The Deanster
Well-known member
One of the East Bay Regional Park District Directors, Ayn Wieskamp, who is suing to stop the expansion of Carnegie OHV park, is up for re-election :thumbdown I say vote for the other guy. What say you?
Voting? post up moto friendly/unfriendly candidates
- Thread starter The Deanster
- Start date
The Deanster
Well-known member
Legislators that signed July 20, 2017 letter to California State Parks encouraging sale of Tesla park land to stop expansion of Carnegie.
Senator Steve Glazer, SD 7
Senator Bill Dodd, SD 03
Senator Nancy Skinner, SD 9
Senator Jerry Hill, SD 13
Senator Cathleen Galgiani, SD 5
Assembly Member Catherine B. Baker, AD 16
Assembly Member Timothy S. Grayson, AD 14
Senator Robert A. Wieckowski, SD 10
Assembly Member Kasen Chu, AD 25
Senator Jim Beall, SD 15
Assembly Member Phillip Y. Ting, AD 19
Senator Scott Wiener, SD 11
Assembly Member Marc Berman, AD 24
Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, AD 22
Assembly Member Ron Bonta, AD 18
Assembly Member Marc Levine, AD 10
Senator Steve Glazer, SD 7
Senator Bill Dodd, SD 03
Senator Nancy Skinner, SD 9
Senator Jerry Hill, SD 13
Senator Cathleen Galgiani, SD 5
Assembly Member Catherine B. Baker, AD 16
Assembly Member Timothy S. Grayson, AD 14
Senator Robert A. Wieckowski, SD 10
Assembly Member Kasen Chu, AD 25
Senator Jim Beall, SD 15
Assembly Member Phillip Y. Ting, AD 19
Senator Scott Wiener, SD 11
Assembly Member Marc Berman, AD 24
Assembly Member Kevin Mullin, AD 22
Assembly Member Ron Bonta, AD 18
Assembly Member Marc Levine, AD 10
The Deanster
Well-known member
Yeah, and my rep is on the list :nchantr
Voting to repeal the gas tax will cut funding to CA State Parks and the off-highway division. The vast majority of funds are mandated for roads/infrastructure but some is for parks. I say vote no on prop 6, fix the roads and help parks.
Voting to repeal the gas tax will cut funding to CA State Parks and the off-highway division. The vast majority of funds are mandated for roads/infrastructure but some is for parks. I say vote no on prop 6, fix the roads and help parks.
The Deanster
Well-known member
East Bay Regional Park District, California, Measure FF, Parcel Tax
A parcel tax is on the ballot for East Bay Regional Park District voters in Contra Costa County and Alameda County, California, on November 6, 2018.
A yes vote is a vote in favor of authorizing the East Bay Regional Park District to renew for 20 years a parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—of $12 per year for a single family parcel and $8.28 per year for a multi-family residential unit to fund park maintenance and wildfire protection.
A no vote is a vote against authorizing the East Bay Regional Park District to renew for 20 years a of $12 per year for a single family parcel and $8.28 per year for a multi-family residential unit to fund park maintenance and wildfire protection.
Should we keep giving these guys our money? :mad
A parcel tax is on the ballot for East Bay Regional Park District voters in Contra Costa County and Alameda County, California, on November 6, 2018.
A yes vote is a vote in favor of authorizing the East Bay Regional Park District to renew for 20 years a parcel tax—a kind of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value—of $12 per year for a single family parcel and $8.28 per year for a multi-family residential unit to fund park maintenance and wildfire protection.
A no vote is a vote against authorizing the East Bay Regional Park District to renew for 20 years a of $12 per year for a single family parcel and $8.28 per year for a multi-family residential unit to fund park maintenance and wildfire protection.
Should we keep giving these guys our money? :mad
The Deanster
Well-known member
Assemblymember Kansen Chu and Congressman Ro Khanna have been moto-friendly when I've dealt with them.
The Deanster
Well-known member
Never mind, this guy is a jerk too.
Dev Gandhi
Tesla Park
I would support the Tesla Park to be developed as a low impact recreation area. Park District should not open it to off-road vehicles, as it would have a devastating effect on the terrain, natural habitat, biological resources and the wildlife.
Last edited:
catch2otwo
Well-known member
Last I looked prop 6 had no provisions for making the money from the gas tax 100% ear marked for road/infrastructure or anything else for that matter. I forget where I found it but it said something like only 20% of the money actually went to road work. i think the same goes for the old gas tax.
Id be happy to more tax if it all went to infrastructure improvements. The way I read the info was its all just going into a general fund. Im not OK with that
The Deanster
Well-known member
I don't know what percent goes to what but here is a list of where the dollars go from the bill text..
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1
(1) The revenues estimated to be available for allocation under the act to local agencies are estimated over the next 10 years to be as follows:
(A) Fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) to local street and road maintenance.
