a little bit of a split emerging on education in the party.  Where do you stand on these issues?

CH: Well I think that generally speaking as a parent, you just want to see the results.  I think that as a product of the public schools -- and quite frankly, should I win, I’ll be the first graduate of the Pasadena Unified School District to my knowledge to be elected to the State Legislature.  So I’m fully invested in public education.  I’m the product of it, and as a parent whose children have spent most, if not all of their learning years in the PUSD.  So for me it has always been, how do we get back to a place of excellence?

When I was at Cleveland Elementary, Madison Elementary, Wilson Junior High School, Pasadena High school we were exposed to vocational options whether it was home economics or business tech

We had great teachers -- not that we don’t have great teachers now -- but we also had resources where the teachers did not have to reach into their pockets to pay for things just so their teachers good have a basic classroom experience.  Our goal is that our public schools are not treated as second-class in the budget process, not having to continue to go through year after year of budget cuts.
In the midst of that there is an entrepreneurial spirit amongst some that is saying 'I can do it, I can create an environment over here called a charter school where kids can become better educated.'
Well, I don’t think the numbers are necessarily showing that.  I don’t think the test results are showing that.  However one ultimately decides that it works or doesn’t work, I don’t know that the quantifiable data is supporting that.  And if the quantifiable data does not support that, then it’s all ado about nothing. So we need to be focused on the number one priority and that is how to make our public schools the best public schools in the world.  People with resources, they will find the best schools: the private schools.  They are not even putting their kids in the charter schools, they are putting their kids in the best schools their money can buy, and God bless them.  But the rest of the population has to rely on public education; there is no choice.   And if we start splitting it up, saying here’s a different way of doing it, a charter school, and the results aren’t really any different but we’re taking resources away from the public school system then that’s a problem for me.

Patch:  I wanted to ask you about the 710 Tunnel extension – it’s actually coming up at a time concurrently with the election and at least one of your opponents is a vocal opponent of it.  I recall hearing you support it in the past but I’m not 100 percent sure about it, so I wanted to ask your view.

CH:  Well there are really three options that are being looked at here for addressing the 710-gap closure.  One is do nothing, leave it like it is, the second is to go with the surface route, which has been talked about for 40 years and the third is to look at a tunnel.  When you look at the concept of a surface route, I don’t support that.  My position on the surface route is that that option is dead.
I think that exploring through the EIR the environmental feasibility of a tunnel makes a lot of sense.  You have tunnels that exist all over the world, and in Europe where you have ancient cities, you still have tunnels in those areas under much more challenging terrain.  Addressing the issues of smoke stacks or some kind of exhaust stacks, I think is a fair question and that is where the EIR will make the determination on is that an environmental impact that can be mitigated?  And if it can’t be mitigated, that will pretty much kill the project.  If it can be mitigated through technology and the way in which the exhaust system would be installed it is something for us to look at.  I think it is a viable alternative but I support vigoursly the community process and completing the environmental review to determine whether it is a viable solution to the problem.  Because right now, when I head down Fremont [Street] in the afternoon the traffic is backed up, and as I pass South Pasadena High School I am idling two times through a light cycle, sometimes three.  And that means my idling is resulting in exhaust from my car and everyone else’s, and it’s impacting the environment
right now as we speak. 
Comments to the above article
 1. Chris Holden “a longtime proponent of finishing the 710 Freeway” when it was a surface freeway (quote from previous interview of Mr. Holden in the LA Times http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/30/news/mn-37728) has been pushing for years to complete the 710 freeway for use by the LA/LB ports cargo trucks. He doesn’t care if it is a surface freeway or tunnel he just wants to get it done.
Ask yourself: Why is he now fighting to build a toll freeway that will only clog our streets with diverted traffic from cars unwilling to pay the tolls required to finance this tunnel, instead of supporting alternatives like the GRID and electric train systems for goods movement?
Do you think this indicates there is big money involved in Holden’s campaign? Is he showing he really cares about local concerns by promoting better alternatives to the freeway, or is he selling us out to the ports and freeway construction firms like Parsons Brinckerhoff so we can instead suffer from traffic and pollution that a cargo freeway will bring to this area while the greedy few line their pockets?
 2. Funny to hear Holden talk about mitigation for the pollution that the 710 freeway Cargo tunnel will pump out – the engineers working on the project have said that the type of scrubbing system that would be necessary for actually removing the pollution is “NOT practicable” – you’d have to have a system like in an operating room and on the scale needed, it would be “too costly”.
3.  They must charge tolls for this 710 Tunnel freeway to recoup the cost. So unless it's used as a trucking corridor they wont be able to show enough income to conclude a Public Private Partnership deal.
Pg 4
“Trucks would pay an average of $15.23”-… Tolls skyrocket:
5th to last paragraph: _“Some tolling agencies could also use "a dose of sunshine," Baxandall said. Because many are quasi-governmental, public disclosure, open meeting and other transparency rules don't always apply, he said. As a result, they frequently operate out of public sight, creating opportunities for corruption or manipulation by industry, he said.”

