Holding my nose and voting yes. I'm skeptical about their long-range proposal as presented (all I could find was a slideshow, which is thin on details and heavy on powerpoint fluff).

My main concern is that I don't want to see us in a situation once more where we commit to expanding the system (and this plan doesn't really address the best routes for expansion, rather, is mainly a bone to throw at "what's in it for me" county voters), and end up doing so beyond our ability to pay to run it. What portion of the additional funds will go to restoration of existing operations vs expansion? Will this additional money actually cover the costs of operating any expanded system?

Side note, I'd rather this have been done as a property tax -- having access to transit is an enrichment to my property value.

I am weary about voting on Prop A this time. I voted yes to Prop M back in 2008, but I don't want to see another tax increase, even if its a slight increase in sales tax. Since 2007 my property taxes have increased drastically. I bought my townhouse back in 2005 and back then I paid $3500 a year in property taxes, then last year it was about $6800!!! I seriously would like to know where much of this is going because it almost doubled, yet the property value of my home has decreased since 2008.

I too would like it if Metro was funded partially through property tax, rather than through sales tax. Metro has gotten their act together, but at the same time I wonder what their real plans are for Metrolink expansion because much of Prop A's money if it does pass, will be used to patch up/add to existing service lost back on March 30, 2009. It will take a decade or more before these lines are built.

1) There will be at least one yes vote from my household, and four if I can get everyone home that day.

2) I really dislike the pro-transit ads that are being run.
a) They reinforce the stereotype that only poor people should take that bus.
b) The "I won't get my latte" ad is absurd. Who is that supposed to convince?
c) Doesn't the "interviewer" refer to a bus by its number? Who does that?
d) The spokespeople on the TV ads reinforce the top-down, paternalistic, condescending attitude that has permeated St. Louis "leadership" since -- well, probably 1904.

^Umm, I refer to a bus by its number all the time. Many people do. "The Number 10", for instance, was my bus. Sometimes I took "the 95".

Maybe it's generational. All of my fogey friends call their buses by name, e.g. "Soulard" (often referred to as "Stinklard"), "Kingshighway," "Page." I've never heard my WashU kids use anything but "Gold" and "Red," but my sample size there is limited.

Yo, Alex -- I'm not quite following if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing.

bonwich wrote:Maybe it's generational. All of my fogey friends call their buses by name,

Yep. When I was a regular rider in the 1980's, the routes were known by name (Grand, Lindell-Wydown, etc.). I think Metro now stresses the number.

I usually use both the number and the name of the route. It's the most informative and doesn't take long to say. It also helps me memorize the numbers and routes better. I would say "70 Grand" or "16 City Limits" whenever referring to a bus route.

It's definitely generational. Metro switched to emphasizing number relatively recently. Some people like it better, some don't. In my world (at Metro) I generally hear number and name, i.e. "70 Grand."

I will, without question, be voting YES.

Two yes votes from my house, and I've encouraged my family members to vote yes as well.

Props to me for calling into KMOX this morning in support of Prop A.

On the show most opponents just don't want to pay higher taxes, think it's a subsidy for business fatcats who want cheap labor, or think Metro is horribly mismanaged and shouldn't be propped up. They throw around a $350 per family per year cost.
There are plenty of supporters too. The points I made were that there are some that ride who don't see too well or aren't quite physically
with it who can get driver's licenses and who will be driving more miles as the the Metro system becomes less convenient. I also pointed out that the $350 figure implies that you are spending $70,000 a year on sales taxable
stuff which I doubt is the case for most families. The host asked if I was probably voting yes and I said that I live in the city and we already voted for this a long time ago.
The host was John Hancock subbing in for Charlie Brennan. I think he's the republican counterpart to Dem Josh Kelly who he usually double teams with when subbing in on KMOX shows. John says he's undecided at this point.

I heard you on KMOX! It was a very enlightening discussion. I do get sad that whenever the topic is Metro, we hear a lot of the same misinformation over and over again, but I see that as my call to get out and talk to even more people!

I'm getting the impression from people I've talked with and the number of yard signs that there is decent support for the proposition in the Webster/Kirkwood area.

I need a yard sign!

DeBaliviere wrote:I'm getting the impression from people I've talked with and the number of yard signs that there is decent support for the proposition in the Webster/Kirkwood area.

I don't know why, as it's completely unscientific, but I have a good feeling about Prop A's chances if Webster Groves and Kirkwood residents put up yard signs. The denizens in those communities really take their democratic responsibilities (or, at the very least, their yard signs) seriously!

The math does work. $75M/1M people x family of 4 = $350. So does $75M/ 1M people /52 weeks = $1.44. One sounds big and one sounds small. Neither are very relevant to one's situation. Just estimate how much sales taxable stuff you buy in the county and multiply by 0.005 and that's it. And I'm pretty sure most people don't reach $70k a year in sales taxable purchases (>> $350).

Doesn't 0.05 equal 5% though?

Another problem with my analysis is that it assumes no one from outside the county spends money in the county.