Carl and Leslee Guardino watch vote totals Tuesday, November 4 at their Los Gatos home.
Will the Measure B sales tax approval for BART completion go down the tubes, like the convention center expansion did in 2002, leaving San Jose with a blue striped circus tent instead of a real building? Both measures were approved by a majority of voters, but failed to capture the two-thirds approval needed for tax measures.
This time, the margin’s even closer: four-tenths of a percent shy of the magic number at 66.27 percent, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. (2002’s Measure F won 64.8 percent of the vote.)
Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Carl Guardino, who managed the “Yes on Measure B” campaign, is not giving up hope and notes that 164,000 ballots remain to be counted. Results announced Wednesday tabulated the 461,311 poll votes and early absentee votes. What were not counted were absentee ballots turned in at polling places or the 30,000 provisional votes by voters who showed up at the wrong polling place and given a “provisional” ballot, which in only counted after the voter’s registration is verified.
Guardino notes that the current count includes “the high turnout of absentee voters that tends to include older and more conservative voters.” In other words, the results are colored by voters who are more likely to vote against a tax increase. “We won 67.75 percent of poll voters,” he adds, enough to pass the measure if the results weren’t contaminated by those pesky early voters.
Guardino notes that voters who run to the polls with their absentee ballots (like this writer) tend to match poll vote patterns. Which means that bunch of ballots will likely favor the measure by a few tenths of a percent.
Problem is, if it matches or falls slightly below the ratio of the already counted non-absentee votes, the measure will fail. “We need them to break .15 [of a percent] higher than yesterday,” Guardino says.
So the outcome is by no means assured, but passage of the BART bill is within the range of statistical possibility, if Guardino’s math is correct. “It’s actually pretty do-able,” he waxes optimistic.
The Registrar of Voters has until early December to sort this all out, though it probably won’t take that long. So, as our Yogi says, it ain’t over ’til it’s over. Or until the fat conductor sings. Or whatever.
We just advised Guardino to keep counting until he gets the result he wants, a suggestion he seemed to like.
Some context might help this discussion. I recall that in 1984, I was enthusiastic about the proposal to pay a penny sales tax to add a new lane to each side of Hwy 101. But when I used the final product, I was startled to see that diamonds on the new fast lane barred solo drivers from using that lane. That was not part of the original deal, and it seems to me to have been an act of deception rendering all later VTA claims unworthy of belief.
The latest proposed trick appeared in the San Jose Business Journal a few weeks ago, and that was a VTA suggestion that usage of the fast, diamond 101 lane be modified so that solo drivers could use the fast lane upon paying a fee. That is, VTA thinks we should pay for that lane twice, once through the penny sales tax and 24 years later through a special fee.
If you consider the VTA/BART 1/8 cent in light of the history of Hwy 101, why would we believe that they mean what they say?
I’m wondering why Carl doesn’t ask me to check the math….
I think it’s amazing that there were as many “no” votes as there were. After all, Carl outspent the opponents about a zillion to one, and he resorted to dirty tricks to try to ger the “no on B” ballot arguments surpressed. If B pases, watch for big-dig style cost overruns on this project. Expect all other transit improvements in the county to fall by the wayside to bail out BART. And watch for more tax increases in future years to bail out VTA once again.
GP #2,
Regardless if Measure B fails to get the ridiculous 2/3 supermajority, I think it’s safe to say that an overwhelming majority of SCCo. voters said YES to BART/SJ! In this economy, 66+% in favor; a true mandate to get the project done indeed. I think my BART stance has been vindicated by the masses. And can I get a round of applause for Prop. 1A!! Can you say high-speed rail for Diridon Station/downtown San Jose! Ah yes, Life is good.
As a home owner and active member of the downtown San Jose community, I look forward to BART completing our rail system around the Bay.
However the final vote comes out, it’s clear that a large majority of Santa Clara County voters are enthusiastic about BART and want to see it come to Silicon Valley.
Tony #4:
Are you a champion for BART or just for yourself? Regardless of 66% or 44%, the measure loses. Ballots are still being counted, so it might work out for you afterall, but your comment above just further emphasizes how little you care about actually moving this region forward.
As to 1A, yes, I believe many people can say the words “high-speed rail for Diridon Station/downtown San Jose.” I can also say things like, “Jessica Alba is waiting for me in my bedroom” Problem with both statements is that no matter how many times I say it, the liklihood of it actually happening is very small. But hey, kudos to the state for putting us a few more hundreds of people of this state who added hundreds of millions of dollars in annual debt service obligations. Looking forward to that $10 billion dollar EIR report in a few years and the next ballot proposition to pay for more of the tracks… Way to go dude. You rock!!
