KVNU’s For the People will be hosting a debate on the Cache County transit  referendum on November 1 from 4-6 PM.    The referendum would raise sales tax by one quarter of one percent, initially raising another $3 million tax revenue for the budget of the Cache Valley Transit District.   The debate would be highly structured and timed with questions agreed to and disclosed to all parties in advance.    Retired educator Jack Greene will argue for the bus tax while local realtor David James will argue against.

The questions will follow the following format:

Question read by moderator

60 second statement from Person A
90 Second response from Person B
30 second rebuttal from Person A

The next question will proceed as follows:

60 second statement from Person B
90 Second response from Person A
30 second rebuttal from Person B

This format would alternate until both sides had an equal number of opening statements.   Each participant would also have a 4 minute opening and closing statement.

Here are the questions disclosed and agreed to by both Mr. Greene and Mr. James:

1.   What impact, if any, would the proposed bus tax have on the local economy if implemented?
2.   What impact, if any, would the proposed bus tax have on the environment?
3.   Does Cache Valley need expanded transit service?
4.   What impact, if any, would the proposed bus tax have on congestion?
5.   What impact, if any, would the proposed bus tax have on further mobilizing the elderly, people with disabilities and others without traditional transportation?
6.   What impact, if any, would the proposed bus tax have on bus ridership rates within Cache County?

KVNU’s News Director Jennie Christensen just got off the phone with Joe Needham.   Last night, Jay Monson alleged that Needham’s campaign was distributing negative and inaccurate flyers on the IPP3 issue.    That flyer is below here on the blog.    Needham steadfastly denies that the flyers are his.  Needham will be a guest tonight on KVNU’s For the People.

-Tom

Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…

Laura Fisher of the People for Wet Water in Providence alleges Mayor Randy Simmons is attempting to alter the ballot.     Mayor Simmons will also respond.

We’ll hear from Cache County Councilman Brian Chambers on the proposed road tax.

Logan City Councilman Joe Needham responds to allegations of negative campaigning by his opponent Jay Monson.

An executive producer selected topic:  Logan City School District Superintendent Marshall Garrett.

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!

Tonight on KVNU’s For the People…

We’ll talk with our friend Jamie Forbush about a tragedy last night in Hyde Park.

Derek Monson of the Sutherland Institute joins us to discuss teacher certification and vouchers.   And we also touch base with Rob Miller of UtahAmicus.com.

Paul Campbell offers arguments against the proposed road tax.

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!

Richard Eyre of Parents for Choice in Education debates Teresa Theurer of Utahns for Public Schools regarding Referendum 1, or Utah’s Voucher Program.

Thanks to Paul Campbell for stating points of opposition to the road initiative.  I would like to make a formal response.

Air Quality.—We have an air quality problem.  For 10 days or so each year we see red air days.  Studies continue to figure out the exact source of the problems but it seems evident that automobiles play a major role.  The question is ‘will expanding roads make the problem worse?’  As I look around the valley, poor roads are not stopping development in the valley.  What I do see is increasing congestion from limited road options.  Automobiles generate significantly more pollution when they idle is stalled traffic than when they move quickly to their destination.  Avoiding building roads will not slow development in the valley and will WORSEN our air pollution problem.

Urbanization—The argument is that we need to force growth into the metro area.  This is to preserve our ‘quality of life’.  I have never understood the logic of those who want to protect us from ourselves.  What kind of quality of life do we have as we force everyone into a high density urban core?  Do we get the privilege of visiting the ‘pristine’ areas of the valley on Sunday?  This flawed logic is clearly illustrated when you look at the land use policies of the 19 local governmental entities in the valley.  Most cities have very restricted high density zoning (many have no high density zoning, some have startlingly low density zoning).  Logan just down zoned the bulk of its high density area.  The county is busy creating all kinds of 3-5 acre lots.  These zoning rules are the result of public input.  When reality flies so starkly in the face of theory, it is time to take a serious look at the theory.  People in Cache Valley will not accept forced urbanization.

Which brings me to my last point:  Choice.  Freedom.  Whatever you want to call it.  I am sure Mr Campbell means well, but the notion that some committee can or should master plan our lifestyles is a bit offensive.  And when I hear these ideas tossed around, it always comes back to the theory that a few know what is best for us little people.  Thanks but no thanks. 

Councilman Peterson did a great job making the case for roads in the paper on Sunday.  Nobody likes taxes but this is one we need and it will provide a return on our investment.

David James

Tom:

I have refused to say one negative comment about Joe Needham, my opponent, and will continue to do so.  However, several citizens in Logan have contacted me this evening about some very negative campaigning which is coming from Joe’s camp.  I am very sorry for the labeling which has occurred.  A copy of one flyer is attached.  It is my understanding that some homes had three pieces of information from Joe on their doorsteps today. I have seen only this one.

