State bill could allow county voters to decide to extend Measure R past 2039

In 2008, Los Angeles County voters approved the Measure R sales tax increase of one-half cent to pay for new road and transit projects. The approval of Measure R — with 68 percent of the vote — jump-started Metro’s efforts to build a network of bus and rail projects that had long been talked about but lacked any kind of real funding.

Unlike Prop A and Prop C — similar half-cent sales tax hikes for transit — Measure R sunsets after 30 years, meaning the tax can’t be collected after July 1, 2039. On Tuesday, Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) introduced AB 1446 (full text after the jump) that would extend the Measure R sales tax, although the number of years is yet to be determined.

The idea is to help accelerate the building of Measure R projects, create jobs and try to take advantage of lower construction costs. The extension of Measure R, as written in Assemblyman Feuer’s legislation, would allow Metro to borrow against future Measure R receipts.

It is important to emphasize that it is ultimately the decision of Metro’s Board of Directors whether to put such an extension to county voters. The Board has yet to discuss the issue.

The best way of saying it: Assemblyman’s bill, if approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, would give Metro the option of going to the ballot with a Measure R extension. That could be a useful option to have with the presidential election in November and expected high voter turnout.

Although Measure R is expected to bring in more than $30 billion during its 30-year lifespan, that’s a pool of money that has to be split among a wide variety of expensive road and transit projects. The Measure R funds flow into county coffers over time, the reason that some projects are scheduled for completion in the 2020s or 2030s.

The America Fast Forward initiative conceived by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa — and since adopted by the Metro Board — sought changes in federal law that would allow Metro to use federal loans and other financing to accelerate the construction of Measure R projects. But a deadlocked Congress has again delayed writing and voting on a multi-year transportation spending bill and no one knows when or if a full America Fast Forward program will be considered.

Assemblyman Feuer also introduced AB 2321, the legislation in 2008 that allowed Metro to put Measure R on the ballot.

The full text of the AB 1446:

