Ok, i am a current user of MTD. I have no complaint against MTD. As someone with no vehicle currently, i rely on MTD to get me to work and
other important areas and places. I have never had any problems with MTD. The drivers are always courteous and get me where i need to go
on time.
My beef with the folks of Southwest Champaign is that your area is the fastest growing, and new businesses are starting there. Why
should their not be a bus line on where the businesses are, NOT the residential areas? Why should people be penalized because for
whatever reason, they have to rely on the bus for their transportation. Should we be allowed to enjoy your area businesses? As far as Savoy
goes, Savoy has always been part of MTD. I used to live in Winfield Village and rode the MTD to school and back. The MTD serves
Savoy already. Buses run to the movie theater and the airport. Why would Savoy need it own transit system when its so small that
only one bus would be needed? That sounds like more like a waste of taxpayer dollars than the annexing of southwest champaign.
im actually in favor of expanding service as long as Champaign continues to expand. Its the cost of urban sprawl. Don't like mass
transit in your area, then stop growth. Im in favor of growth and more opportunity, so im willing to support more buses in our area.
I am opposed to the City of Urbana getting involved and will voice my opposition at the next council meeting.
As a long time user of the MTD and a big fan of its services, though completely ignorant of the bureaucratic mess behind it all, I've never once had any reason or need to go into the SW Champaign area in question. In fact every time I've gone through the SW Champaign area in question I'm given the strung indication that there isn't a single resident there who does not own there own vehicle, would not prefer to use there own vehicle, and is would not rather carpool or rent a car if their vehicle became inoperable for whatever reason.
It's a bunch of nice neighborhoods. It's mostly not in the City of Champaign and it's mostly on the outskirts of the City anyways where public transportation is the biggest pain in the butt. An exception would be for big city commuters... but we aren't that big of a city.
I'd oppose it because it's mainly just a big money scam that's completely unnecessary. I like the bus system here. I'm becoming less and less of a fan of the bureaucracy behind it. Kudos to Deb Feinen for not supporting the City jumping in on this madness.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I oppose the idea that some people can sit around with **no input** whatsoever (and I don't count public comment because we all know those can be easily ignored) decide that a certain area "needs" bus service. I'm quite sure SW Champaign residents (and any other resident of any other area for that matter) is quite capable of deciding whether or not they need bus service.
I would support having a referenda to determine whether residents want it, that's fine... but we're talking busses here, not police. I'm quite certain almost any bus that runs through SW Champaign will be empty, so basically it's just a nice little attempt to grab their cash by making them pay for a service that they not only don't need, but don't want.
Why don't we just eminent domain their houses and have the CUMTD rent it back to them? At least that'd be honest.
The only reason SW Champaign is being eyed is because they have money, the MTD wants it, and they know there will be no real usage there so they're getting free cash with almost no expense. Let's call it what it is... theft. Or if you prefer in the light of a holiday that's upcoming... taxation without representation. As I understand it, the MTD board is represented by people inside the MTD district. That means the people deciding whether annexation happens have no interest whatsoever in those communities and their views are not represented. It'd be arguably different if SW Champaign had some representation on the MTD board before someone decided on this enrichment plan. As I understand the process, they can only be represented *AFTER* the MTD annexes them and starts extracting tribute.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Any metro area worth the name has a CENTRAL transit district. This isn't some brand new wild conspiracy cooked up just here in Champaign, it's standard urban planning practice. The situation in SW Champaign is about to change radically with the opening of the Curtis Road interchange, as was mentioned on the other thread. Buses will need to go through the so called "bunch of nice neighborhoods" to reach the shopping. While I might debate whether we really need a North Prospect Take Two, given that it's getting built (with how much subsidy, I wonder?), it will need transit service. Those buses will be filled - I'd bet money on it. Do any of you ride the buses to N. Prospect now, particularly on Friday evenings or the weekend? They are standing room only.