Having rail around the bay and jobs in the area are two things that seem like a good thing considering the dump our economy has taken. The leaders of the BART campaign seem to have taken a chance.
I hope we see BART!!
Less traffic, reduced pollution, new jobs….I can definitely understand why some of you have your panties in a bind over this one. BART Measure B is for the greater good. Period.
See the forest. See the trees. The absolute necessity of a transportation system that will reduce the worry about diamonds and lanes should trump other issues.
The people of California have seen the value of infrastructure projects. We have the opportunity in this time of chaos to supply jobs and build a sustainable transportation system.
Perhaps mistakes have been made and will be made. Is inaction a viable alternative? The next time we bring BART to the table it will cost more.
#1
As you mentioned, the current plsn is to turn the 101 carpool lane into a 24 hour toll lane. Ask Mr. Roadshow if you find that hard to believe.
Is that what we voted for?
Tony D.-
The test for both projects is not at the ballot box. It is in the financials.
1A will be successful if it is built for 40 billion. It will be a fiasco if it ends up costing 100 billion and destroys the state’s bond rating. I’m hoping for the first, and fearing the second.
Same with BART-SJ. The real question is whether VTA can afford to build it, and whether the ridership estimates are a load of hooey. If VTA bankrupts itself to get 40,000 riders per year, the extension is going to be as popular as the big dig.
The question is not BART versus nothing.
There are four reasonable options.
One is BART connecting to Caltrain in San Jose.
One is BART connecting to light rail in Milpitas.
One is Caltrain connecting to BART in Fremont.
One is high speed rail to Oakland.
Any of the four would get us “Rail around the bay”.
Many people support option number one. Can any of you tell me where the money will come from?
Looking at the economic and climate dual crisis we are in, it seems very logical to make this investments…and other such projects already planned and ready to go!!!
This project closes a critical link in the Bay transportation network, and that word is the key…it is a network, which means that adding this segment will have value beyond the specific ridership planned for the segment.
In addition, given our environmental situation the cost per person, seems very small given that we need every possible project that helps reduce GHG…and as we see 2/3 of voters agree!
#4 Tony B
The only reality on the BART Measure B is that the majority of the voters were “BLIND SIDED” by the media. The SVLG spent a great deal of money to push Measure B yes vote. The Mercury News was not truthful with the residents of Santa Clara County, their editorials were as lop sided as could be.Gary Richards news articles including this morning`s article by him on BART were totally one sided.
There was a BART debate held in San Jose at the Hoover Center that the Mercury News refused to cover, not a word of the debate before the debate or after the debate. Absolutly No Coverage.
The Mercury staff was in bed with SVLG, a powerful lobby group that likes to “Spin and Spend”. Spin the truth and spend taxpayers money. Or maybe a better term would be to call this group a tax and spend lobby group.
Tax us and spend our dollars.
Tony as Greg Perry said,“there were other options”, options that might not “bankrupt VTA”. But the truth was hidden from the voters.
Remember when the citizens of San Jose first voted down Bart? As I recall, they also voted down the CPA in the same election, but the city managed to build it, a copy of a Frank Lloyd Wright design that looks great in Arizona, the desert, but certainly never did fit the San Jose landscape. Mr. Wright designed structures to fit settings. I believe this design was executed by FLW architects, not Mr. Wright himself. Remember when the balcony collapsed, that was a good one!
Well, I agree with Zappelli on this one. Bart is not going to directly benefit me, won’t get me to my job, and to think of the mess it will cause on Santa Clara Street! Then the thoughts of the caliber of people it will bring to SJ’s nightlife and festivals.
This project was tainted when it passed EPA guidelines to be built in the summer of 2001. Yeah, right, Ron Gonzales, the mayor who would bring Bart to San Jose. That was his ad when he ran for his second term, which was paid for by the builders of San Jose! Is anyone here seeing a connection….and then the connection as to how the airport was named after Mineta…
I would have voted for BART if it were running on the west side of the bay, between San Francisco, San Jose, and stopping at the airport. Now that would reduce traffic in this area, and benefit Santa Clara County.
Running on the east side of the bay there will be no traffic reduction, and no benefit to Santa Clara County taxpayers.
