We’re trying to sort out those which may include "the devil." Reference is to some of the details of the hugely expensive public transit plan now being given the ultimate hype and PR by local movers and shakers.
Some of those "details" were discussed in this morning’s paper. At least one was passed over rather lightly. This bothered us.
Under a section labeled "The Plan" we found this wording. "A new multicounty transit authority would take control from IndyGo, and the traditional fleet would be expanded from 122 to 232 vehicles."
The next 4 sections of the article are headed "The Details," and refer to "Bus Rapid Transit," "Express Bus Routes," "Commuter Train Service" and "Bus Circulator Routes" which would provide additional service at "transit stops" to those riding the special services.
Color us cynical, but we worry about a single, casual reference to 110 new buses for IndyGo, (with IndyGo as an organization to be replaced by the above-mentioned "transit authority"), being followed by 4 paragraphs indicating service which will be added almost entirely for the convenience of inter-county commuters. Especially when the governing body is to be "multi-county" in make-up, and presumably will also decide on the priorities of all phases of the project.
The up-coming session of the General Assembly will be asked "...to approve legislation for funding, a transit governance structure and a referendum." The precise wording of any referendum is critical. We would hope that the wording would be specified by the legislation itself. (Preferably something more than "Should Indianapolis have better bus service?")
Just what will we be voting on? Will the referendum specify the specific tax, a maximum rate and indicate dedication of the revenues? Will the "governance structure" be on the ballot? If not, will the legislative push by proponents demand the presence of elected officials who can be held accountable for the fiscal decisions of that structure?
It is, or should be, obvious that we can’t afford another Capital Improvement Board handing out tax dollars. Nor do we want a redevelopment commission turning entire counties into one big TIF district.
It is imperative that the voters know as precisely as possible where, how, why and to what extent the proposal will be using public money. Lacking such information, and/or an inability to hold elected officials responsible for expenditure of public funds, the only reasonable vote on the entire proposal is "NO!"
It will be worded in the least transparent way in order to mislead as many people and steal as much money from the resident serfs, as possible.
Posted by: Purple rain | December 18, 2011 at 02:45 PM
No need to be cynical I'm sure this new quasi governmental agency will operate with the same efficiency and transparency as the CIB; with the concerns and needs of Indy's taxpayers always foremost in their minds.
Posted by: Vox Populi | December 19, 2011 at 08:24 PM