The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution No. 2672 IX) z ~ ~ .. 28 o ~g ~ x> .. <'l 29 Olll~.. ~ .. ..o.ZZ"z;: o .~ ffi~ a:: g .. 0::... > z 0 Q 30 !:! .......!!::J "1-<(OIll.J.J ~Z>)o:r<(~ bJ...!:~U 0 31 UijU 0 . ~ Z III Z Id - 00 d > ~ ~ ~ 32 > .. .; ,~ .. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2672 2 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON PROTESTING THE IMPOSITION OF TAXES FOR TH MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. 6 I THE C I T Y CO UN C I L " OF THE C I T Y OF V E R NON R E SOLVE S 7 AS FOLLOWS: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS. Taxpayers of the County of Los Angeles are burdened with levies for road and street purposes. sales tax from purchase of auto- mobiles and other taxes directly bearing on the use and maintenance of the streets. roads and'highways in the County of Los Angeles and~ WHEREAS. such taxes are not borne by those who utilize public transportation and. WHEREAS, governmental costs of the various agencies of the Count y of Los Angeles have so burdened the taxpayers to the saturation point. NOW" THEREFORE" BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1: . That the City Council of the City of Vernon h(:lreby authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to place on record that it is opposed to the enactment of any legislation relative to any further burdening to the taxpayers of the County of Los Angeles for subsidizing the maintenance or construction of rapid transit transportation within the said County. SECTION 2: . The City Council hereby goes on record as favoring the construction~ maintenance and operation of any transit system in the County of Los Angeles by the income from fare boxes. ~ ADOPTED and APPROVED this ili..h da.y o~o. ..ber. 1963. <::J , / , ) f the City of Ver A~ ,.... .... . . ty Clerk 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 IX) z ~ ~ .. 28 o ~g ~ x> .. '" 29 OId~1d ~ .. "D.zz..z~ 00:0:"0:0 '0 Id.. 0 ~ ~ a: l: ~ ~ ~ g 30 "1-<toCO,.J.J ~z>)o:l: <t ~ L111-!:~U 0 31 UOOo . IE z co Z "' _ 00;;j > : ffi" 32 > ., .. ..-~ " . 1 STA TE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SSe 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 3 41 I I~ F. A. ZIEMER.. City Clerk of the City of Vernon.. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution.. being Resolution No. 2672.. was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon.. and approved by the Mayor of said City, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on October IS; 1963. ~ ~ F. A. ZIEMER, City Clerk ..2- ~ - CITY OF VERNON CALIFORNIA October 15, 1963 Board of Supervi.ors County of Los Angeles 856U.ll of Administration Los Angeles 12, Callforaia Attention: Mr. Frank G. Bonelli Supervisor, First Di'trict Gentlemen : In accordanee. w1tbyour letter dated September 26,1963, enclosed you will find. certified copy of Resolution No. 2672 - A RlSOLtrrION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON PROTESTING THE IMPOSITION or TAXES FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION or A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. which waf adopted by the CieyCouneil a.t its meeting held October 15, 1963. Yours very truly, CITY OF VERNON F. A. Ziemer, City Clerk FAZ:lw. enc. ~ o CITY OF VERNON CALIFORNIA October 15, 1963 Ca.lifornia Legislature Assembly Committee on Transportation and Commerce State Building loom 115 217 West First Street Los Angeles 12, California Attention: Assemblyman Tom C. Carrell Chairman Gentlemen: Enclosed y.ou will find a certified. copy of Resolution No. 2672 - A RESOLtrrION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON PROTESTING 'I'HEIMPOSITION OF TAXES FOR. THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION.OF A RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, which was adopted by the City Council at its meeting held October 15, 1963. Yours very truly, CITY OF VERNON FAZ: Iw. enc. F.A. Ziemer, City Clerk I BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF LOS ANGELE S f''''''&Fr'!:' II '" \' - ,,,; '- ,oj !". r'\ JA:L6-; Li c~'" lU::~ MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WARREN M. DORN CHAIRMAN FRANK G. BONELLI KENNETH HAHN ERNEST E. DEBS BURTON