Judge Thomas Anderle rejected arguments that Measure A-the half-cent sales tax confronting voters on this November’s ballot to fund a wide array of transportation and road repair projects-was invalid because no environmental analysis had been conducted on the impacts all the projects might generate. The challenge had been brought by Eugene Wilson with Sustainable Transportation Advocates, a new environmental outfit critical of Measure A. Wilson contends Measure A devotes way too much money on older, discredited transit approaches and not nearly enough into alternative modes. Wilson has thrown every legal blockade he could conjure at Measure A, but in this one, Measure A’s backers received friends-of-the-court briefs from transit authorities in Los Angeles County, San Mateo County, and Sonoma County. They argued that a funding mechanism does not legally constitute a “project” and, hence can’t be subject to the rules of environmental review. Anderle was also persuaded that because none of the spending provisions contained in Measure A were legally binding, no environmental review was required.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Be succinct, constructive, and relevant to the story. Leaving a comment means you agree to our Discussion Guidelines. We like civilized discourse. We don't like spam, lying, profanity, harassment or personal attacks.