BILL NUMBER: AB 1446	INTRODUCED    
	BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Feuer
JANUARY 4, 2012
An act to amend Section 130350.5 of, and to add Section 130350.6
to, the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1446, as introduced, Feuer. Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority: transactions and use tax.
Existing law authorizes the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) to impose, in addition to any other
tax that it is authorized to impose, a transactions and use tax at a
rate of 0.5% for not more than 30 years for the funding of specified
transportation-related purposes pursuant to an adopted expenditure
plan, subject to voter approval.
This bill would authorize MTA to impose that transactions and use
tax for an additional unspecified number of years subject to voter
approval. The bill would require MTA to secure bonded indebtedness
payable from the proceeds of the extension and would require that the
proceeds from those bonds be used to accelerate the completion of
specified projects and programs. The bill would require MTA to amend
the expenditure plan in a specified manner and would make other
related conforming changes.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) Section 130350.5 of the Public Utilities Code authorizes the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to
propose for voter approval a 30-year1/2 cent sales and use tax
dedicated to the construction and operation of transportation-related
projects, to be enumerated in a local ballot measure. In November
2008, more than 67 percent of Los Angeles County voters approved this
tax pursuant a ballot measure known as Measure R.
(b) The Measure R transit, highway, and other transportation
projects became part of the MTA’s Long Range Transportation Plan,
along with an expenditure plan that spread the costs and construction
of the Measure R projects over the 30-year duration of the1/2 cent
sales and use tax.
(c) Since 2008, the nation and the State of California have
plunged into a recession. In Los Angeles County, 336,000 jobs have
been lost since 2007. An estimated 582,900 people were unemployed in
Los Angeles County as of October 2011. The construction industry has
been hit particularly hard: more than 53,300 construction jobs have
been lost since 2007, and some estimates put the percentage of area
construction workers who are out of work as high as 40 percent.
(d) Traffic congestion is increasing throughout Los Angeles
County, and new, environmentally sound transit options are
desperately needed as alternatives to private vehicle trips and the
economic, environmental, and health impacts that result from them.
(e) Efforts to expedite the construction of the Measure R transit
projects from 30 years to 10 years by obtaining federal loans secured
by Measure R revenues have not yet been successful.
(f) Therefore, the Legislature intends to authorize the MTA to
seek voter approval to extend the length of the Measure R sales and
use tax authorization from 30 years to ____ years in order to allow
the MTA to bond against the proceeds from the extension and build the
Measure R transit projects much sooner than originally contemplated
without relying on federal or state funding. Providing for this sales
and use tax extension and accelerated completion of the Measure R
transit projects would create more than 160,00 desperately needed
jobs and dramatically improve the economy, environment, and public
health of Los Angeles County.
SEC. 2. Section 130350.5 of the Public Utilities Code is amended
to read:
130350.5. (a) In addition to any other tax that it is authorized
by law to impose, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA) may impose, in compliance with subdivision (b) and Section 130350.6 , a transactions and use tax at a rate of
0.5 percent that is applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated
areas of the county.
(b) For purposes of the taxing authority set forth in subdivision
(a), all of the following apply:
(1) The tax shall be proposed in a transactions and use tax
ordinance, that conforms with Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
7261) to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 7275), inclusive, of the
Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251)
of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code), and that is
approved by a majority of the entire membership of the authority.
(2) The tax may be imposed only if the proposing ordinance is
approved by two-thirds of the voters, in the manner as otherwise
required by law, voting on this measure, in an election held on
November 4, 2008, or at a subsequent election and, if so approved,
shall become operative as provided in Section 130352.
(3) The proposing ordinance shall specify, in addition to the rate
of tax and other matters as required by the Transactions and Use Tax
Law, that the tax is to be imposed for a period not to exceed 30
years and the net revenues derived from the tax are to be
administered by the MTA as provided in this section. Net revenues
shall be defined as all revenues derived from the tax less any
refunds, costs of administration by the State Board of Equalization,
and costs of administration by the MTA. Such costs of administration
by the MTA shall not exceed one and one-half percent (1.5%) of the
revenues derived from the tax. The MTA shall, during the period in
which the ordinance is operative , except for the extension period authorized by Section 130350.6 , allocate 20 percent of