3rd to last paragraph: _“The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey recently raised cash fares on six Interstate bridges and tunnels to $12 for CARS. By 2015, it will cost a five-axle TRUCK paying cash $105 to cross between New York and New Jersey, three times as much as for any other bridge or tunnel in the country, according to the American Trucking Association.”

4. The 710 Freeway is being built for use by the LA/LB ports for "GOODS MOVEMENT". http://www.everythinglongbeach.com/metro-transportation-projects-2011/
In this article, Doug Failing FROM METRO gave information to the reporter explaining that while 18 projects” in the works “are designed primarily to give people a better commute” – 3 other projects; the I-710 south, 710 NORTH gap closure, the High Desert Corridor are intended to “ADDRESS THE DEMANDS OF COMMERCE — specifically goods movement” (this means trucks)

Quote from Metro regarding increased truck traffic from the ports: http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/images/final-2009-LRTP.pdf _page Sec1:42 5th paragraph
"This trade activity, in turn, will result in DAILY PORT-generated TRUCK traffic increasing from 60,000 in 2005 to 140,000 truck trips PER DAY by 2030 despite significant efforts by the Ports to increase on-dock rail capacity and usage."
PG 18 http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/images/2009_lrtp_techdoc.pdf
"Currently, goods movement-related traffic is growing at a faster rate than that of automobiles. DAILY TRUCK TRAFFIC on I-710 ALONE is expected to increase from 38,000 to _approximately 90,000 trucks A DAY by the year 2035."

Also, is everyone aware that the tunnel will have no on or off ramps? It’s obviously not intended for local traffic congestion relief (another aspect Metro and Chris Holden don't advertise).

5.  Having attended the outreach meetings that Metro has been hosting about the 710 freeway EIR we have learned that they are not looking at the alternatives as they have promised. The EIR is a joke. What is taking place right now appears fraudulent. And Holden is either asleep at the switch or in on the deal.

Here are 3 alternatives that the ports could use instead of killing our area with CARGO TRUCK induced CONGESTION and pollution:
1) the GRID - a sorting and zero-emission container supply chain
2) CargoWay - flexible (CNG/electric) trams that travel on both roads and rail lines.
3) Freight Shuttle – Electric powered transporters over elevated guideways.

6.  Lets get back to Chris
He says there aree three alternatives but even 10 years ago, the Fed Judge review the MultiMode Plan and said it had merits and that CalTrans had blown it off because of no freeway was included. So what can Chris support, not what he can oppose for the 41st (we have the same problem in the 51st)?? Will he support moving ahead with a Programme of MultiMode improvement of bus and rail transit, freight rail - Better for all $5B - SCAG's low ball estimate - allocated to 100sqmi =$50M/sqmi which can be administered by existing cities' Public Works Depts and through small and medium contractors NOW using LACo local campanies and local labor rather than international corporate giants. Pasadena did recieve and spend fed moneys for various projects that arose from the SoPas MultiMode...which is now upgraded to even serve LACity.
Measure J
Accelerating Traffic Relief, Job Creation
County of Los Angeles

Continuation of Voter-Approved Sales Tax Increase - Majority Approval Required 

League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, Los Angeles County, CA


 To advance Los Angeles County's traffic relief, economic growth/ job creation, by accelerating construction of light rail/ subway/ airport connections within five years not twenty; funding countywide freeway traffic flow/ safety /bridge improvements, pothole repair; keeping senior/ student/ disabled fares low; Shall Los Angeles County's voter-approved one-half cent traffic relief sales tax continue, without tax rate increase, for another 30 years or until voters decide to end it, with audits/ keeping funds local?
Impartial Analysis from John F. Krattli, County Counsel
Approval of Measure J would authorize adoption of an ordinance proposed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("Metro"), to extend the previously approved Measure R retail transactions and use tax ("Sales Tax") for an additional 30 years, from 2039 to 2069, at the current rate of one-half of one percent (0.5%), as well as the adoption of an expenditure plan.
The Sales Tax extension may be terminated by the voters following adoption and qualification of a ballot initiative pursuant to the Elections Code and Public Utilities Code.

