Support NeoGAF

[Ripclawe]

if you can't get in without registering.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...,1,2584757.story?coll=la-headlines-california

With the effort to rebuild the Bay Bridge now almost $5 billion over budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday said Bay Area residents should cover the cost overruns and called for a November ballot measure in which voters would decide how to do it.

"Gov. Schwarzenegger is not going to take important transportation money from all over the state, including Southern California, to pay for the cost overruns of the Bay Bridge," said Vince Sollitto, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger.

The proposal has already divided legislators into a North-South dispute — two weeks before their session ends.

Bay Area legislators say the proposal is an unfair attempt to shift responsibility of the massive construction project to local taxpayers.

"The Bay Bridge is a state bridge," said Sen. Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch). "I think this is extremely upsetting for all of us, for the users of the bridge. It's always been assumed that the state would pick up the majority share."

Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) immediately dismissed the governor's plan as "goofy" and said it's too late in the session to consider it.

"It just would have been nice if they had discussed this with everybody involved," Burton said. "I don't think they could expect us to [pass it] in a short time frame … "

Legislators in Southern California hailed the plan as a way to rebuild the bridge without jeopardizing transportation projects elsewhere in the state.

"I think that the bridge has to be retrofitted, and this is the way to do it," said Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach), chairwoman of the Assembly Transportation Committee.

The eastern portion of the bridge, which connects Oakland to Yerba Buena Island, was damaged during the 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieto earthquake in 1989. Bay Area officials saw an opportunity to rebuild a more architecturally dramatic span that would rival even the art deco-style Golden Gate Bridge.

But some officials now blame that design for the cost overruns, which have ballooned from $2.6 billion in 1997 to $7.4 billion today.

 

[Willco]

This is just like Predator all over again.

 

[Teddman]

Right on, Ahnold. I don't wanna pay for that damn bridge, let Bay Area residents who actually use it foot the bill.

We have plenty of traffic projects that need to be funded around L.A., trust me. Don't be taking away state funds up North for that shee-yat.

 

[levious]

certainly bay area should shoulder more of it then other parts of the state, but unless it's used solely for local traffic, it'd be hard to argue against state funds being used.

 

[Teddman]

certainly bay area should shoulder more of it then other parts of the state, but unless it's used solely for local traffic, it'd be hard to argue against state funds being used.

That's exactly what he is proposing. State funds have already been used, they now need to cover just the cost overruns.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday said Bay Area residents should cover the cost overruns and called for a November ballot measure in which voters would decide how to do it.

 

[levious]

assuming that the cost has been shared already, I was saying the same proportion should be used for the overruns.

 

[Teddman]

I don't agree. If it were strictly repairs to make it a functional bridge, that's one thing. But I am not willing to bail out what was in part a beautification project designed to boost tourism.

The eastern portion of the bridge, which connects Oakland to Yerba Buena Island, was damaged during the 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieto earthquake in 1989. Bay Area officials saw an opportunity to rebuild a more architecturally dramatic span that would rival even the art deco-style Golden Gate Bridge.

But some officials now blame that design for the cost overruns, which have ballooned from $2.6 billion in 1997 to $7.4 billion today.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Are people in the Bay area responsible for the overruns? I don't know why the taxpayers should suffer for the incompetence of management. PEACE.

 

[Teddman]

Are people in the Bay area responsible for the overruns? I don't know why the taxpayers should suffer for the incompetence of management. PEACE.

I would say that versus other residents of the state, yes. They are more responsible via the decisions of their local elected officials who chose this expensive design, and stand to gain more from the tourism benefits of the bridge once completed, as well as utilize it for daily commuting.

You have to draw the line somewhere, especially in a state as strapped for transportation funding as California (and specifically Southern California). If you don't believe that, why not make it a Federal bail-out so that you can help pay for the Bay Bridge too? You'd use it about as often as I would.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Someone cut off the water we're sending to SoCal and see if they still want to play hardball!

Can you say TOILET TO TAP EVERYWHERE?

 

[levious]

I don't agree. If it were strictly repairs to make it a functional bridge, that's one thing. But I am not willing to bail out what was in part a beautification project designed to boost tourism.

ah, makes sense, didn't know it was cosmetic.

 

[Cooter]

Right on, Ahnold. I don't wanna pay for that damn bridge, let Bay Area residents who actually use it foot the bill.

Thaedolus took the words right out of my mouth.

It seems So. Cal doesn't have a problem with sharing when it comes to their water supply.

 

[Error Macro]

Right on, Ahnold. I don't wanna pay for that damn bridge, let Bay Area residents who actually use it foot the bill.

We have plenty of traffic projects that need to be funded around L.A., trust me. Don't be taking away state funds up North for that shee-yat.

I definitely agree with this. So Cal has some of the worst streets and highways that need some major work. Just the other day, I thought I broke an A-arm on my truck from driving through a pothole that snuck up on me at high speed.

 

[carbonbased]

Thaedolus took the words right out of my mouth.

It seems So. Cal doesn't have a problem with sharing when it comes to their water supply.

We shared the burden of bringing the bridge back to full functionality. The northerners should have to cover the extra expenses to 'pretty it up', as decided by your local bureaucrats.

 

[EarthStormFire]

I agree. SoCal folk shouldn't have to pay for the overrun of a bridge they won't be using. In fact I don't even think people in the valley should have to pay for the overrun. Only people in the bay area should pay for it.

 

[Teddman]

Thaedolus took the words right out of my mouth.

It seems So. Cal doesn't have a problem with sharing when it comes to their water supply.

If by "sharing" you mean "buying."

So. Cal purchases all of its water through suppliers such as the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) at a cost of millions. It's not as if all of that water is being generously given away.

Los Angeles residents pay for their water, and Bay Area residents can pay towards their bridge.