W. CHACE FRANK G. BONELLI SUPERVISOR, FIRST DISTRICT 856 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES 12, CALIFORNI." September 26, 1963 Honorable Mayor and City Council: Assemblyman Tom Carrell, Chairman of the State Assembly Transportation and Commerce Committee, has accepted the Board of Supervisors' request, on my motion, that his Committee be convened in Los Angeles for the purpose of holding hearings on the M. T .A. fiasco. Accordingly, the hearing dates have been certified and the meetings are scheduled for Monday, October 28, and Tuesday, October 29, at the State Building ip Los Angeles. Recent actions taken by the M. T .A. Board, (1) that rapid transit must be sub- sidized; (2) that all proposals for monorail be rejected, make it imperative that the 74 cities in the County of Los Angeles take a vital interest and part in making their views known. Actual participation should be either by personal appearance or via resolution expressing forcefully your stand and position on whether mass rapid transit should be subsidized as advocated by M. T .A., or whether whatever is done towards providing mass media of rapid transit shall and must be financed from farebox revenues without necessity of an added burden on City and County taxpayers. Rejection by the M. T .A. of private enterprise monorail offers for a nonsubsi- dized rapid transit system is premature action and is not in best interest of the public and the taxpayers. Making your City's official position known before the State Assembly Committee could prove significant and important toward a proper determination as to the future of rapid transit both as to preference of system and method of financing. Respectfully solicit your cooperation. Fra G. Bonelli Supervisor, First District sk Atts. FRANK p, BELOTTI CHARLES EDWARD CHAPEL GORDON COLOGNE WILLIAM E, OANNEMEYER JOHN F. FORAN JOE A. GONSALVES JOSEPH M, KENNICK PAUL J. LUNARDI CHARLES W, MEYERS PHILIP L, So TO TOM WAITE CHARLES WARREN PEARCE YOUNO MEMBERS RICHARD ~oNovSEP 2 6 1963 <talifornia j[cgislaturc VICE CHAIRMAN COMMITTIlE ADDRESS SUITE 5004 STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO 14 TEL..l HI CKORY !$.471t EXT, 2215 LISA BARRIOAN COMMITTEE SECRETARY ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCE WILLIAM F. SCHEUERMANN, JR, COMMITTEE CONSULTANT TOM C. CARRELL CHAIRMAN September 25} 1963 HEARING NOTICE Chairman Tom Carrell (n-San Fernando) today announced a two-day hearing o~ the Assembly Interim Committee on Transportation and Commerce on October 28 - 29, 1963, commencing at 10:00 a.m. in Room 115 o~ the State BUilding, 217 West First Street, Los Angeles. The hearing, called at the request o~ the Los Angeles County Board o~ Supervisors, will be broad in scope and devoted to a consideration o~ mass rapid transit in Southern Cali~ornia, as authorized by House Resolution 183 of the 1963 Session. "We hope to provide a ~orum ~or everyone who ~eels that he has a solution ~or this problem, II Carrell declared. liThe committee will explore possible private and public methods of ~inancing, construction of ~acilities and ~easibility of pro- posed routes. II Persons wishing to testify at this hearing are requested to noti~y the committee o~~ice not later than October 15. ,.. .. STATEMENT BY SUPERVISOR FRANK G. BONELLI September 23, 1963 ON M.T.A. OVERHEAD MASS RAPID TRANSIT REJECTION The narrow and provincial "take-it-or-leave-it" attitude of the Metropolitan Transit Authority is a good example of how NOT to get mass rapid transit in Los Angeles County. The pre-emptory action of M.T.A. that only their proposed subsidized $649 million subway-surface rail system, which they have steadfastly advocated, is acceptable is certainly premature. This is especially so on the heels of the Board of Supervisors' action requesting the State Assembly Transportation and Commerce Committee hearing on the M.T.A. fiasco and after the date has been set for October 29th by Assemblyman Tom Carrell, chairman of the Committee. If endeavoring to bring some semblance of order out of chaos on the M.T.A. fiasco in the interest of Los Angeles County's taxpayers is "inflammatory,1I then the Governor's recent accusation of me is correct. It is conceded that M.T.A. 