all net revenues derived from the tax for bus operations to all
eligible and included municipal transit operators in the County of
Los Angeles and to the MTA, in accordance with Section 99285.
However, the allocations to the MTA and eligible and included
municipal operators shall be made solely from revenues derived from a
tax imposed pursuant to this section, and not from local
discretionary sources. Funds allocated by MTA to itself pursuant to
this section shall be used for transit operations and shall not
supplant funds from any other source allocated by MTA to itself for
public transit operations. Funds allocated by MTA to the eligible and
included municipal operators pursuant to this section shall be used
for transit operations and shall not supplant any funds authorized by
other provisions of law and allocated by MTA to the eligible and
included municipal operators for public transit. In addition to this
amount, the MTA shall allocate 5 percent of all net revenues derived
from the tax , except for those derived from the extension authorized by Section 130350.6, for rail operations. The MTA
shall include the projects and programs described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B) in the expenditure plan required under subdivision (f).
The MTA shall include all projects and programs described in the
expenditure plan required under subdivision (f) in its Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP). The priorities for projects and programs
described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) and in the expenditure plan
required under subdivision (f) shall be those set forth in the
expenditure plan. The funding amounts specified in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) are minimum amounts that shall be allocated by the MTA from
the net revenues derived from a tax imposed pursuant to this section.
Nothing in this section prohibits the MTA from allocating additional
net revenues derived from the tax to these projects and programs.
(A) Capital Projects.
(i) Exposition Boulevard Light Rail Transit Project from downtown
Los Angeles to Santa Monica. The sum of nine hundred twenty-five
million dollars ($925,000,000).
(ii) Crenshaw Transit Corridor from Wilshire Boulevard to Los
Angeles International Airport along Crenshaw Boulevard. The sum of
two hundred thirty-five million five hundred thousand dollars
($235,500,000).
(iii) San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways. The sum of one
hundred million five hundred thousand dollars ($100,500,000).
(iv) Metro Gold Line (Pasadena to Claremont) Light Rail Transit
Extension. The sum of seven hundred thirty-five million dollars
($735,000,000).
(v) Metro Regional Connector. The sum of one hundred sixty million
dollars ($160,000,000).
(vi) Metro Westside Subway Extension. The sum of nine hundred
million dollars ($900,000,000).
(vii) State Highway Route 5 Carmenita Road Interchange
Improvement. The sum of one hundred thirty-eight million dollars
($138,000,000).
(viii) State Highway Route 5 Capacity Enhancement (State Highway
Route 134 to State Highway Route 170, including access improvement
for Empire Avenue). The sum of two hundred seventy-one million five
hundred thousand dollars ($271,500,000).
(ix) State Highway Route 5 Capacity Enhancement (State Highway
Route 605 to the Orange County line, including improvements to the
Valley View Interchange). The sum of two hundred sixty-four million
eight hundred thousand dollars ($264,800,000).
(x) State Highway Route 5/State Highway Route 14 Capacity
Enhancement. The sum of ninety million eight hundred thousand dollars
($90,800,000).
(xi) Capital Project Contingency Fund. The sum of one hundred
seventy-three million dollars ($173,000,000).
(B) Capital Programs.
(i) Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations. The sum of two
hundred million dollars ($200,000,000).
(ii) MTA and Municipal Regional Clean Fuel Bus Capital (Facilities
and Rolling Stock). The sum of one hundred fifty million dollars
($150,000,000).
(iii) Countywide Soundwall Construction (MTA Regional List and
Monterey Park/State Highway Route 60). The sum of two hundred fifty
million dollars ($250,000,000).
(iv) Local return for major street resurfacing, rehabilitation,
and reconstruction. The sum of two hundred fifty million dollars
($250,000,000).
(v) Metrolink Capital Improvements. The sum of seventy million
dollars ($70,000,000).
(vi) Eastside Light Rail Access. The sum of thirty million dollars
($30,000,000).
(c) The MTA may incur bonded indebtedness payable from the
proceeds of the tax provided by this section pursuant to the bond
issuance provisions of Section 130500 et seq. of the Public Utilities
Code, and any successor act. The MTA shall include in the
expenditure plan, required under subdivision (f), the amount of net
revenue specified for all projects and programs in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) as a condition of the use
and expenditure of the proceeds of the tax. The MTA shall maintain
the current amount of any funding for the projects and programs
specified in this section that has been previously programmed or
received from sources other than the proceeds of the tax, and may not
reallocate money that has been previously programmed or received for
those projects and programs to other projects or uses.
(d) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, the tax rate authorized by this section shall not be considered