Anon... is there anything like that in the SW district or past it? If so I apologize for being misinformed. Yes I've taken the bus to the north prospect area numerous times. And it is part of the reason why I'm so thankful I have a car now. It's handy if you don't have a car but I would NEVER EVER EVER dream of doing it now. It just takes too dern long. Parking is plentiful and traffic, while people whine and complain about it, isn't all that bad compared to most urban areas on a busy day. And if I need to pick up some socks at target, a new gadget on sale at Best Buy, and groceries at Meijer... no way in hell am I going to go through all that hell on foot and lugging and then try to cram on with a bunch of other college students and poor folks trying to do the same on the bus. I did it when I had to. I paid my dues. That wasn't a sign of our city "growing up" that was a sign of how people in this city had to struggle while the people with money could drive right up to the door.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Where to stand? Not in the middle of the road. An MTD bus will surely mow you down.
Anonymous - so some guy on a blog who doesn't have the courtesy to use his name has projected into the future not only the need of buses in a community he likely hasn't set foot in, but the economic success of projects down there?
Explain to me why the CUMTD: (1) needs property taxes to begin with? (explain in the light of your answer that every other metro area worth a name with few exceptions ONLY charges user fees and charges no property tax), and (2) needs to imperialisticly force itself on people without any representation on their behalf, any referenda, or any other aspect of what we like to call in this country "democracy"?
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
It's simple, really. They're on a mission from God.
Great... first we had Christian fundamentalists... then there is Islamic fundamentalists... now we have transit fundamentalists!!!!
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
would transit fundamentalists be better, or worse, than transient fundamentalists? :-) :-)
(i know, low-brow humor, but the joke was there....)
HG
= Transit Terrorists
"Why should people be penalized because for whatever reason, they have to rely on the bus for their transportation. Should we be allowed to enjoy your area businesses?"
In addition to a trolley (or tram) connecting downtown Urbana and Champaign with the UI Campus area, the much ballyhooed Long-Range Transportation Study the Cities of Urbana and Champaign and the CUMTD have been touting calls for a county-wide mass transit system. Bill Volk would raise your "why can't I visit SW champaign" with a "why shouldn't people who rely on the bus for their transportation be able to go anywhere in the county--such as Mahomet to visit the Forest Preserve, or Rantoul to visit the aerospace museum, or Tolono to the parade this weekend?"
"Its the cost of urban sprawl. Don't like mass transit in your area, then stop growth."
If you really want to combat urban sprawl you ought to limit the CUMTD to a "core" area so people have an incentive to live within the core to have access to the beloved mass transit services. But I suppose you could consider massive CUMTD property taxes a sprawl disincentive, too. Perhaps a better anti-sprawl solution would be a massive property tax for everyone in the Cities while only providing transit service to a limited central area. But before you get too would up about sprawl, you ought to findn someone to drive you to Rankin and back--that will cure you of any notion that we're going to run out of farmland any time soon.
This bears repeating over and over and over:
"If you really want to combat urban sprawl you ought to limit the CUMTD to a "core" area so people have an incentive to live within the core to have access to the beloved mass transit services."
MTD contributes to sprawl by immediately serving every far-flung shopping district and Wal-Mart. WIthout MTD, far-flung retail would not be accessible to the largest source of outside cash in this town: students. In order to maximize revenue and profits by being within the MTD service area, businesses would potentially seek to stay closer in. MTD service area would be smaller and more dense. MTD could offer higher frequency, shorter rides, better connections (network externalities), and so on.
The last thing MTD should do is offer service to every far-flung retail center the moment it opens. Dumb.
Say it with me:
"If you really want to combat urban sprawl you ought to limit the CUMTD to a "core" area so people have an incentive to live within the core to have access to the beloved mass transit services."
Again:
"If you really want to combat urban sprawl you ought to limit the CUMTD to a "core" area so people have an incentive to live within the core to have access to the beloved mass transit services."
Want to combat urban sprawl? End property rights. That simple.
Urban sprawl is a factor of a vibrant economy and a growing middle class owning their own homes. That's a good thing. If you want to stop "sprawl", fine... just realize you'd need to tear down the Wal-Marts and put soup kitchens in their place.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I think the point is more along the lines of: MTD is run by a bunch of self-righteous ************ who simply want what they want and are wiling to lie to justify their actions or something.
EDITED BY IP to remove unnecessary profanity.
Geeze,
While I agree this seems to be a very sensitive matter and that the law is probably overlapping and needs to be decided in court, a continuing trend exists in this blog and others.
Many of the comments are well conceived and based on the best belief and interpretation of the author. Those comments may not set well or be in agreement with others who read an post and that is cool (kewl) too because that is how good solutions are conceived.
But disagreement expressed in the fashion of name calling or harsh adjectives like "Dumb", "Stupid", etc. serve no purpose except to erode and exacerbate the quality of comment. Frankly stated, it tends to "Piss People Off".
So out of courtesy and in the interest of encouraging creative comments, it a participant thinks someting is "Dumb" how about trying this or something like this.
"I am not sure your comment follows the facts and I'm uncertain it's meaning. Care to expand on your thoughts?"
A little sugar goes a long way.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
To those of you who may think it's a question of need for the SW area, that hasn't happened yet. The whole issue is about taxes. Should the SW people pay taxes to support the MTD?
Here is the debate, plain and simple. The SW people say they don't ride the busses so they shouldn't have to pay. The other way of looking at is that OTHERS need to ride the busses. This is the old rehashed argument.
I don't DIRECTLY use it so I shouldn't have to pay. That is not good for the community, and is not really what our Judeo-Christian ethics teach us. WWJD?
From my point of view (and I HATE following busses in traffic) is that this is a community issue. If those who didn't have busses had to drive, many many uninsured people would be driving clunkers, clogging our streets with more cars, uninsured cars, clunker cars.
There are taxes I have to pay for the good of the community. I don't use "X" service", but I still pay, because it is good for the community. I am, in common parlance, a team player when it comes to society. I hold open doors for strangers, I let people go in traffic ahead of me, I avod construction areas when I drive, I coach even when I don't have a kid on the team. I pick up litter when I see it. I try to help the community in general.
The SW people have been backed into a corner or have backed themselves into a corner with the politicalization of this issue. Sure, the MTD is huge, has a big budget and collects big taxes, and most people don't ride the bus. None the less, it is a vital service to the community. The appraoach shaould have been, and still should be, how do go about getting more management control over the MTD?
The issue is really: will the SW people step up and help the community as a whole, or will the SW people create their own community? Cherry picking (we want cops, even though we seldom call them, or we want fire protection even though we seldom have fires, or we want good schools even though we may not have school age children in the public school) is wrong-headed, is polarizing, and is destructive to the community as a whole and selfishness is destructive to the soul.
I think everyone who lives or works in Champaign receives a benefit with the MTD, even if they don't ride the busses.
It's an old comparison and an old argument, but I see it as similar to the public schools. I don't use them, but the community does. I don't like to pay the Unit 4 tax, but I know, even with the mismanagement of the schools, it is still a necessary societal cost.
The SW Champaign people is a small group, and unfortunately they have been cast as rich people who won't help the community. That is a shame, because so many of them are community leaders, and so many of them are generous beyond what most people know. It is a shame they are now considered by so many to be so miserly.
"It's an old comparison and an old argument, but I see it as similar to the public schools. I don't use them, but the community does. I don't like to pay the Unit 4 tax, but I know, even with the mismanagement of the schools, it is still a necessary societal cost."
I disagree, and so does state law, which requires every resident of the state to live in a school district, but doesn't require everyone (or even everyone living in a municipality above XX thousand population) to live in a mass transit district.
I understamd your argument about school districts are mandatory and mass transit districts are not, but that is not the point. The point is that the community as a whole has a mass transit district. The people of SW Champaign venture into the areas served by the CUMTD, and therefore receive benefit because the CUMTD helps to keep old clunker uninsured and more in number vehicles off the streets.
Are you a member of the whole community, warts and all, or are you a person who just picks and chooses what service he or she wants to support?
Your school analogy is correct, but you cannot extend it to police and fire. There is NO requirement that people live where police and fire "districts" exist. Yet, we all see the value of police and fire, even if we never ever use them personally.
You are not required to have fire insurance. I have to buy fire insurance which includes the possibility that you as my neighbor don't have insurance, and if your house burns down my house you don't have enough money to pay for my house. I have to buy uninsured and underinsured automobile insurance, because you might not be a community team player and you might not have automobile insurance. The traffic ticket notwithstanding, I am more concerned about the accidents, not the tickets.