's $649 million system will need subsidization because of the high construction cost factor, as opposed to the monorail and private enterprise proposals at substantilly lower initial costs of construction. The Alweg and Goodell Corpora- tions' offers indicate no need for a subsidy, being totally supported out of fare-box revenues. More importantly, all indications point to voter non-support of any subsidized system of rapid transit. In addition, the public M 0 R E MASS RAPID TRANSIT REJECTION/2 September 23, 1963 strongly supports a monorail system, as attested by the results of the following polls taken on the subject: John B. Knight Company Monorail--------------------60.6 percent Subways--------------------- 5.4 percent More buses on Freeways------18.6 percent No Opinion------------------15.4 percent Facts Consolidated Monorail--------------------43.6 percent Surface--------------------- 9.7 percent Subway---------------------- 8.0 percent E1evated-------------------- 6.2 percent No Opinion------------------33.1 percent I, therefore, shall seek Board approval on September 24 (Tuesda~ of a motion respectfully requesting M.T.A. to rescind its recent action rejecting all proposals for monorail systems, pending the Assembly Transportation and Commerce Committee's hearing convening in Los Angeles at the State Building on October 29th. # # # I STATEMENT BY SUPERVISOR FRANK G~ BONELLI RECOMMENDING STATE ASSEMBLY MEETING ON M. T. A. ttFIASCO. It September 16, 1963 I shall seek Board of Supe.rvisors approval of a motion Tuesday requesting Assemblyman Tom Carrell, Chairman of the Assembly Transportation and Commerce Committee, to convene his state com.. mittee at the earliest opportunity here in Los Angeles on the M. T.A. fiasco. The convening of such a meeting will afford the Alweg and the Goodell Corporations an opportunity to officially document and defend their offers to provide a non-subsidized media of rapid transit and counter the M. T. A. charges by Board Chairman A. J. Eyraud and Executive Director C. M. Gillis s. Chairman Carrell's State Assembly Committee thus will be able to evaluate first hand the Alweg and Goodell proposals and determine whether they can and will refute the accusations made by Eyraud and Gilliss belittling and condemning private enterprise offers to engineer, construct and finance a rapid transit system from fare box revenues. I have received this morning a copy of the Goodell letter and documentations to M. T. A. and I also have a letter received at home whUe on vacation from Alweg which I shall make a part of our Board's record. Both of the se contradict substantially the inaccuracy of the M 0 R E Me T. A. ttFlASCO" I 2 September la, 1963 pre sentation and statements made by M. T. A. Board Chairman A. J. Eyraud and Executive Director C. M. Gilliss and should be made avaUable to the Assembly Committee. Before this Board capitulates and accepts the M. T. A. theory that any media of rapid transit must be subsidized and cannot he financed from fare box revenues, and before the Board subscribes to the need for remedial legislation spelling out the source of tax subsidy; something more than blind adherence to the assumptions of the M. T. A. Board Chairman and others is needed. Their statements should not be readily accepted as gospel. The County and its 74 cities must exhaust every possible private enterprise approach and pos sibUity short of tax subsidy before sadclling taxpayers with the added tax burden as advocated by M. T. A. The M. T. A. proposes that the Board of Supervisors implement the in lieu tax increase prior to submission of remedial tax subsidy legislation, but every possible source of private financing should be .explored before implementing the tax increase even wi~ the safeguard requiring an affirmative vote of the people. The State Assembly Transportation and Commerce Committee is the logical approach toward evaluation of the entire subject matter and, in particular, the authenticity of the M. T.A:. charges and the accuracy of the private enterprise bona fide proposals as submitted by Alweg and Goodell. , J M. T. A. nFIASCO" / 3 Septer.nber 16, 1963 The M. T. A stater.nent by Chairr.nan Eyraud cor.nr.nits their ability to pay 2/3 of $649 r.nUlion fror.n revenues toward providing r.nass rapid transit, which is Wlequivocal proof that private enterprise can adequately be selfMsupported fror.n fare box revenues. The entire engineering, construction and financing ban be provided as proposed at a cost considerably below the M. T. A. cor.nr.nittr.nent of 2/3 or $433 r.nillion. The syster.n can and will produce adequate funds requiring no subsidy, based on M. T. A's revenue projection fror.n fare box revenues. 