(B) Seven billion five hundred million dollars ($7,500,000,000) for transit operations and capital.
(C) Two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) for the local partnership program.
(D) One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) for the Active Transportation Program.
(E) Eight hundred twenty-five million dollars ($825,000,000) for the regional share of the State Transportation Improvement Program.
(F) Two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) for local planning grants.
(2) The revenues estimated to be available for allocation under the act to the state are estimated over the next 10 years to be as follows:
(A) Fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) for state highway maintenance and rehabilitation.
(B) Four billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) for highway bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation.
(C) Three billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) for high priority freight corridors.
(D) Two billion five hundred million dollars ($2,500,000,000) for congested corridor relief.
(E) Eight hundred million dollars ($800,000,000) for parks programs, off-highway vehicle programs, boating programs, and agricultural programs.
(F) Two hundred seventy-five million dollars ($275,000,000) for the interregional share of the State Transportation Improvement Program.
(G) Two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) for freeway service patrols.
(H) Seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) for transportation research at the University of California and the California State University.
It is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Transportation meet the following preliminary performance outcomes for additional state highway investments by the end of 2027, in accordance with applicable state and federal standards:
(1) Not less than 98 percent of pavement on the state highway system in good or fair condition.
(2) Not less than 90 percent level of service achieved for maintenance of potholes, spalls, and cracks.
(3) Not less than 90 percent of culverts in good or fair condition.
(4) Not less than 90 percent of the transportation management system units in good condition.
(5) Fix not less than an additional 500 bridges.
(o) Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Transportation leverage funding provided by this act for trade corridors and other highly congested travel corridors in order to obtain matching funds from federal and other sources to maximize improvements in the state’s high-priority freight corridors and in the most congested commute corridors.
(p) Constitutionally protecting the funds raised by this act ensures that these funds are to be used only for transportation purposes necessary to repair roads and bridges, expand the economy, and protect natural resources.
(q) This act advances greenhouse gas reduction objectives and other environmental goals by focusing on “fix-it-first” projects, investments in transit and active transportation, and supporting Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and transportation plans.
I think this is the first bill that does actually force the gov to use the money where they said they would.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1
(1) The revenues estimated to be available for allocation under the act to local agencies are estimated over the next 10 years to be as follows:
(A) Fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) to local street and road maintenance.
(B) Seven billion five hundred million dollars ($7,500,000,000) for transit operations and capital.
(C) Two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) for the local partnership program.
(D) One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) for the Active Transportation Program.
(E) Eight hundred twenty-five million dollars ($825,000,000) for the regional share of the State Transportation Improvement Program.
(F) Two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) for local planning grants.
(2) The revenues estimated to be available for allocation under the act to the state are estimated over the next 10 years to be as follows:
(A) Fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) for state highway maintenance and rehabilitation.
(B) Four billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) for highway bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation.
(C) Three billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) for high priority freight corridors.
(D) Two billion five hundred million dollars ($2,500,000,000) for congested corridor relief.
(E) Eight hundred million dollars ($800,000,000) for parks programs, off-highway vehicle programs, boating programs, and agricultural programs.
(F) Two hundred seventy-five million dollars ($275,000,000) for the interregional share of the State Transportation Improvement Program.
(G) Two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) for freeway service patrols.
(H) Seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) for transportation research at the University of California and the California State University.
It is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Transportation meet the following preliminary performance outcomes for additional state highway investments by the end of 2027, in accordance with applicable state and federal standards:(1) Not less than 98 percent of pavement on the state highway system in good or fair condition.
(2) Not less than 90 percent level of service achieved for maintenance of potholes, spalls, and cracks.
(3) Not less than 90 percent of culverts in good or fair condition.
(4) Not less than 90 percent of the transportation management system units in good condition.
(5) Fix not less than an additional 500 bridges.
(o) Further, it is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Transportation leverage funding provided by this act for trade corridors and other highly congested travel corridors in order to obtain matching funds from federal and other sources to maximize improvements in the state’s high-priority freight corridors and in the most congested commute corridors.
(p) Constitutionally protecting the funds raised by this act ensures that these funds are to be used only for transportation purposes necessary to repair roads and bridges, expand the economy, and protect natural resources.
(q) This act advances greenhouse gas reduction objectives and other environmental goals by focusing on “fix-it-first” projects, investments in transit and active transportation, and supporting Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) and transportation plans.
I think this is the first bill that does actually force the gov to use the money where they said they would.
Last edited:
The Deanster
Well-known member
Don't disagree. OHV park funding, roads and gas are moto-related but I don't want to start a big debate here.
catch2otwo
Well-known member
Thanks deanster for info. The only thing I have issue with is the phrasing "expand the economy" in your bolded text. That sounds pretty vague haha