Why do many Measure B opponents focus on ad hominem attacks? Isn’t it much more productive to examine the many potential benefits to workers, families, and visitors of this region, and the significant quality of life enhancements to them?
For example, there is little or no doubt that BART extension into Silicon Valley will:
* provide tens of thousands of new construction jobs and ongoing permanent jobs,
* significantly reduce traffic congestion, pollution, and energy consumption,
* ring the SF Bay with rail transportation and more connective multi-modal transportation means,
* enable greater mobility of handicapped persons and those non-owners of vehicles.
* pump multi-billions of dollars into our local economy over the coming decades.
With these and many other benefits of the BART extension, it is unsurprising that over 66% of voters favor it currently.
I hope everyone is enjoying the Orwellian spin being put out by BART supporters. Right now, Measure B has NOT passed. It doesn’t have 2/3ds. But the Pro-BART guys are saying that because so many people voted FOR B, it must mean we want it, therefore we should build it at least part-way. HUH? This is called moving the goalposts. The rule is this tax needs 2/3ds. If it doesn’t get it,the people said: NO. They didn’t say SOME, that wasn’t on the ballot. It seems to me that the pro-BART supporters could care less about popular will and view citizen approval as an unfortunate necessity for their costly scheme.
It’s interesting and a bit disturbing how some folks want these projects regardless of the facts.
Do you go to the store and start paying for something you want there even though you can’t take it home with you for a long time, if ever? Do you start paying for this item that you can’t take home even though you don’t know how much it will eventually cost you? If you do, then you will love BART and high-speed rail. If you only buy items that you can afford and that you know how much they cost, then you voted ‘No” on these projects.
Opposing these measures does not mean I don’t support mass transit—I do—sensible mass transit as has been outlined on this and other sites many times.
This is no time to further increase our debt.
#19: So there’s no traffic in the East Bay? Have you been on 880 recently. I submit that 880 is the worst congested corridor in the Bay Area. 680 has been bad too. That is primarily because of the lack of rail connecting Oakland/Fremont to San Jose.
Wonder Woman #18: It won’t benefit me, so don’t build it? That’s precisely the selfish attitude that got us 8 years of Bush. Are you kidding me? You only support something if you can personally benefit from it?
Following the emerging results of the Measure B BART vote since the election is no doubt filled with anticipation or chagrin on both sides of this issue. What we need to do as a Bay Area residents and citizens is to take a hard look at the long term implications of not moving forward with the initial phases of construction, should the 2/3 majority required majority not prevail. The intended or unintended consequences are the loss of 1000’s of jobs, fractured transportation systems as an outgrowth of NIMBY and silo public policy decisions, and millions of tons of increased C02 production at a time when climate change is upon us. Real change takes real leadership. We as a society are dealing with multi-generational, socio-economic issues around energy, economy, transportation, and climate change. To put this off on future generations is myopic and short sighted. It all comes down to committment, and what we’re prepared to do, how much change we want to make, and what kind of difference we choose to have in society. SVLGs is committed to real change and those that haven’t supported this measure, are only willing to change with preconditions. That approach will not make the difference Silicon Valley, and society needs
So far, not one measure B proponent has said how they will pay for the project.
I don’t care if your project will cure cancer and cook me breakfast daily. If you can’t show how you can pay for it, it doesn’t matter.
Whether or not B passes, there isn’t enough money to build BART clear to Diridon station. This is why they are already talking about a rump system that stops in Milpitas or Berryessa.
It’s hard to argue that a half-BART is the best solution. It’s clearly worse than having a standard gauge train that goes the whole distance.
Transportation?
That’s just another flavor of koolaid the locals here like to drink.
Will any of the people that voted for BART or the bullet train ever plan to ride the BART or bullet train or even know where the heck the BART or bullet train even plans to go?
No. No. and No. Doesn’t matter though, mass transit is for the other guy.
Even though I’ll never use it and it costs me tons of money, it makes me feel good to vote for it. That’s what really matters.
But heck it must be good, it’s a multi-multi-billion dollar transportation bill! Besides, the people that brought you the lightrail-to-nowhere-slowly are backing it – what could go wrong?
As for the bullet train, lemme see if I have the concept down. I’m going to take the bullet train to LA and then what? I’ll rent a car of course. It all makes perfect sense!