This is not only a very cheap shot, it is untrue.  I have never said, “Stick with coal, it’s the cheapest.”

When asked if I would have voted for IPP3 had I been on the council (which really is a moot point as IPP3 is a dead issue at present), I have given the honest answer that “yes, I would have voted for that.”  That was the recommendation from the power board and I believe from the Mayor.

I have also said that I am totally in favor of renewable energy when such is economically feasible and available.   I also have consistently said that any increase in power rates should be presented first to the citizens of Logan for their input.  This would not have to be a special election, but rather could easily be handled with a feedback sheet going to each customers home and have such sent back to the council. The city belongs to the citizens.  Increases in fees and taxation should have adequate hearings and time for feedback from constituents before proceeding.

It is my understanding that the Geothermal Project in Honeyville mentioned often by my opponent has been known since September to be unavailable to Logan City without a significant rate increase, and thus, it too, is a dead issue at this time.

I thought this entire situation may be something which you should be aware of.

Thank you for your efforts to help voters be better informed.

Jay Monson

From: Todd Beutler
To: ‘T.R. Grover’
Date: 30 Oct ’07 15:31
Subject: RE: KVNU Bus Tax Debate

Tom,

Thanks for the clarification.

I have checked and there is not going to be anyone available from my office
to meet the requested dates. I apologize for this. I know that David James
is an citizen active in the community you may try to find a similar citizen
that is for transit for your program.

Thanks for the invitation.

Todd Beutler
General Manager
Cache Valley Transit District

—–Original Message—–
From: T.R. Grover [mailto:tom@kolob.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:43 AM
To: Todd Beutler
Cc: ryanyonk@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: KVNU Bus Tax Debate

Todd,

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I just got back to Logan
late last night and had no internet on my
vacation (that’s part of really being on vacation these days!).

It seems there was a bit of confusion regarding our invitation. We do not
want to host a roads vs. bus debate. You
are correct, that would be confusing given the choices are not mutually
exclusive on the ballot. We would however,
like to have a formal, structured debate on the merits of the bus tax
increase itself Thursday. As I have stated, the
debate would feature David James arguing against. The debate would be
timed and questions would be agreed to
by all parties and disclosed in advance. Could you send a representative?

Thanks for your help Todd. It was also great to see you use the blog. I
hope to see more from you before the
election.

Keep on keep’n on.

Tom

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  10/302007

For More Information Contact: info@peopleforwetwater.org

Providence, October, 30 2007-

DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK IN PROVIDENCE

Providence City Initiative 001-2007 (water availability initiative) is one of the most talked about ballot issues in all of Cache Valley. Despite the fact that Providence City Initiative 001-2007 has been on the ballot for weeks and early voting has commenced with more than 100 persons having cast their ballots in early voting as of last Friday, Mayor Randy Simmons (a political science professor at USU) requested his City Attorney demand that his eviscerated version of the water ordinance recently passed by the City Council also appear on the ballot –or that the votes for Initiative 001-2007 not be counted!

Providence’s City Attorney wrote a letter to the County Clerk indicating that the Mayor’s version “must be placed on the ballot with the initiative.”  County Attorney George Daines, whose law firm also represents the City, drafted a letter setting forth the facts and requesting an opinion letter from the Assistant Utah Attorney General who represents the Chief Election Officer of the state, the Lieutenant Governor.  Mr. Daines opined that one of two options available was to “proceed with the present ballot indicating the initiative vote will not be counted and that vote will be rescheduled to a later election date.”  The initiative sponsors and People For Wet Water objected on the basis that a great deal of effort, time and expense has gone into educating the public about the initiative.  In addition, any special election would be held at the earliest in June 2008, allowing hundreds  of new building lots to be approved in Providence without requiring physically and legally available water.

The Assistant Utah Attorney General opined today that the City did not take the steps necessary to get the Mayor’s version of the law on the ballot and that the water initiative (Citizens’ Initiative #001-2007) should remain on the ballot and votes for the initiative should be counted.

Providence City has succeeded three times in court in keeping citizen referendum petitions off of the ballot. Although in each case the developer in question was defending the suit (trying to keep the referenda issues off the ballot), the Mayor directed the City Attorney to help the developers, spending what he claims is $50,000 in City legal expenses. He thus effectively assured that none of the petitions would appear on the ballot and effectively silenced the voices of over one thousand Providence registered voters.

“We view this as yet another tricky legal maneuver by the Mayor to keep the voters of Providence from having a say,” said Laura Fisher, a representative of People for Wet Water.

