Dear Editor,
While spending for Measure A proponents exceeded opponents’
spending by a 100-to-1 ratio, did voters’ common sense prevail over
the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Service Employee’s
International Union despite all that power, muscle and clout?
Dear Editor,
While spending for Measure A proponents exceeded opponents’ spending by a 100-to-1 ratio, did voters’ common sense prevail over the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Service Employee’s International Union despite all that power, muscle and clout? Did the medieval physicians “just one more little leech” argument run up against the reality that “one more and I’m dead” from the cumulative effects of all those little 1/4 & 1/2 cent taxes, fees and assessments? Do voters realize the futility of SVLG and SEIU’s bankrupt-from-conception Valley Transportation Authority transit boondoogle? For the grandchildren’s sake, I pray that they do.
So, if we’re at the breaking point, why not eliminate some of those “essential services” like light rail? Limousines would be cheaper. Taxis much cheaper. Buying each rider an SUV even cheaper.
How about fewer empty buses? Why not transporting fewer empty seats? Or is VTA’s true name: BESTA (Boondoggles Empty Seat Transporters Association)?
Many cities and counties have furnished their residents more transport for less tax burdens by privatizing their Marxist-Leninist transit black holes. After being indicted by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury, and earning “worst” in the nation ranking from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology study of all the nation’s transit agencies, who could be justly “stunned” by this message from the voters/taxpayers of this county? You cannot be well-informed of reality and be “stunned” by this outcome.
The answer lies in what VTA and SVLG won’t even put on their agendas: privatization.
It’s time for VTA’s leadership to change course. If they won’t, then there should be a revolt against their berserk policy. The voters evidently realize this. Do our leaders? Instead of reaching for another leech, why not remove the malignant tumor?
Joe Thompson, Gilroy