Measure R was approved by the voters in 2008 to impose the Sales Tax for an initial 30 years to raise revenue for transportation related expenditures, including expanding and enhancing rail and bus systems, improving highways, repairing potholes and streets, and suspending scheduled fare increases. Measure J will extend the Sales Tax for an additional 30 years from 2039 to 2069. Revenues from the Sales Tax extension shall be used to accelerate the completion of Measure R projects until those projects are complete, and to provide reduced fares to senior citizens, disabled individuals and students and to expand Metro's reduced fare programs, and other expenses as provided in the ordinance. To the extent necessary to accelerate completion of a project, Metro may authorize expenditure of funds derived from the initial Measure R Sales Tax.

Once the Measure R projects are complete, the revenues received from the Sales Tax extension would be allocated solely for the transportation purposes described in the ordinance. Such funds would be available only for projects and programs described in the expenditure plan of the ordinance.

Metro may adopt an amendment by a two-thirds (2/3) vote to transfer net revenues between the Transit Capital Subfund and the Highway Capital Subfund within the same subregion. All other provisions remain the same as stated in the ordinance implementing Measure R, with the prior establishment of an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee and the annual audit requirements to remain in effect.

This measure requires a two thirds (2/3) vote of the qualified voters in the County of Los Angeles who cast votes in the election. The Sales Tax would only be extended if the State Legislature approves pending legislation specifically authorizing the Sales Tax extension, providing that the Sales Tax extension is exempt from the rate limit established by law, and does not mandate expenditure of the Sales Tax extension revenues in a manner different or contrary to Metro's expenditure plan. Assuming legislative approvals are obtained and are effective prior to January 2, 2013, Measure J would tax effect on January 2, 2013, with the Sales Tax extension imposed on July 1, 2039, immediately upon expiration of the initial Sales Tax.

 Arguments For Measure J

 Measure J will create hundreds of thousands of jobs in LA County over the next decade by speeding up local highway and transit projects.

Measure J accelerates the completion of public transit projects and provides more funding for countywide highway, transit, and local street improvements by continuing the County's voter-approved one-half cent traffic relief sales tax without a tax rate increase.

CREATES OVER 400,000 JOBS. With LA County suffering 12 percent unemployment, Measure J will create over 410,000 local jobs, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.

SPEEDS UP PROJECTS. Measure J will speed up the completion of light rail, subway and airport connection projects in just 13 years rather than 27 years. It enables local cities to fix thousands of potholes annually and repair congested and deteriorated roads countywide.

IMPROVES FREEWAY TRAFFIC FLOW. Measure J will improve traffic flow on the 5, 10, 14,60, 101, 110, 134, 138,210,405,605 and 710 freeways. Measure J will upgrade our aging freeway and highway system, including bridge and tunnel improvements, and help prepare for hundreds of thousands of additional cars expected in coming decades.

IMPROVES EARTHQUAKE SAFETY. Measure J will speed the earthquake repair of aging bridges, tunnels and overpasses.

KEEPS SENIOR FARES LOW. Measure J keeps bus fares low for seniors, students and the disabled.

ALL FUNDS STAY LOCAL, WITH STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS. Measure J requires that all revenues stay in Los Angeles County, with no money for Sacramento. By law, funds can be used ONLY for transportation improvement projects and services with annual independent audits and full public review of expenditures.
Jumpstart local jobs and traffic relief. Vote YES on J. For more information, visit MeasureJ4Jobs.org.

President & CEO
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Executive Secretary
Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council
Mayor, City of Alhambra
President, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
President, Los Angeles Business Council
Director Southern California Environmental Justice Project,
Natural Resources Defense Council
Rebuttal to Arguments For

 Measure J is filled with FALSE PROMISES of job creation and accelerated traffic relief. It manipulates voters into paying more taxes without accountability or protections on how that money is spent.
Measure J falsely promises accelerated projects but the truth is:
  • NO ACCELERATION of the Green Line connection to LAX without outside funding
  • NO FUNDING for rail connections to our regional airports--Long Beach, Ontario, Bob Hope, Palmdale
  • NO FUNDING for the Crenshaw Line's Leimart Park Station and Wilshire Extension
  • NO FUNDING to extend the Gold Line to Claremont
  • NO FULL FUNDING for the I-405 Corridor Project
  • NO HELP for the Exposition Line to Santa Monica
Measure J proponents intentionally overstate the creation of jobs in Los Angeles County. Jobs can only be created if struggling federal and state agencies give us billions of dollars to complete Measure J projects.
Measure J won't fix gridlock. The same projects were already promised in 2008, but will now take 60 years of taxation instead of 30.