Novice. I don’t even understand your much of your logic. Then again, I hardly ever do. Those of us on the east side of San Jose know very well where BART would go and do plan to use it for trips to SF, Oakland, etc. Many of us already drive to packed parking lots in Fremont for those trips. I’d also love to have commuters from Fremont to San Jose on the train and off the roads. We all breath the same air that is polluted by cars stalled on the freeways.
Bullet train would be faster or equivalent to airline travel with all the security considerations. What difference does it make what we do on the other end? It’s the same whether we fly or take the train. Bullet train travel is the far superior choice for the environment and would likely be more comfortable and cheaper or equivalent in cost.
BART to SJ might have had a chance if it had been beyond the bounds of VTA control. VTA’s abysmal performance over the years was a hindrance, as was Dr. Feel Good Guardino’s association with the Measure. Whenever Carl champions a cause, I put my wallet in my front pocket.
BART,Boston and Santa Clara County?
Let us pray that the BART Measure B if passed doesn`t turn the taxpayers of Santa Clara County into another Boston? The “Big Dig in Boston” cost the residents a total $19 billion while their political board and press told the voters the cost to do the “Big Dig” was $2.9 billion.
Now all the Political people that endorced the Big Dig are gone and the Boston tax payers are stuck with the bill for the differance.The Big Dig was a 1.9 mile tunnel, the San Jose portion of our tunnel is 4.9 miles long.
Remember they told us the total cost of
our 19.1 mile BART extension is $6 billion. Make a mental note.
Remember the VTA has promised to deliver the “new costs” for BART in December,long after we voted for Measure B.
Who is checking the BART count. just Carl Gardino? Wow!
We (the wife and kids) are going to spend the weekend in LA.
Time comparison:
Drive time from SF to LA.
– 6 hours to drive from SF to LA
Bullet time from SF to LA.
– 45 minutes to park and be at your gate.
– 2 hours 30 minutes from SF to LA
– 30 minutes in LA to rent a car.
– 3 hours and 15 minutes total to bullet to LA
Cost comparison:
Drive cost.
– 75 dollars for gas
Bullet cost.
– 2 days to park at the bullet lot. 30 dollars.
– 2 days car rental. 140 dollars
– price of bullet tickets x 4 = ???
So it’ll cost me *big* bucks to save 3 hours on my trip from SF to LA?
What am I missing?
A multi-multi-billion dollar, 30 years out, high-speed version of our empty lightrail cars. Awesome!
Supposedly we need this train because of the projected population increase in California. Since that population increase is a result of illegal immigration, the high speed rail is yet another example of the tax burden that is imposed on us by illegal aliens.
This thread is about the proposed BART extension, not the high-speed rail.
What, exactly, is the purpose of the BART extension? Who would benefit from it: A few thousand commuters between San Jose and Oakland?
If you want to live in San Jose and work in Oakland, or vice-versa, that’s your problem to sort out. I have no desire to subsidize that kind of behavior.
You need to deal with the consequences of your own choices. Either 1) live closer to your job, 2) get on the (existing) bus, or 3) suck it up and get on the 880 parking lot with everyone else who has made the same kinds of choices. I suggest option #1.
In the near future, as everyone now realizes, energy is going to be much more limited and valuable. The appropriate response is not to build massive public works projects like the BART extension, which might actually take more energy to build than it could ever save in terms of reducing car trips. The real, long-term, sustainable solution is to get jobs and housing in close proximity to each other and to greatly increase bicycle and pedestrian travel options.
This era of relying on mechanical transportation, of all varieties, as part of our daily routines is coming to an end. We can’t afford this expensive, inefficient BART project. Now get out there and get some exercise, people!
1/4 cent rejected by voters
1/8 cent rejected by voters
Can we expect a 1/16 cent measure in two years time that has “significant support from our secret poll”???
Just asking.
Perhaps an advisory measure should be put on the ballot that said “Shall the VTA live within its budget and the original Measure A passed in 2000 without additional taxpayer funds?”
From Carl Guardino:
In spite of great economic uncertainty, voters and taxpayers in Santa Clara County overwhelmingly voted YES to Measure B on Tuesday, to bring BART to Santa Clara County.
However, we will not know for at least a few more days, or even a few more weeks, if they said YES in numbers great enough to meet the 2/3 vote threshold that is required.
The update is as follows: With 105,000 votes still to be counted (roughly 16 percent of the total), we stand at 66.41 percent yes to 33.5 percent no. We need 66.67 percent yes to win.
