How to Prepare for MTC-ABAG Public Meetings (Click here to see details)

Prepare For
No One Bay Area

MTC-ABAG Public Meetings

When you get to the meeting:
1.  Pick up literature
2.  Sign in
3.  Get a speaker card and an agenda.
4.  Note on the speaker card what agenda item you want to comment on (all items will be numbered, indicate the number of the agenda item you want to address, there may be different colored cards for each agenda item–you can speak on multiple items but each item requires a different card)
5.  Take a seat and wait until your name is called to the podium–be prepared !!
6.  Comments are usually limited to 2-3 minutes
7.  If you are with a group and would like to pool your minutes and have one person speak for you, note your name and the name of your designated speaker on the card
8. Bring a video camera, we may not have a videographer there.
Suggested Signs to Print Out
(or make your own)
NOTE:  Our opposition has been very effective at making 8×10 signs on colored paper and holding them up at meetings**
We can play that game too
ABAG-MTC Don’t Speak for Me

  1. The assumptions about economic and population growth are highly suspect.   Where did  MCT/ABAG get this data?  What is their track record on predictions?
  2. The demographic projections indicate that the percentage of “low income” and “very low income” residents will increase to 43 percent of all residents by 2040. If true, this will put even greater strain on both public and private resources to support the massive spending required (but never detailed) to support various elements of the plan, especially housing and transit.
  3. The project constantly stresses the importance of “affordable” housing but never defines the term. The actions recommended would do nothing reduce the real cost of housing whereas in the real world creating new land use restrictions and open space requirements has been a huge factor in pushing up housing costs.
  4. The section assumes that housing can be made “affordable” by shifting costs from one segment of the population to others. These schemes don’t work over the longer term in the real world and will become even less viable if the demographic projections regarding the growth of the low-income segment of the population are correct.
  5. The authors of the section clearly don’t understand the difference in economic terms between “need” and “demand.” There are a lot of things I “need,” but can’t afford to pay for. In the absence of the ability to pay for such things, my need does not translate into demand in the sense in which these terms are used by economists. The need for low-cost housing does not in itself create demand.
  6. The assumptions about economic growth are unrealistic. Even while projecting large increases in low-income residents, the section assumes strong growth in the “knowledge sector” of the economy. Low income residents usually lack the education, experience, and job skills required to work in the knowledge sector of the economy.
  7. Industries based on human capital tend to be even more mobile than manufacturing industries. It’s very difficult to pick up and move a multi-billion-dollar, capital-intensive wafer fab than to relocate the kind of businesses that have moved into the South of Market area of San Francisco in recent years — essentially office workers who can work anywhere. People with such skill sets are also very mobile and can easily vote with their feet when public policies make them the principal targets of income redistribution.
  8. Nothing in recent California experience supports the forecast that the Bay Area will experience strong economic growth. Do the authors expect a drastic change in California’s business climate? More favorable tax treatment for businesses and investors? A better regulatory climate? Why are we seeing so many large and small employers either moving operations out of California or expanding their operations in other states instead of locally?
  9. The report alludes to the health of the agricultural industry in rural areas of the Bay Area. There are no data to show that agriculture is thriving but there are growing problems with water, energy costs, and regulatory issues that growers and ranchers routinely cite.
  10. Why are you ignoring public input that indicates that people don’t want regional planning?

Comments are closed.