Measure J DOESN'T MANDATE "funding ... bridges, safety and traffic flow improvements; fixing potholes."

Measure J DOESN'T MANDATE "keeping senior, student, disabled fares low."

Measure J SHORTCHANGES Metrolink's fair share of funding to improve passenger safety and travel speed--by locking in Metrolink at 3%.

Measure J disenfranchises growing cities and unincorporated communities + by tying funding to frozen 2004 population levels.

Measure J forces a heavy burden onto taxpayers, creating massive debt for our grandchildren + all for one political, multi-billion dollar bloated subway.

Join local business leaders, Chambers of Commerce and elected officials and vote NO on Measure J.

Santa Clarita Valley Economic Development Corporation
Former State Director, NAACP
Mayor, City of Lancaster
Councilmember, City of Cerritos
Councilmember, City of Manhattan Beach

 Arguments Against Measure J

 Measure J may sound great, but it's classic bait-and-switch! It is deeply flawed, inequitable, and ill-timed.

In 2008, Measure R promised the voters of Los Angeles County that if they taxed themselves for the next 30 years through a half-cent sales tax, they'd have new transportation projects delivered on time and on budget to ease traffic congestion throughout the County.

Now, just 4 years later, Metro is coming back asking for more of your money.

Why? Because they know the higher taxes you're already paying aren't enough to finish the projects they promised you.

Just because the money is accelerated doesn't mean the projects you were promised will get completed. Measure J relies on funding that is not guaranteed.

For example, the Green Line to LAX cannot be built without outside funding. In fact, there is no money to connect rail to the Long Beach, Ontario, Bob Hope or Palmdale airports as Measure J promises. Because Measure J only accelerates projects already on the books, it won't create any new jobs that wouldn't have been created under Measure R.

Measure J is just a way for all County residents to pay for the pet projects of one municipality and does not guarantee that all 88 cities get their fair share. For example, San Fernando Valley represents 37% of Los Angeles City population, but they only received 13% of the City's Measure R funding. Some Los Angeles County residents will be paying taxes until 2069 that will never be invested in their communities.

Measure R listed specific projects for construction and only allowed changes to that list after 10 years. Measure J removes those taxpayer protections and allows special interests to move money right now.

We need honest, responsible traffic relief - but a blank check that our kids and grandkids will pay for the next 60 years is not the answer. Vote NO on Measure J!

Chairman, Los Angeles County MTA
Los Angeles County Supervisor, MTA Board Member
Chairman of the Board,
United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley
Council Member, City of Downey
Council Member, City of Claremont

 Rebuttal to Arguments Against

 Measure J rejects the old pork-barrel politics that gave us congested freeways in favor of immediate jobs and traffic relief.

OUR COUNTY NEEDS JOBS NOW. Measure J creates jobs now, when unemployed workers in Los Angeles County need them most and construction prices are low. Accelerating highway and transportation projects will create 410,000 jobs over the next ten years.

COUNTYWIDE PLAN. Measure J is a countywide plan. The first major project was the Orange Line extension in the San Fernando Valley, completed on schedule and under budget. Measure J will accelerate projects in the San Fernando Valley, South Bay, San Gabriel Valley, southeast Los Angeles County and North County. This includes a new transit line connecting the San Fernando Valley to West Los Angeles and highway improvements in all parts of the county.

INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT. Measure J mandates independent oversight by a committee of retired judges to make sure tax dollars are spent properly.

LOCALLY-CONTROLLED STREET REPAIR. Measure J means every city and every part of unincorporated Los Angeles County will get 30 additional years of locally-controlled funding to invest in better streets, roads, sidewalks and transit.

JOBS NOW, INVESTMENT FOR THE FUTURE. Measure J is an investment in the future. Measure J means jobs now and a modern, efficient transportation system that works for everyone for the long-term.

Vote YES on Measure J!

San Fernando Valley Civic Leader
Business Manager, Laborers Local 300
Mayor, City of Alhambra
President, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Chair of the Valley Economic Alliance
Mayor of Duarte
Chair SGV, COG Transportation Committee