for purposes of the combined rate limit established by that section.
(e) A jurisdiction or recipient is eligible to receive funds from
the local return program, described in clause (iv) of subparagraph
(B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of this section and in subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 130350.6 , only if it continues to contribute to that program
an amount that is equal to its existing commitment of local funds or
other available funds. The MTA may develop guidelines that, at a
minimum, specify maintenance of effort requirements for the local
return program, matching funds, and administrative requirements for
the recipients of revenue derived from the tax.
(f) Prior to submitting the ordinance to the voters, the MTA shall
adopt an expenditure plan for the net revenues derived from the tax.
The expenditure plan shall include, in addition to other projects
and programs identified by the MTA, the specified projects and
programs listed in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the estimated
total cost for each project and program, funds other than the tax
revenues that the MTA anticipates will be expended on the projects
and programs, and the schedule during which the MTA anticipates funds
will be available for each project and program. The MTA shall also
identify in its expenditure plan the expected completion dates for
each project described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b). To be eligible to receive revenues derived from the
tax, an agency sponsoring a capital project or capital program shall
submit to the MTA an expenditure plan for its project or program
containing the same elements as the expenditure plan that MTA is
required by this subdivision to prepare.
(g) The MTA shall establish and administer a sales tax revenue
fund. The net revenue derived from the tax, after payment of any debt
services and related obligations, shall be credited to this fund.
The moneys in the fund shall be available to the MTA to meet
expenditure and cashflow needs of the projects and programs described
in the expenditure plan required under subdivision (f). In the event
that there are net revenues in excess of the amount necessary to
provide the amount of net revenues specified in the expenditure plan
for the projects and programs described therein, the MTA may expend
the excess net revenues on projects and programs in the expenditure
plan or the LRTP. In the event that projects and programs in the
expenditure plan are completed without the expenditure of the amount
of net revenues specified, the MTA shall expend the excess net
revenues on projects and programs in the expenditure plan or the LRTP
within the same subregion as the project or program that is
completed. For the purposes of this section, “subregion” shall be
defined in the LRTP.
(h) If other funds become available and are allocated to provide
all or a portion of the amount of net revenues specified in the
expenditure plan for the projects or programs described therein, the
MTA may expend the surplus net revenues on other projects and
programs in the expenditure plan or the LRTP.
(i) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (h), if a capital project or
capital program described in clauses (i) to (x), inclusive, of
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) and clauses (i)
and (vi) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), has
been fully funded from other sources on or before December 31, 2008,
the funds designated to the project or program in clauses (i) to
(x), inclusive, of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision
(b) and clauses (i) and (vi) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of
subdivision (b) shall remain in the subregion in which the project or
program is located and shall be allocated to other projects or
programs in the subregion prior to the expiration of the tax.
(2) A capital project or capital program funded with reallocated
funds pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be included in the adopted 2008
Long Range Transportation Plan or the successor plan and shall be of
regional significance as determined by the MTA. For purposes of this
subdivision, “subregions” means the subregions as defined in the
LRTP in effect as of January 1, 2008.
(j) Notwithstanding Section 130354, revenues raised under this
section and Section 130350.6 may be used to facilitate the
transportation of people and goods within Los Angeles County. The
use of the revenues shall not be limited to public transit purposes.
(k) No later than 365 days prior to the adoption of an amendment
described in paragraph (1) to an expenditure plan adopted pursuant to
subdivision (f), including, but not limited to, the expenditure plan
adopted by the MTA board as “Attachment A” in Ordinance #08-01
adopted by the board on July 24, 2008, and in addition to any other
notice requirements in the proposing ordinance, the board shall
notify the Members of the Legislature representing the County of Los
Angeles of all of the following:
(1) A description of the proposed amendments to the adopted
expenditure plan that would do any of the following:
(A) Affect the amount of net revenues derived from the tax imposed
pursuant to this act that is proposed to be expended on a capital
project or projects identified in the adopted expenditure plan.
(B) Delay the schedule for the availability of funds proposed to