11 H /f DAILY SIGNAL - Wedel Septe 255 1963 - li\W:1wKm%Wgi:;:mM@Mt%:mm@lHi:::m@~@~m@:BMm!:l~:r~~11 th ~:<< e ~j~j1~11 S. O. u theast II! I~ with TOM GOFF :::~:::~ , ~~~?i1 E d i tor. The Daily Slg'naI ~ Bonel'i at Bat SUPERVISOR Frank Bonelli, incidentally, is perfornling 8 real service for the people of Los Angeles County in his battle against the Metropolitan T.ransit Authority's pig-headed refusal to consider fare-boX fi- nanced transportation systems. The MTA, of course, has the responsibility of making an in- dependent judgnlent on the problem. But there is no legiti- mate reason for -its adamant refasal to withhold that jl1dg- Dlen t until all of the facts are in. And the facts \von't be in on the Ilro}losed self-financed monorail systelns until adequate hearings are g'lven them. The SIIII Gar-riel" alley DAILY TRIBUNE Valleywlde New. and Featare. Executive Vlee fJre.ldent: A. O. Miller Managing Editor: Charles G. Volzer Business Manager: F. AI Totter Advertising Director: M. Rober:t Clark Editorial Page Editor: Maurice Compton TUESDA V, SEPTEMBER 24, 1963 PART II, PAGE 2 State Probe of MY A Plan Vital The Los Ange'I!8S Mebropollittalt1 Tll"ansit Autho- ll1i:ty was orealtoo . by Ibbe 0aJ1ifoI\D!ia LegUsiLatture for fa purpose-W puR if1he Soutlblaml out of the pubtic 1tlz,8JnspoI'lba!tion morass mto wtncb Iitt had sunk due, to r8liJure of private oompames to keep Itheilr sysfJems modemized aOO adeqwaJte for tlbis ~8Jst-grovWl1Ig .18lrea. To daJte the MTA, which pt'(?babiy, W1Ml\'tgiven Ilhe ,1tJooI1s oocessMy to do the job, haSn't I.add much m-ook. Publdc ~r3ll1'SplnbaJllion f.aoitl:i,t[es, are cer.tJaJ~nly l110t mat ametropoliibaJn erea $I,l'dh 8JS this deserves. ',Propos'ails for a lnass rapid transit system for .the .main part are stin on the dNi!w~ ing boa'rd. Con~LiotJin'g .. d1affms have. come &-om MTA, I81nd dlhe Alweg Gorp. reIla,tive to bwldmga monorail system out of the fare box 'WIitlhoUlt government subsidy. The . situation ils so confused that an ,AslSembIy Itvansportation' ,rommitteehas sdted~ UJled. ne8l1'lings arn!to the m,attet. The healr.ill1.1gs ~re slaIned Ito begin.. neXlt mo~th. Me'anwhNe, the chaIilrman of ItJhe MT A has az,bitradly rej;ected two monorail proposals - both of which ~epoz,tedly could be buirLt aJt a cost of less ltihal11 a Itbi'rd of the $649 mi~Lion. plan Ifthatt: has been pushed by Ithe MTA ~or newcly a yeaif. We beLieve JthaJt Wi MTA is Ito accompLish ~e job far which tit was otealted, lilt must f&rsit cIeail" the air M to wlhy dit objieots to monoraiJ systtems that oarn be bt1ii~t for a fr;actJion of !the cost of a subway Under WHshi're Boulevard land' a sur~ f.aJoo ~~e from Los Angeles to Ell Moore. Objection by WdlshEre BouLev,a:rd merohanltg to a monorail ooesn'tt seem suffiici'enJt gJrounds ibo indebt tlhe peopLe of Los Angeles County $649 milllion to do a j,db iflhalt othelrs s'ay earn be done for $187.5 ffiiUion. We JtlMnk asbaJte probe ~'nto Ith~S 5iiltUaltllon is Vli,taI ibo lthe pubLic ood to Itlhe MTA wihtich ha:s been mDruS!ted 'W1tJh rohe ,1tJ8Jsk of seei1ng Itlhalt a mas's Il"apid tl"ansli!t sy5lbem as buiH ~n ibhe Sooth. land. TIle DAILY NEW~S Greater WhiH;er's HOI'H Newspop<< Friday, Sepl. 20, 1963 But Where's The Evidence? There must be volumes of evidence some~ where showing that a rapid transit system for metropolitan Los Angeles cannot be adequately financed without tax funds. The great mystery is: where is this evi- dence? On several occasions in the past this column has suggested that proponents of tax-subsidized transit spell out in detail why a self-supporting system of passenger transport will not succeed locally'? Is it because of experience in New York City, where the subways are su bsidized '? This isn't New York City. Is it. because the ap- proval