“This is especially troubling because the Mayor used a deadline to defeat the annexation referendum and now is seeking to avoid having a similar deadline applied to his Ordinance.  It is extremely disappointing that the Mayor would choose to pick another procedural trick to try to keep citizens’ votes to be literally thrown away instead of being counted,” said Denise Strong, one the numerous concerned citizens that formed People for Wet Water.

Although the Mayor has been quoted as defending his recent maneuvers as a simple and necessary quest for legal advice about the ballot, there were a number of citizens who had conversations back in the summer months with the Mayor and with the Providence City Recorder about whether the City Council’s water ordinance would appear on the ballot. The Recorder is quoted as having said it would not appear on the ballot, and the Mayor is said to have remained ambivalent in his answers.

“You’d think that a professor of political science would know that a ballot cannot be altered after an election has begun,” said Fisher.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                               

The Sutherland Institute is a conservative public policy think tank committed to shaping Utah law and policy based on a core set of governing principles.  The Institute strives to make Utah an example of good government for the rest of the nation and a great place to live, work, and raise a family.  Sutherland’s role in Utah’s current voucher debate is educational.  Additional research on vouchers can be found at www.sutherlandinstitute.org/abcs.asp.

To:  CVTD

From:  David James

The CVTD is asking for a tax increase.  They would like us to double their budget.  The picture they paint is rosy, the by-line simple – ‘buses are good’. 

We have reason to appreciate the current bus system.  Those who can’t provide for their own transportation are assisted.  The vast majority of people in the valley have the option to take the bus during the most commonly used times.  So when many of us heard the request to DOUBLE the budget, we asked ‘why’?  For me, the following questions came to mind.

1.       How do we know you are using your current budget efficiently?

a.       Many of us see a never ending parade of big, empty buses.  Why is service not tailored to meet the needs of the people instead of trying to be everything to everyone and not being good at anything?

b.       CVTD and LTD were recently merged.  The primary reason was for efficiency.  Yet one of your first actions is to request doubling your budget.  What saving did you garner?  Why the immediate request for more money?

2.       We have heard a lot of analysis regarding how effectively this new money would be used.  That analysis is pretty dismal (100% increase in money, 15% increase in ridership).  The only counter that we have heard is that you don’t like the analysis.  We would like to see a direct analysis from you and if it does indeed show these inefficiencies, why we should give you more money?

3.       Your budget grows as our economy grows.  You are seeing $300,000+ per year increases.  With a doubling of the tax percentage, you also double your annual increases.  This means $600,000+ per year increases.  Why do you need these increases?

4.       We hear a lot about politics with the CVTD.  Certain routes are there for ‘political’ reasons.  Proposed new routes are being evaluated to get certain political support for CVTD activities.  There are numerous awards from government and activist organizations but the big award, a significant percentage of people riding the bus, is missing.  Are you an organization that serves the people or do you serve politicians and political organizations?

5.       You have said that collecting fares are inefficient (suddenly efficiency is important).  There are no efforts made for advertising or other revenue generating activities.  There does seem to be a tremendous amount of ‘education’ activities and get out the vote work, but this is all done as an expense.  Why should we give you money when you are not willing to go out and work for self-reliance?

I appreciate the fact that you went and asked people what they would like to see improved in the bus system.  But I was aware of no public outcry.  The bus system isn’t pushed to anywhere near capacity.  I can ask anyone for a wish list and get quite a response.  This does not indicate need.  It is simply a wish list.

Most everything that I have read indicates that the hype for the tax increase is questionable.  It will not decrease congestion; the impact on pollution is negligible or may make things worse; the people who truly need the service are in fact already being served. 

My bottom line is there are many questions that beg for meaningful answers.  Yet all we get is ‘buses are good’.  Other issues in this election season have brought forth serious discussion with the ability to understand both sides of the issue.  The dodging and ducking of CVTD not only doesn’t engender trust, it raises suspicions.  You refuse to answer hard questions and you only want to participate when you can present your side alone.  This raises one big final question:  ‘Why should we trust you?’  My answer is that I don’t, I will not vote for the tax increase and I encourage my fellow citizens to do likewise.

Todd Buetler recieved this invitation from Tom Grover to engage in a debate

about the mertis of the Bus Tax.