be expended on a capital project or projects identified in the
adopted expenditure plan.
(C) Delay the schedule for the estimated or expected completion
date of a capital project or projects identified in the adopted
expenditure plan.
(2) The reason for the proposed amendment.
(3) The estimated impact the proposed amendment will have on the
schedule, cost, scope, or timely availability of funding for the
capital project or projects contained in the adopted expenditure
plan.
(l) The notification required pursuant to subdivision (k) shall be
achieved by resolution adopted by the MTA board.
(m) The MTA board shall provide prior written notice to the
Members of the Legislature representing the County of Los Angeles of
any proposed amendments to the adopted expenditure plan that would
accelerate funding for a capital project or projects in the adopted
expenditure plan.
SEC. 3. Section 130350.6 is added to the Public Utilities Code, to
read:
130350.6. (a) The tax authorized by Section 130350.5 may be
extended for an additional ____ years beyond the 30-year period set
forth in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 130350.5. This
extension shall be proposed in a transactions and use tax ordinance,
or an amendment of the ordinance approved pursuant to paragraph (1)
of subdivision (b) of Section 130350.5, that conforms with Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 7261) to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
7275), inclusive, of the Transactions and Use Tax Law (Part 1.6
(commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code), and that is approved by a majority of the entire
membership of the authority. The tax may be extended pursuant to this
section only if the proposing ordinance, or amendment thereof, is
approved by two-thirds of the voters, in the manner as otherwise
required by law, voting on this measure, in a special or general
election and, if so approved, shall become operative as provided in
Section 130352. The proposing ordinance shall specify that the net
revenues derived from the tax extension are to be administered by the
MTA as provided in this section. Net revenues shall be defined as
all revenues derived from the tax less any refunds, costs of
administration by the State Board of Equalization, and costs of
administration by the MTA. Such costs of administration by the MTA
shall not exceed 1.5 percent of the revenues derived from the tax
extension.
(b) (1) The MTA shall incur bonded indebtedness payable from the
proceeds of the tax extension authorized by this section pursuant to
the bond issuance provisions of this chapter, and any successor act.
Proceeds from those bonds shall be used to accelerate the completion
of the following projects and programs:
(A) Green Line Extension to the Los Angeles International Airport.
(B) Green Line Extension: Redondo Beach Station to South Bay
Corridor.
(C) Metro Gold Line (Pasadena to Claremont) Light Rail Transit
Extension.
(D) Exposition Boulevard Light Rail Transit Project from downtown
Los Angeles to Santa Monica.
(E) Crenshaw Transit Corridor from Wilshire Boulevard to Los
Angeles International Airport along Crenshaw Boulevard.
(F) San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways.
(G) San Fernando Valley I-405 Corridor Connection.
(H) Metro Regional Connector.
(I) Metro Westside Subway Extension.
(J) Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations.
(K) West Santa Ana Branch Corridor.
(L) MTA and Municipal Regional Clean Fuel Bus Capital (Facilities
and Rolling Stock).
(M) Metrolink Capital Improvements.
(N) Eastside Light Rail Access.
(2) Upon completion of the projects and programs identified in
paragraph (1), any funds remaining from the bonds described in
paragraph (1) shall be used to accelerate the completion of the
following projects and programs:
(A) Interstate 710 North Gap Closure (tunnel).
(B) Interstate 605 Corridor “Hot Spot” Interchanges.
(C) State Highway Route 5 Carmenita Road Interchange Improvement.
(D) State Highway Route 5 Capacity Enhancement (State Highway
Route 134 to State Highway Route 170, including access improvement
for Empire Avenue).
(E) State Highway Route 5 Capacity Enhancement (State Highway
Route 605 to the Orange County line, including improvements to the
Valley View Interchange).
(F) State Highway Route 5/State Highway Route 14 Capacity
Enhancement.
(G) Capital Project Contingency Fund.
(H) Countywide Soundwall Construction (MTA Regional List and
Monterey Park/State Highway Route 60).
(I) Local return for major street resurfacing, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction.
(3) Upon completion of the projects and programs identified in
paragraphs (1) and (2), any funds remaining from the bonds described
in paragraph (1) and any funds remaining from the proceeds of the tax
extension authorized by this section, after payment of the bonded
indebtedness, shall be deposited in the fund described in subdivision
(g) of Section 130350.5.
(c) Prior to submitting the ordinance described in subdivision (a)
to the voters, the MTA shall amend the expenditure plan adopted
pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 130350.5. The amended plan
shall update all of the following for the projects and programs
listed in subdivision (b): the estimated total cost for each project
or program, the schedule during which the MTA anticipates funds will
be available for each project or program, and the expected completion
dates for each project or program.

