Let the neighborhood vote on Masonic bike project
Dear Mr. Reiskin:
MTA, several members of the Board of Supervisors and others have repeatedly asserted that the Masonic bike lane project has “overwhelming community support.” Would MTA agree to a nonbinding, advisory vote in which all adult residents within a reasonable proximity of the project area would have an opportunity to vote yes or no on the project? Voting would be on the basis of one person-one vote, and would be designed, conducted, monitored and verified by an independent third-party.
A two or three block radius of the project area seems to be a reasonable proximity; the actual definition would be subject to agreement between MTA and Save Masonic Avenue. If MTA were to agree in principle to a vote, I’m confident that the parties would be able to reach an agreement on the voting area.
There is precedent for such a vote. In 2004, the Department of Parking and Traffic (MTA’s predecessor) held a vote about the Page Street traffic circles. Residents within a specified radius of the project (I believe it was one block) were given an opportunity to vote. DPT agreed that if a majority voted no, it would terminate the project. A large majority voted no, and DPT terminated the project. With respect to Masonic, I am not even asking for a binding vote, as DPT had agreed to, merely an advisory one.
If a vote were held and a majority of voters approved the Masonic project, I commit to dropping my opposition.
Sincerely
MTA, several members of the Board of Supervisors and others have repeatedly asserted that the Masonic bike lane project has “overwhelming community support.” Would MTA agree to a nonbinding, advisory vote in which all adult residents within a reasonable proximity of the project area would have an opportunity to vote yes or no on the project? Voting would be on the basis of one person-one vote, and would be designed, conducted, monitored and verified by an independent third-party.
A two or three block radius of the project area seems to be a reasonable proximity; the actual definition would be subject to agreement between MTA and Save Masonic Avenue. If MTA were to agree in principle to a vote, I’m confident that the parties would be able to reach an agreement on the voting area.
There is precedent for such a vote. In 2004, the Department of Parking and Traffic (MTA’s predecessor) held a vote about the Page Street traffic circles. Residents within a specified radius of the project (I believe it was one block) were given an opportunity to vote. DPT agreed that if a majority voted no, it would terminate the project. A large majority voted no, and DPT terminated the project. With respect to Masonic, I am not even asking for a binding vote, as DPT had agreed to, merely an advisory one.
If a vote were held and a majority of voters approved the Masonic project, I commit to dropping my opposition.
Sincerely
Howard Chabner
 |
| Click on the map to enlarge |
Labels: Anti-Car, Ed Reiskin, Howard Chabner, Masonic Avenue, Muni, Neighborhoods, Panhandle, Parking
posted by Rob Anderson @ 10:12 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
You're not only beating a dead horse at this point. You're raping it.
For the Masonic residents trying to get Reiskin to understand their viewpoint is indeed like humping a dead horse: Reiskin already his mind made about what is best for everyone. Doesn't matter that he probably never even heard of Masonic Ave until this project got started (same with Polk St most likely), he doesn't care.
Funny how Reiskin's "what is best for everyone" is also what is best for his career advancement, showing the movers and shakers that he can get things approved. Unlike tackling the Muni on-time problem he's instead getting a bullet-point for his resume, for his next high-pay for little-work job.
Unlike tackling the Muni on-time problem he's instead getting a bullet-point for his resume, for his next high-pay for little-work job.
The best way to tackle MUNI's on time problem is to ticket and tow double parkers. And he's really getting after that. Thumbs up.
Come now, we all know the MTA and SFBC aren't really interested in knowing what people want. Just what THEIR people want.
Post a Comment
<< Home