When all the votes are counted, approximately 615,000 people will have voted on Measure B. We expect that the decision will turn within roughly a 600 vote margin. Either way, it will be a stirring reminder that every vote counts.
Let me also offer three observations:
* First, I am incredibly proud of our Leadership Group and Campaign staff, who have worked tirelessly for the past four months to try to deliver this important transportation improvement to our region. Their passion and professionalism – days, nights and weekends for more than three months – is humbling. If you have not yet sent my team a note of appreciation, I hope you will pen a note back today that I can pass along to them.
* Second, it is abundantly clear that in spite of a challenging economy, the citizens of Santa Clara County want BART. With such a strong reaffirmation, it is important that private and public sector citizens continue to make the BART extension a reality.
* Third, while we focused on attacking an important policy issue, the opposition focused on attacking people. The level of incivility and divisiveness was stunning. We never responded in kind, nor will we do so. In the words of former Congressman Tom Campbell, it will mean pushing back more directly on the divisive few with “soft words but hard arguments.” We will never behave like them, but we need to stand up more directly to their uncivil behavior.
I will keep you updated as the Registrar of Voters continues to tally the final ballots. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Carl
Using really quick math. This thing needs to get 68% of the last 105,000 votes. This is possible and I hope it happens.
BART Simpson
68% of remaining votes would be twice the margin of error on the remaining sample. The probability of that is well below 0.1 %.
Speaking of imbibing a sickeningly sweet beverage metaphorically laced with something. Who believes that we can keep adding highways to reduce the gridlock that exists while adding houses and condos up and down the highway?
We have a transportation system based on premises dreamed up after WWII, open space for more roads with no consideration of environmental impact. Measure B is a baby step in the Marshall Plan we need to convert to a 21st century economy. We are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and we can’t even settle on that.
I am constantly struck by the integrity of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and I am hard-pressed to think of any organization or individual more committed to the health and success of the Silicon Valley than the Leadership Group or its leader, Carl Guardino.
To retain its unique position in this competitive global economy, the Silicon Valley needs to continue to attract and maintain the innovative thinkers who have been responsible for building the reputation and knowledge-base that define the Silicon Valley. The Silicon Valley will remain vibrant and relevant only if it is easily accessible to the Bay Area and the rest of the world, and Measure B provides the final link to connect the entire Bay Area and the San Jose International Airport via BART, our best public transportation system.
No matter what the outcome of the vote on Measure B, we simply cannot afford to put the already delicate future of Silicon Valley at greater risk of becoming obsolete. To be cutting-edge requires smart infrastructure, and that means BART.
We now need about 69% of the remaining 36,000 uncounted votes to get the BART measure passed. It will take a miracle.
Maybe Obama will get the feds to pay for it. Imagine, the next great depression hits; the McInery family is out of work. National public works projects include the BART tunnel. Johnny Mac and singal gal get work diggin tunnels for BART.
Could Happen!!
Gee Marge,
Maybe I could get a steady job working a BART train, they say it`s easy, even I can do it.
Mr. Guardino and Mr. Burns need to talk to the other side. Pushing through new taxes does not appear to be working.
You can build a half system, but you risk destroying the brand; a bad extension pretty much has killed San Mateo County’s support for BART.
EK in Los Altos,
What part of 66.78% Super Majority don’t you understand? 33.22% voted against Measure B/BART; how in the hell does that constitute “most voters” voting “thumbs down?” Absentee ballots turned in on Election Day, as well as provisional ballots, tend to be young/progressive voters…not conservative or anti-BART! Get your facts straight pal. As for “state-of-the-art bus or light-rail system,” now I know you’re inhaling something that you shouldn’t.
EK in Los Altos,
Yeah, “pal”.
“Get your facts straight.”
#41 Tony
I am a firm believer in the people.If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any crisis.“The great point is to bring them the real facts!”
#41 Tony and #32 Carl
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
#8 Hugh Jardonn
“Lobbyist arn`t the problem-the lack of transparency surrounding lobbyist is what causes the trouble.”
Who stuffed the ballot box?
I find it hard to believe that this measure could pass when most voters voted thumbs down and then the absentee ballots, who are probably more conservative and anti-BART, supposedly voted for it. Hopefully, this will be challenged and overturned.
This measure should never, ever survive as BART is an albatross in that it is not standard gauge. It is wide gauge and, therefore, an anomaly. Let’s build a state-of-the-art bus or light rail system which can interface with the BART terminal in Fremont at a fraction of the cost.