14 thoughts on “State bill could allow county voters to decide to extend Measure R past 2039

  1. This is preposterous. The notion of borrowing against 30 years of taxes for ten years of fixes was bad enough. (And of a piece with Mayor Villaraigosa’s deferral of the tab for the ERIP retirements and other benefits.). But let’s not compound that overstep with a plan to do more of the same, only over a longer period. Our ability to anticipate the unexpected falls far short of year 2039, to say nothing of the great beyond. By the Assemblyman’s reasoning, why not accept nuclear waste here, figuring we’ll have a plan over the next couple of decades to address it? Sounds like a winner!

  2. Mark,

    I’m not sure you totally get the gist of 30-10. It’s not just “ten years of fixes,” it’s thirty years worth of projects (“fixes”) condensed into 10 years via bridge loans. Yes, the loans would be paid back over thirty years, but the transit and road projects would be coming on line sooner than the original Measure R timeline called for, so we’d all get to benefit from the greater mobility sooner — 20 years sooner in some cases.

    Carter Rubin
    Contributor, The Source

  3. Let’s see how this is going down (of course it won’t be printed-given Mr. Hymon’s CENSORSHIP PRACTICES!): 1.) There is already a 30 year sales tax in place, that the MTA-a.) CAN’T OPEN THE “EXPO LINE” with, and b.) WON’T expand bus service with, and 2.) a 10 year “extension” of “anticipated revenue” is being proposed? Has even 10 years gone by since this “Measure R” was even implemented? Has all THAT REVENUE been accounted for (e.g. non-opening “Expo Line”, and money NOT SPENT ON BUS LINE EXPANSION!)? How much MORE FISCAL IDIOCY is being proposed here?

  4. Hi John;

    I don’t censor you. I do enforce a fairly simple guidelines policy.

    The first phase of the Expo Line is not being funded by Measure R. Constructing began before Measure R was approved by voters in 2008.

    Steve Hymon
    Editor, The Source

  5. I want to start seeing my taxes decrease. All these talk about extending the tax is based on the assumption that Angelinos will continue to have jobs and a stable income that can be taxed. Clearly that is not the case today. The average Angelinos’ wages have been flat for the most part of the decade and many are out of a job these days due to the lousy economy.

    If anything, LA Metro needs to figure out their own way out of this budget mess instead of coming back crying to taxpayers every time to pay off its debt. If they can’t handle it, they need to be replaced with someone who can.

  6. Let’s 2039 Los Angeles vote on 2039’s Los Angeles sales tax. That is too far out into the future.

  7. The way I look at it, we can:

    a) Stop building transit completely, and let our freeways clog up until we get an economic heart attack

    b) pay for transit with bond measures

    c) pay for transit with tax increases

    d) pay for transit with this magic, moneymaking hat I found on the beach the other day. Oh wait, that one doesn’t exist.

    Other possibilities would include waiting for Hanshin or Tokyu (private) Railways to rescue us (impossible because of political reaction to foreign companies) or raising fares to impossible levels.

    Please, extend Measure R.

  8. No more taxes. Period. We’re taxed enough already.

    Metro got us into this mess, they need to dig themselves out of this grave. No one ever mentions about cutting back the pay of Metro staff, why is that?

  9. Why doesn’t LA study how Hong Kong does it? The system I used back in HK and Singapore is run without the need of constantly raising taxes or fares. Maybe there’s more to than just smaller or denser cities; maybe it’s something LA hasn’t thought up of yet.

    Why not send some people to Hong Kong and Singapore to study how they operate their transit system? They speak English, why don’t you go on a fact finding mission and talk with the people running HKMRT and SMRT to see what they are doing right and what you are doing wrong. Or is there something wrong with asking Asians for advice?

  10. @James Fujita

    What good does extending Measure R for taxes do any good if Metro doesn’t give us any clear cut answers whether this will be end of it? Where’s the promise that we won’t have Measure R3? Measure R4?

    Besides, increasing or extending taxes when there are more Angelinos being out of work and when we’re not seeing any increase in paychecks is not the way to go.

    There are other alternatives out there. They can first start by cutting back on wasteful spending and finding out ways to increase revenue. This is exactly what I meant by Metro spending thousands of dollars in artwork at train stations which earn nothing and end up costing money in the long run to maintain when they could’ve just spent the same amount to add retail space to earn rental income.

    Metro needs to stop being dependent and coming back crying to taxpayers. They need to start learning fiscal and economic responsibility 101 just like every Angelino out there who’s having a tough time.

Comments are closed.