|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Alameda County Transportation Commission has submitted a recount request for Measure B1 to the county’s Registrar of Voters and anticipates a recount will begin as soon as Monday.
The cost of the recount has not yet been determined.
“We have an obligation to the 66.53% of Alameda County voters who supported Measure B1 to leave no stone unturned,” said Arthur L. Dao, executive director of the ACTC. “After receiving such strong support, we won’t turn away a critical $7.8 billion investment prematurely.”
Measure B1 would extend and double the existing half-cent county transportation sales tax, which county voters approved in 1986 and again in 2000.
Measure B1 expenditures would be guided by the 2012 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP), which was unanimously approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and all 14 Alameda County cities.
Two members of the Pleasanton City Council, mayor-elect Jerry Thorne and Councilwoman Cindy McGovern, voted against placing the B1 measure on last month’s General Election ballot.
Dao said the TEP is a “comprehensive, multi-modal plan” created with broad and diverse input by nearly 2,000 residents and groups representing drivers, transit riders, seniors, people with disabilities, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, environmentalists, educators, businesses and unions.
By placing Measure B1 on the ballot, the Alameda County Transportation Commission was responding to the need to develop new funding solutions for transportation — to update critical transportation infrastructure, fund mass transit and paratransit operations, increase transit choices and reduce congestion and pollution, Dao said.
He pointed out that the commission has already leveraged $756 million of current Measure B funds into $3.8 billion in capital improvements in Alameda County, and that more than $2.5 billion worth are under construction now. He added that the projects have pumped $495 million back into local businesses in Alameda County in the past decade, creating nearly 5,100 jobs per year.
For more information, visit www.alamedactc.org.
You mean they are going to fund a recount hoping to benefit themselves and funding it with our money? How generous of them.
Taxpayers have to pay for the recount? Ridiculous!
Whoever ordered this should be fired. If a recount is desired, the Yes campaign should be paying. This should be illegal to use taxpayer funds for this.
Now now, let’s not get upset when “your” government uses your money for the recount. On second thought, isn’t the group requesting the recount supposed to pay. O’ I just remembered, this is another tax increase isn’t it. So we will pay to see if we can sway the results so we can all pay more taxes to keep the unions working and pay for their retirement. Something sounds wrong here. Are we getting screwed again??
LOL. Is there ever a day that goes by that the lot of you on here all the time DON’T get yourselves all flustered up about everything in the world?? Take a deep breath and just relax… you’ll be fine.
Now I’m sure even this post will ruffle you all up some more… hahaha
mooseturd, not sure that’s a fair analogy… since any election count done relatively quickly on that day could have some margin of error, if the percentage difference between winning and losing is small, then it’s reasonable it could be within the error rate. In that case, the recount is more like a double-check on the results with a more careful accounting. They wouldn’t do a recount if the initial result was say 60% approval since the likelihood that it was 66.67% is just too low. But given this is currently at around 66.51% or something like that, it’s clearly within a likely margin of error.
Therefore, trying to use a coin analogy, I think this is more like trying to read a flipped coin from 25 feet away the first time and asking for the second look at the coin to be with a zoom lense instead. There’s no change in the underlying raw data (the actual votes or the first flip of the coin).
Who is checking the checkers?
Considering the massive amount of money contributed by the yes on B1 campaign, including the unions that will benefit greatly, the endorsements of most democratic politicians in the county, and the fact the no on B1 campaign was essentially unfunded, is anyone else concerned that Measure B1 money will find a way to tilt the outcome in their favor.
Again, I hope some taxpayer organization is monitoring the recount. What I expect is a disappointing outcome via a short-circuiting of the process. When Billions of taxpayer dollars at stake their is nothing the unions, The ACTC, and Haggerty won’t do to ensure their future funding.
The Valley Times is reporting that after the recount (partial recount in Berkeley), the measure again failed.
What a waste of taxpayer money to do a recount. Haggerty and Miley should both be removed from office.
They could have used the recount money to fix the potholes on 680. I guess when you’re gambling with taxpayer money, anything is a good bet.
wh0cd692739 [url=http://viagrageneric2017.com/]Generic Viagra[/url]
This reminds me of flipping coins with a small child. They often demand a reflip. When it comes out like they want, then it’s a valid flip. Well, I may not like the outcome of the recount and will demand another flip.