Scott Wiener: Dumb or dishonest?
Scott Wiener in his pro-high-speed rail op-ed in yesterday's SF Chronicle:
San Franciscans have “gotten” high-speed rail since 2008, when 78% voted for Proposition 1A to build high-speed rail in California.
Of course Wiener knows that the statewide vote on the project was only 52% in favor, but those oh-so wise and progressive SF voters gave it 78%.
What it really shows is that like the right-wingers we love to despise, city progs also live in a political bubble.
On this issue, it was predictable that liberals were going to vote for the train without really being informed. That is, city voters were dumb the same way Wiener has always been dumb on the issue.
The dishonesty is that Wiener hasn't bothered to inform himself about the project in the last 13 years. Like being a right-winger often provides automatic issue responses, being a liberal means you support trains regardless of the pesky details, like how much a project costs and whether it makes sense.
Randal O'Toole said it best:
"All you have to do is mention the words 'public transit' and progressives will fall over themselves to support you no matter how expensive and ridiculous your plans."
O'Toole is particularly good on the dumb high-speed rail project.
Local projects Wiener doesn't bother to inform himself about: CEQA and the Bicycle Plan and the Geary Blvd. BRT.
See also Transit agencies can skip environmental review under bill signed by Newsom. Guess whose bill that was?
To begin learning about the project, go to this site. Good place to start is with Briefing Papers or Brief Notes.
Labels: Anti-Car, Bicycle Plan, Biden, California, CEQA, High-Speed Rail, Rail Projects, Scott Wiener
posted by Rob Anderson @ 2:25 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
May I paraphrase?:
"All you have to do is mention the words 'cheap gas,' lower vehicle taxes and expanded highways and millions will fall over themselves to support you no matter how expensive and climate-altering and congestion-inducing your plans."
How about some examples of this? People who drive have to buy gas no matter what it costs, who is lowering "vehicle taxes"? and where are "highways" being "expanded"?
Nice try at turning the tables, though. It would be more relevant if you discussed the high-speed rail project.
Weiner is the politician San Francisco deserves, a shill for real estate developers, what the old SFBG called the "downtown business machine."
Everything in his New Jersey background indicates that he would've applied to Harvard and he would've gone there if accepted. (His parents probably had the pediatrician put crimson diapers on him at birth.) Figure poor quantitative reasoning kept him out as he seems to uncritically accept "numbers" these developers provide.
So that's what San Francisco gets, the Safety School Scotties.
“ climate-altering and congestion-inducing your plans."
I’ll be throwing my used plastic straws out of my car window at your stupid toy train with a smile.
Wiener did in fact go to Harvard. If you're going to hammer him, do a little homework. And it's "Wiener," not "Weiner."
See also Supervisor Wiener: Worst city legislator---again from 2012.
"He graduated from Washington Township High School, received his bachelor's degree from Duke University"
Same school as Chris Daly.
who is lowering "vehicle taxes"? and where are "highways" being "expanded"?
Voters are always pushing for lower taxes related to gas consumption and DMV fees.
Highways have been widened in the South Bay and East Bay in recent years, no. Of course discussions about congestion are directly related to the high speed rail project!
Not saying that they didn't happen but I'd like to see some evidence of those alleged highway widening projects.
Of course congestion discussions in California must include the HSR project, since it's been plausibly called "the costliest infrastructure project in human history."
Just do a search: highway (or freeway) widening [county--for example, Contra Costa or Santa Clara] over the last 10 years and also some future projects.
Yes--you are supposed to do a basic search. No need to fill up this thread with lengthy results when one can do it themselves.
And stop using the F-word--unless you wish to use it to self-describe as a F-ool.
And while you're at it, stop railing at the loss of parking spaces in SF. COVID notwithstanding, car ownership is down among the younger arrivals to the City; the next step is to convert those same Uber/Lyft riders to walking, scooting (in the street), cycling and taking MUNI, which with increased ridership will eventually respond with increased capacity. It's an imperfect process, but reducing parking spots and discouraging driving (like in GG Park), with accommodations made for truly disabled must, in the longer term, be the reasonable policy for, and here's a link you lazy F:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/climate/cities-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html
Encouragement of developing neighborhoods as "self-functioning" with most services needed within walking/biking distance of one's residence will also contribute to these changes. Let's cut down these ridiculous cross-town deliveries of meals and small items, and truly patronize local whenever possible--or take other modes of transit instead of TNC's.
BTW, your railing 10 years ago against the loss of parking spaces at Gough/Market and along the Market St. corridor between Van Ness and Octavia was way off. The bike lanes service hundreds of cyclists a day and a relatively few number of parking spaces were not going to save any of the merchants along there, whose businesses (like the antique stores) were subject to the vagaries of the marketplace (young people are more likely to buy IKEA rather than antiques and the older buying demographic are done buying or dead). Besides, my contention is that in some commercial corridors, it's often merchants/employees who feed meters and are the main objectors to parking space loss.
Post a Comment
<< Home