KVNU's For the People will Host a debate on the
> proposed bus tax on Thursday November 1.   The
> debate will run
> from
> 4-6 pm, following the formats we have used for all
> of our formal on air debates.   The first hour will
> be formal, styled
> after collegiate parliamentary debate.   The second
> hour will be open to caller comments and quetions
> (for an
> example,
> see our October 10 voucher debate at
> http://kvnuforthepeople.com/?p=886).   I have also
> attached the format sheet
> for
> that debate.    The bus tax debate would be exactly
> the same format.   The questions for the debate will
> be agreed to
> by
> and disclosed to both participants in advance.
>
> David James has agreed to argue against the bus tax.
>  We would like to know if you or anyone you know of
> would be
> willing to argue in favor of it.   If you can help
> us in completing the debate, please let us know.   I
> will be out of
> town
> for the next few days, so please contact Ryan at
> 232-5916 or ryanyonk@yahoo.com
>
> Keep on, keep'n on
>
> Tom

Todd has inaccurately charactorized the debate as being between the bus tax 

and the road tax. 

"I was asked to participate in a debate pitting transit against roads.
I wanted to post my response to this request. Todd Beutler"

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have to wonder if 

Todd is just trying to avoid a debate about the merits of the Bus Tax itself. 

Todd the invitation is still open come and debate the Bust tax on it's own

merits. 

David James has agreed to argue against and we would love to have you 

argue for it. 

I was asked to participate in a debate pitting transit against roads.  I wanted to post my response to this request. Todd Beutler

Thanks for the invitation, however, I believe a debate of these two issues is a dis-service to the community and will only cause confusion.  I agree with Councilman Petersen as he stated on Crosstalk this morning that the Transit and Road initiatives should be considered independent on their own merit.  It is unfortunate that some have pitted them against each other when they both can be voted on either in favor or not, independent of each other. 

The Cache Valley Transit District would love to take some time to present our vision of how our organization will help the communities deal with growth and congestion.  Myself and our Board President will be out of town on this day but I will be happy to call in via phone and arrange to have Curtis Roberts, Finance Director and Mark Daines, Vice-President of the Board to the meeting.  We would appreciate time to present and then answer questions from the audience.  We will not however, debate roads versus transit.

As an example of the misinformation that is created by pitting these two initiatives against one another is that of air quality.  Some have stated as fact that the buses will create more pollution.  Attached is Dr. Randy Martin’s letter to the editor that was published in today’s Herald Journal.  Dr. Martin is one of the foremost experts in the area of air pollution and conducted the study on the buses.  I think that based on his comments it is not completely clear at this point what is going to make the difference with air pollution.

Dr. Martin’s Letter

Bus pollution data

misrepresented

To the editor:

As the advisor to a project recently

referenced by George Daines in his

opinion article “No to the Transit

Tax” (Sunday, Oct. 21), I am obliged

to correct a misstatement. I generally

try to stay politically neutral while

analyzing and presenting data, and

as such, I will try to succinctly summarize the results of our on-road bus/vehicle emissions study.

George was indeed correct when

he implied that our wintertime air

pollution problem (PM2.5) is dominated

by a NOx analog, ammonium

nitrate. Through our studies, we

further know that Cache Valley is

ammonia-rich, meaning that our

best chance for PM2.5 reduction

is through reduction of the nitrate

component. However, this is not as

simple as reducing NOx in the atmosphere (as George’s article implies).

The NOx emitted from tailpipes

and other combustion sources must

undergo complex chemical reactions

involving a class of compounds

called “volatile organic compounds”

(VOCs) to form nitric acid, which

can then combine with ammonia to

form ammonium nitrate PM2.5. The

question becomes: Is it the NOx or

the VOCs which limit the formation

of the nitric acid? We have asked

ourselves this question for the last

two years.

After collection of additional

ambient data by USU and intense

modeling efforts by the Utah Division

of Air Quality, it appears our

nitric acid formation is limited by

the availability of reactive VOCs.

The results of two separate models

both point to the same result: reductions of VOCs will produce more ammonium nitrate reductions than reductions in NOx or reductions in the combination of NOx and VOCs The bus/vehicle study we conducted was designed to measure the relative emissions between buses and “typical” passenger vehicles.

The results showed that for NOx, as

George indicated, the diesel buses

averaged 11-32 times more NOx per

mile than the passenger vehicles.

This is roughly how many vehicle

drivers would have to switch to mass

transit to produce a reduction (or at

least parity) in the emission of NOx.

However, the VOC emissions were

a different story. For the vehicles

examined, we found a one-to-one

ratio between diesel bus and car

VOC emissions. This would suggest

that any number greater than one

(driver-to-rider switch) would result

in a reduction of emitted VOCs.

Switching ridership to mass transit

would likely not help our local NOx

burden and could likely increase the

available NOx. However, with minimal

ridership switching, there would

be a decrease in the available VOCs,

followed by a subsequent decrease

in the formation of ammonium

nitrate. I hope this provides a more

complete picture of the realities of

our mass transit system and part of

its relationship to our local air quality issues.

Dr. Randy Martin

Associate Research Professor

Dept. of Civil & Env. Eng.

Utah State University