of almost $800 million in transit bonds in three counties around San Fran- cisco offers proof that only this system will work? This isn't San Francisco. * * * Well, we've just spent some time study- ing two reports, each rather lengthy, on this very subject. One is a record of a talk by the chairman of the Metropolitan Trans- it Authority before a meeting of the Board of Supervisors. In it, after pointing out that San Gabriel Valley cities and people along Wilshire Blvd. do not want an elevated rapid transit structure in those areas and instead want a subway, which would add millions to the cost, he said: "It becomes clear that any type of comprehensive rapid transit . . . will require public fund sup- port.'; There is not one iota of further evidence, not one figure to support the point. * * * The chairman of a committee of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, after a long study of rapid transit, said in his re- port: "In the last eighteen months it has become apparent . . . that a mass rapid transit system . . . cannot be financed by revenue bonds." He doesn't say how he arrived at the conclusion; simply that such is the case. We do not think the taxpayers of Los Angeles County will accept snch explana- tions as sufficient. Proponents of rapid transit taxes will have to come forward with something far more convincing if they are to sell their ideas. ~1!!ll!I!.~!!!!!!D t FRIDAY. SEPTEMBER 20. 1963 L.A.C. SAY S: Private FinanCing With Public Money The building of a rapid-transit system from Long Beach to' Los Angeles-and from Los Angeles to the airport and other areas is getting wide attention. It is argued by some that the Metropolitan Transit Au- thority (MTA) has not come up with a program. It is' further argued that private companies have agreed to provide the services at their own risk-so why not ac(:ept the offer of a company such as Alweg Corp., the monorail people? * * ..r: I do not know what should be done. But I am interested in what the chairman of the MTA ,told the County Supervisors. He said: "Alweg's offer to build a transit system and turn it over to MT A was based on the transit , authority issuing public bonds "backed by credit of the MTA and the community at large." If this is true, it is. but one more example of the way public bonds are used to finance, such pro- grams. There are many cases where public or private projects have been financed by the sale of "revenue" bonds. This is supposed to mean all the interest and principal would be paid from the revenue of the project. But too often this is changed by 'a guarantee of these bonds by the public body approving them~ In other words, it is the same as any other bond guar- anteed by taxes on property. * * * It is an easy matter to sell revenue bonds or any other securities to the public-or banks-if they are fully, guaranteed by property taxes. It is no wonder promoters are willing to' take responsibility for fi. nancing when they have such securities to sell. But if it is to be an honest presentation of a project, the people should be told all about it~and if bonds are to be so guaranteed, the people should vote on them as they do on any other bonds. It may be such a program is the only way a rapid- transit system can be financed. Certainly one is need- ed and the. value to property throughout the county would be increased. It would relieve traffic on streets and freeways. With the increase in population and cars there must be some such system to carry pas- sengers between important points. * * * The'MTA has been along time in coming up with ,8 solution. It may be the Alweg Monorail system is the answer. The guarantee of bonds may be necessary to finance the half-billion cost of the project. But if it isto be public mOIley, care ,should be taken to,be sure the Alweg system is the best one for this and other areas in the county. This controversy should be recognized by the taxpayers as one of the dangers of deals whereby it is supposed to be privately financed-but. which end up as an obligation of property owners. If Alweg or any other' satisfactory system is prepared to finance a system privately they deserve full cooperation. If they expect to have public money guarantee their financ- ing, it presents an entirely different picture.