.

Number of Anti-SMART Signatures Unknown 1 Week Before Deadline

Repeal SMART organizer believes petitioners are close to 15,000 signatures; SMART GM reminds taxpayers that they'll be paying for a train system even if repeal effort is successful.

The head of the campaign to cut off taxpayer funds for a passenger train system in Marin and Sonoma counties says there’s no way of knowing whether the will reach its mandated target by the Jan. 27 deadline.

Clay Mitchell, co-chair of Repeal SMART, said dozens of people — volunteers, paid helpers, as well as professional petitioners — are trying to get registered voters to yank the funding carpet out from under the Sonoma-Marin Area Transit system that is expected to start running on local tracks by 2015 or 2016. Repeal SMART wants to repeal Measure Q, a quarter-cent sales tax bump approved by more than two-thirds of voters in 2008. Measure Q money provides the commuter train system’s biggest chunk of cash.

Mitchell said Tuesday there were more than 150 people who had clipboards with petitions spread around the two counties and it was impossible to give an accurate count of how many signatures they had gathered. He said he’s optimistic they will reach the 15,000 signatures Repeal SMART believes it needs to succeed.

“I wish I could say how many, but we’re somewhere in the range we need … somewhere in the ballpark,” he said. “But we’re spread so thin between the counties that we don’t get the feedback as quickly as we’d hoped. We have a certain amount in hand, but we don’t know how many those people have gotten, so we can’t get a decent count.”

The required number of signatures is up for debate; Mitchell said he’s still unclear on whether it’s 15,000 or 40,000. Election officials are allowing the SMART board to determine how many signatures must be verified to force the ballot measure, but Mitchell said it’s clear in state law that the lower number should be permitted.

“We feel the SMART board won’t call for an election unless we meet the higher number,” Mitchell said. “If that’s the case, we’d have to take them to court. … You’d have one authority saying yes to the lower number and one saying no, and that doesn’t fly legally if you ask me.”

, the general manager of SMART noted that the train system is obligated to pay for more than $200 million in construction contracts already awarded, even if the repeal effort is successful.

Farhad Mansourian’s most adamant and urgent message is that construction firms that have been awarded contracts must be paid by law based on language in the United States and California constitutions, meaning taxpayers would be paying the bills for a train system whether it’s built or not.

“Absolutely, we will be responsible for fulfilling the agreement of the contracts,” Mansourian said. “If the repeal effort succeeds, we would have to go to the State Board of Equalization and submit a report, because they are going to want to know how we are going to repay our debts.”

The board would extend the life of Measure Q — beyond the original 20 years — for as long as it takes to pay off the contracted companies, Mansourian said.

The SMART chief said he repeatedly has confronted Mitchell and other repeal leaders with the question about what good the repeal campaign will bring to solving the region’s transportation problems. It’s a point made in a recent guest editorial written by leaders of the Sonoma County Alliance and Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

“They’re leading people to a dark tunnel,” Mansourian said. “I asked them, ‘The day after you have won, do you know what happens to the taxpayers’ money?’ and they say that’s not their issue. I say that well they’re leading people do will be pretty poisonous soon.”

Some of the Repeal SMART petitioners have been harassed at storefront locations as well. Novato resident Toni Shroyer said she was intimidated by a man outside of the store at Vintage Oaks shopping center and has heard first-hand accounts from other petitioners about verbal harassment at other locations.

On Wednesday, Shroyer circulated an e-mail that said in part, “I am asking you to speak out against anyone interfering/blocking with the democratic process, which threatens our democracy. Bullying, intimidation, name-calling or blocking is not appropriate and it is akin to third-world tactics. I am hoping the SMART Board does not condone this behavior by their supporters.”

Mitchell said confrontations have taken place in Sonoma County, too. He said a group met at a Rohnert Park union hall to go over ways to counteract the petitioners, and several people in Windsor got in an argument last weekend in front of a store.

“We’ve had some volunteers quit because of this, and we have had to pay people to come work for us for $1 per signature,” Mitchell said. “Even some of the paid professionals have quit, saying that people are infringing on their ability to make a living.”

Mitchell said having the SMART board agree to put a revised rail proposal before the voters would be the best option at this point. What voters approved in 2008 was a 70-mile line between Cloverdale and Larkspur, not the truncated system that’s in the works, he said.

SMART said the Santa Rosa-to-San Rafael route — estimated to cost more than $400 million — is just the first phase and that it has every intention on extending the line when funds are lined up. Even with the initial shorter line, more than 1,000 jobs are being created, SMART said.

But if it comes to a lawsuit, “If at all possible we would ask for expedited treatment because a compelling reason for public not to have this drawn out,” Mitchell said. “The last thing I want to do is file a lawsuit. The only people who really benefit from filing lawsuit are the lawyers, and that for me is really frustrating. Taking somebody to court is the last result, and that’s why we took initiative to get this initiative going.”

Mansourian said he agrees with Mitchell on the point about the attorneys. He predicted in August that the repeal effort would fail and called it “a waste of time.” On Thursday, he said he maintains that stance.

“If they were not desperate, why would not be paying money to collect signatures?” he said. “And what happened to their grassroots campaign?”

Old N. Grouchy January 22, 2012 at 07:11 PM
They do know where all train stops are going to be . They also know the cost of it all as I just read it
Kevin Moore January 22, 2012 at 07:20 PM
Are you SMARTer than a 5th grader? SMART's sales tax growth was done by taking sales tax records from 1988 to 2007. They average that growth and project forward. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any compensation for population growth trends. Look at the Google charts. Sonoma and Marin are BUILT OUT. The population trend is nearly flat for the last 10 years... during the greatest building boom since WWII, the chart is nearly flat. (Yes, we can always build more houses without jobs or water resources.) The projections for sales tax revenue. Page 12 http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/Funding%20Plan%20-%2007-15-08%20Final%20Version.pdf 2009 updates to the tax revenue page 6 http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/Strategic%20Plan%20Final%20%2006-17-09.pdf 2010 annual report page 8 http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/AnnualReport10.pdf Now look at Marin's population growth, which will affect "sales tax" growth. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=county:06041&dl=en&hl=en&q=marin+population Now look at Sonoma's population growth http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=county:06097&dl=en&hl=en&q=sonoma+population
Rico January 23, 2012 at 05:46 PM
There was an article in the IJ 2 weeks ago that appeared very briefly online. It was about the terminus in downtown San Rafael should the SMART train ever make it that far. There were several ideas about where to put the train stop. One was to move it across to the north side of Fourth St. That would make it necessary for anyone transferring to a bus to cross Fourth St. that could cause additional traffic delays. One idea was that this would be a chance to build some more freeway side train oriented apartments where the bank is now. How they justify building more apartments at the very end of the train line is beyond me, but most everything done in the name of SMART is highly questionable at best. There were some estimates for the costs of the various ideas for the train terminus, I don't exactly remember what they were, but I believe one was for a little over $5 million. I guess if SMART is allowed to slap up some more train apartments, they can make a profit on that part of it. It really doesn't matter in nobody wants to rent a noisy apartment next to the train line and freeway as long as it gets built. Eventually they could turn that apartment building into a homeless shelter. There are many homeless people in that area, and I'm sure that living in an apartment next to the freeway would be much preferred to living under the freeway, like many do now.
Kevin Moore January 24, 2012 at 03:45 PM
ONCE AGAIN!!! SMART WAS REJECTED MORE THAN ONCE!
Kevin Moore January 24, 2012 at 03:47 PM
They have picked the general location. Please provide a link about the actual plans for building the San Rafael stations. Under the freeway and near the bus terminal is about as specific as I have seen.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »