Going Back on a Deal: Traffic Signals, LA and the Budget

by Julia Rosen [courtesy of Working Californians blogs]

One of the rider bills that passed the Assembly with the budget allocated $150 million in state bond money for the synchronization of traffic signals in Los Angeles. The Republicans have now pitched a fit about it, despite the fact that they agreed to this back when the bonds were initially proposed last year. They are now trying to include it in the budget negotiations. LAT:

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he was confident, after assurances from Nuñez, that the money was not in jeopardy.

"The millions of commuters who are stuck in traffic every day should not be further stalled by partisan bickering in Sacramento," Villaraigosa said Monday.

"The people were promised traffic relief when they voted for the bond, and we will continue to fight to make sure that the promise is kept."

City officials said signal synchronization would reduce traffic delays by 32% and reduce emissions by more than 900,000 metric tons per year, benefiting the entire region.

Talk about a measurable improvement and improving the quality of life for Los Angeles area residents. This is exactly the type of project that the voters had in mind when they passed the bond. The battle over this money is one of many examples of how the Republicans are using the dispute to try and leverage other changes that are beyond their power as the minority party. And it cannot be under emphasized that they are going back on their word.

Democrats say that the governor and legislative leaders, including Ackerman and Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines, agreed before putting the transportation measure on the ballot that the bulk of the $250 million set aside for street signals would go to Los Angeles.

But the agreement was never put in writing, and the bond measure that came before voters did not mention any specific portion for the city.

Now, some discussion of the propriety of these types of backdoor deals may be in order, but one cannot ignore that they made that deal and now they need to stick with it. I am sure they got other things they wanted in separate side deals. It is doubtful that they want the Democrats to retaliate and pull those agreements.