-L.A.C. DAILY SIGNAL. SERVING THE GREATER SOUTHEAST COMMUNITY Thursday. September 19, 196~_ a~:J~:Jtt~&~i:~t~iu~w:t~m~~..tt:{:~~.:~::~:':$:.:iJi:~L~:: ,;~~:: .:;it;;:i;.:-~:~:m:1:.:C:::;.:' ~~ .r.) ....----.-..------ .;:~:m::,:'::.~:~.}~.t:;~.::::... .;)j'~:": Around .;.;;. :::}: the %:: Southeast with TOM GOFF K d I .. 0 r. The Dally Sirnal ::~:~ U Private Transit Plans Deserve a Full Hearing A MEN, Mr. Bonelli, amen! It's high time that the blur be removed from the rapid transit picture and the whole thing brought into realistic focus. I, for one, never have been able to understand why the supposedly astute Metropolitan Transit Authority has been so adamantly opposed to any proposal which would provide a transit system without placing a tre- mendous burden on the taxpayer. Supervisor Frank Bonelli's demand for a full in- quiry into this ridiculous situation-backed unani. mously by the Board of Supervisors, incidentally- might succeed in clearing the air. Why Not Private. Financing? Two seemingly legitimate offers have been ma.de by the Alweg and Goodell corporations to build! pri- vately financed rapid transit systems to serve metro- politan Los Angeles without imposing a tax on the people of the area. Each plan proposes to operate the system solely from fare box revenues. Perhaps the MTA is right. Perhaps the private pro- posals are unsound. Maybe they won't work. But neither proposal has been given a fair hearing by the MTA. Neither corporation has had the oppor- tunity to refute MTA agruments against its proposals. Neither organization has had a chance to fully docUr- ment the way it plans to proceed. In fairness to the people ot' this county who must pay through the nose for any tax supported transit sysrem, eVery possIble In e a n It of private fina.ncing must be explored to exhaustion before any other approach is accepted. Personally, I have grave doubts that a tax supported transit progra.m c..an be justi- fied in. this area, even it private flnanolng does not prove to bl'l pra,I'tieal. A rapid transit system to adequately serve the' people would be fantastic In scope and a practical impossibility to build under any type of financ- Ing. A token system, such as currently proposed by1\ITA. will tax millions of people for a facility only It minor f1'lU.\- fion of them will be able to use. . "'NF1~S IOUTHIIlN CALIFORNIA"S FINEST EVENING NEWSPAPER ASH XX PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1963 Editorial Mass-Transit Shift There appear to have been some iS~bt1e changes recently. in the discus- sionof rapid transit. Men in high plac,es are no longer .rising in righteous indig- nation when~t is suggested that a'tax subsidy is needed. -Sometimes,' more sadly, there is not even a voice insisting that any tax proposal must be submit- ted to the electorate. Some of these changes showed up Sept. 3, when James L. Beebe,. govern- ment committee chairman of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, ad- dressed the County Board of Supervi- sors. Others developed Sept. 10, when A. J. Eyraud, chairm~n of the Metro- politan Transit Authority, did so. The difference is felt rather than heard. It is not in the proposals them- selves but in the emphasis. All the voices are saying the same things but not in quite the same way. Maybe the trouble was that the most eloquent voice of all was silenced by absence. Supervisor Frank G. Bonelli, an. adamant advocate of rapid transit built and maintained through the fare box, has been on vacation. Things may be different when he comes, back next week. In the meantime some alarming statements have been allowed to pass unchallenged. Beebe, speaking for the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce board of direc- tors, made a plea for a subsidy. "In the last 18 months," he said, "it has become a pparen t . . . tha t a mass rapid transit system . . . cannot be fi. nanced by revenue bonds. Tax support of some sort is essential: To build. a comprehensive system of mass rapid transit undoubtedly will. require tax support." None of. the supervisors who heard this rose to argue. But they might be excused' because the chamber doesn't favor a tax without the consent of. the people. MT