Every driver wants potholes fixed. But Fresno County needs a road tax that does more

Any driver in Fresno County knows the sad state many local roadways are in today.

Along with crumbling asphalt are the roads that carry too much traffic because they have not been upgraded as the population has grown.

Those are real needs, and a key way to get improvements is Measure C, a countywide tax already in place. First approved by voters in 1986, the idea now is to extend it for another 30 years, from 2027 to 2057.

That would require voters to continue a half-cent sales tax they imposed on themselves. The new Measure C would raise $6.84 billion over its life.

Proponents — the Fresno County Transportation Authority and the Fresno Council of Governments — are pushing to land the new measure on the November ballot.

But opponents complain that the public outreach in developing the new measure has been poor, that the process is being rushed, and that not all parts of the county will share equally in the benefits of the 30-year tax. Opponents also contend the measure puts most of the funding into pavement repairs, and not new transportation technologies that meet the challenge of climate change. They say certain communities are as interested in getting sidewalks and gutters — which they don’t have now — as they are in fixing roads.

Opinion

The current measure does not expire until June 30, 2027, yet proponents are pushing hard to get the measure lined up for the November ballot.

It might be that the proponents foresee the possibility of a recession in two years, meaning voters would be down on any tax measures. Couple that with the high-stakes politics of a presidential election year, and Measure C backers would rather try now than have it caught up in that political cauldron.

Public outreach lacking

That might be a wise political calculation. But as public agencies, the first responsibility of the COG and Transportation Authority is to the public they serve. That means having as open and transparent a discussion as possible.

Supporters point to polls they have done that indicate widespread backing for the measure. They also reference door-to-door surveying and 14 meetings as examples of outreach.

But critics say the process has been anything but public. The progressive-minded Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability and the long-tenured League of Women Voters are in unison in contending the process has been too rushed and too skimpy on true public engagement.

The issue crystallized on June 30, when the Council of Governments board was to vote on recommending a November ballot measure. The agencies’ staff used a Zoom account — online meeting software — that did not have proper controls. So hackers had a field day making lewd drawings everyone could see, and translation glitches marred the audio. The meeting had to be called off and postponed to this Thursday, July 7, when the COG board is to vote on a November ballot recommendation.

For agencies whose stock in trade is technical expertise, the June 30 meeting was an embarrassing setback.

Disservice to climate realities

Then there is the reality of climate change vs. the funding called for in the measure for environmental sustainability. How big a slice does that category receive under the proposal? A whopping 2%, or $144 million. By comparison, local street repair gets $3.5 billion, or 51%.

The San Joaquin Valley already has some of the nation’s worst air quality. Climate scientists say we need to do more, not less, to reduce the global-heating impact of burning fossil fuels and the air pollution that results. A 2% allocation does not cut it.

There is also a reduction in how much money will go to public transit — from 19% of current funding to 12% in the new measure. Proponents point out that total money allocated to transit will go up, from $15 million per year now to about $27 million per year under the proposed measure.

But critics say how van pools and senior transit programs get eliminated or reduced in the new measure, diluting that increase in dollars.

Poor politics

Fresno city leaders don’t plan to back the measure because they believe the city gets short-changed in transit dollars and other aspects. Without city support, the measure likely won’t be passed by voters, especially as two-thirds approval is needed, as Bee columnist Marek Warszawski recently pointed out.

The roads are publicly owned and must be kept up through taxpayer financing. No one disputes that.

But this process has been too rushed, too focused on asphalt, and lacking in political savvy. The leaders of the agencies backing this — Mike Leonardo of the Transportation Authority and Tony Boren of the COG — should reconsider their measure. Proponents need to have better public engagement, with meetings held throughout the county to learn what the taxpaying public wants. The measure then needs to be revised.

Fresno County needs Measure C, but not in this form. Skip the November election and do it right.