A doesn't seem more troubled by such scruples than it has been in the past. Eyraud, in urging a subsidYt seemed to suggest it might be better ndt to have a public ballot. "If you levy the tax/' he said, "the system could be l?uilt now. If you de- cide the matter should be taken to the voters, the system will be delayed. And every year of delay will cost some $35 million. In addition,. every year's delay will have some adverse effect on the traffic pr'oblem of the community." N one of the supervisors agreed' about this either. It is true, of course, that Chairman Warren M. Darn has gone on record again and again in favor of a public pallot if there is to be any kind of tax subsidy. And he did say to Eyraud that if public funds are. committed, he will fight for an MTA board elected by the people. 'fhe present one ~s appointed by the governor. Still, we feel that the emphasis has changed materially, and we are not ,. I happy about it. We are looking forward to Frank Bonelli's return. MEMBtt:l\!i RICHARD J, DONOVAN VICE CHA!RMAN FRANK p, BELOTTI CHARLES EDWARD CHAPEL GORDON COLOGNE WiLLiAM E, DA':NEMEYER JOHN F, FORAN JOE A. GONSALVES JOSEPH 1\1, KE,NN1CK PAUL Jo UJNAm:-i CHARLES W, MEYERS PHILiP L, 501'0 TOM WAITE CHARLES VJARR!:N PEARCE YOUNG L~ COMMITTE!! ADDRESS SUITE 5004 STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO 14 Q:alifornia 1Crgislarorr TEt..: HICKORY 5.4711 EXT. 2215 LISA BARRIGAN COMMITTEE SECRETARY ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCE WILLIAM F, SCHEUERMANN, JR. COMMITTEE CONSULTANT TOM C, CARRELL CHAiRMAN October 22, 1963 i-, A. ZiE.MER ,r:!-r)' CL:~~Rl( Mr. F. A. Ziemer, City Clerk City of Vernon City Hall - 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon 58, California Dear Mr. Ziemer: Thank you for your letter of October 15 and the enclosed Resolution No. 2672, setting forth the position of the Vernon City Council relative to Los Angeles area rapid transit. You may be assured that the resolution will be made part of the record at this committee's hearings on this subject in Los Angeles October 28-29. Thank you again for your interest and for informing our committee of the Vernon City Council position on rapid transit. Sincerely, WFS/lmb Willia~a:F~cheuer~'ct~'m :~r. Committee Consultant 383 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES 12, CALIFORNIA MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WARREN M. DORN CHAI RMAN FRANK G. BONELLI KENNETH HAHN ERNEST E. DEBS BURTON W.CHACE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELE S GORDON T. NESVIG CLERK OF THE BOARD October 24, 1963 City of Vernon City Hall 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon 58, California Attention Mr. F. A. Ziemer City Clerk Gentlemen: Your Resolution No. 2672 protesting the imposition of taxes for the maintenance and operation of a rapid transit system within the county of Los Angeles, which was adopted by the City Council on October 15, 1963, has been received and filed. Very truly yours, GORDON T. NESVIG r"'-"-:-, M' ,'; y;~ ,. _ .. to' , I oj .~{&...~ "",.,..... . ,} \'~ ~\J'_t.. ... #....r. "...- MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WARREN M. DORN CHAIRMAN FRANK G. BONELLI KENNETH HAHN ERNEST E. DEBS BURTON W. CHACE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF LOS ANGELE S FRANK G. BONELLI su PERVISOR, FI RST OISTR leT 856 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION / LOS ANGELES 12, CALIFORNIA October 28, 1963 Mr. F.A. Ziemer City Clerk of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon 58, California Dear Mr. Ziemer: Thanks greatly for your letter of October 15 and certified copy of Resolution N9... 2672from the City of Vernon relative to the MTA fiasco. I shall take the liberty of making your letter a part of our Board's official meeting and, in addition, see that copies are sent to the chairman and members of the Assembly Transportation and Commerce Committee. In addition, it could prove most effective if you were to write a letter directly to the "Letters to the Editor Columnll of the L.A. Times and Herald-Examiner as well as your local news- paper. With kindest regards. Cordially, II ., ,~J~f,,- .~.. vtJ t 'VV' FranIVG. Bonelli Super;'isor, First District sk