I can't do a cost benefit analysis, maybe State Farm has done so, but what would happen to our automobile insurance rates locally if we had a disporportionate amount of uninsured drivers in the community? I suggest this has in fact been examined by the insurance companies, and the answer is that the personal automobile rates would go up, not to mention the clogging of our streets, the need for our police to be busy with little things instead of big things, wear and tear on our roads everywhere, longer commutes (accepted: the commute is only a few minutes) and more accidents because of more cars driven by more marginal people, resulting in more injuries and even more traffic deaths.
So it's in everyones' best interest to share the burden even when we not only do not directly benefit form it, but even when we oppose it, becuase the cost is spread more equitably throughout the community. Nobody wants to pay taxes for services they don't use, but that is what citizens who care about communities do, people who care about others do. iCaring about others, especially the less fortunate, is what I have been told to do every Sunday for many decades.
So it's in everyones' best interest to share the burden even when we not only do not directly benefit form it, but even when we oppose it, becuase the cost is spread more equitably throughout the community.
I have heard that argument. I think I have also heard CUMTD say that extending services into these annexed areas would cost them almost as much as they make in taxes. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) So where is the equitable spreading? Are CUMTD tax rates falling rapidly as they expand?
"I understamd your argument about school districts are mandatory and mass transit districts are not, but that is not the point. The point is that the community as a whole has a mass transit district."
The community as a whole does not have a Mass Transit District. The CUMTD (and Champaign and Urbana) wants the community as a whole to have a mass transit district, and the CUMTD is trying to get there via annexation. But there are chunks of the community that aren't in CUMTD, and won't be any time soon.
"Your school analogy is correct, but you cannot extend it to police and fire. There is NO requirement that people live where police and fire "districts" exist. Yet, we all see the value of police and fire, even if we never ever use them personally."
Everyone is covered in a police "district" - even out in the country, you're in the jurisdiction of a County Sheriff. I believe the law also required fire protection, but I'm not sure about that. I know for a fact that everyone is required to live in a library district. But not mass transit - which is the state's way of explicitly stating that it's not universally beneficial to everyone in a community.
"So it's in everyones' best interest to share the burden even when we not only do not directly benefit form it, but even when we oppose it, becuase the cost is spread more equitably throughout the community. Nobody wants to pay taxes for services they don't use, but that is what citizens who care about communities do, people who care about others do. iCaring about others, especially the less fortunate, is what I have been told to do every Sunday for many decades."
I don't disagree. I think, if the CUMTD had handled things differently rather than just revenue-gobbling and being as unaccoutable as possible, that SW Champaign wouldn't have resisted so strongly, if at all. But CUMTD has made it clear they will always raises thier tax rates to the max, even though they have a massive surplus. They won't reduce tax rates, even when annexing massively lucrative neighborhoods that require and want little-to-no service. They won't listen to neighborhood input about where to run buses. They just don't care; they're going to do what they want, and they'll be the first to tell you that there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.
Compromise is a two-way street. Why can't CUMTD find a way to be less objectionable, and "sell" their services to the entire community?
I doubt the MTD really wants to run busses through Lincolnshire Fields or the Trails of Britney. The MTD crearly wants the tax revenue. Whether or not everyone else's will be or should be reduced is not the issue. Whether or not the MTD really needs the money is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not, as a community of the whole, is bus service something we want? Not for ourselves so much, as for others who rely upon it, and therefore make our own personal ives easier and more importantly, safer?
What is the tax burden compared to higher insurance rates, compared to that uninsured, unicensed driver whose car is taking your parking place, is in your way in traffic, is belching smoke and running on bald tires, who is filling up with 3 dollars of gas and spending all that time at the pump, in the gas station buying candy, making the short commute longer, messier and more dangerous, driving a clunker in need of brakes who wouldn't be there but is, and runs a stop sign, or just can't stop in time, and kills your wife and child.
What's it worth to you to keep people like that, cars like that, off the streets? You know, lots and lots of crappy cars could mean, will mean, people driving more cars through your neighborhood. Do you really want a 84 Dodge belching smoke and dripping oil driving through the Trails on a Sunday drive 'to go look at the rich people's houses"? I don't think so. Fewer cars is better for everyone. Plain and simple. The cost needs to be spread throughout the community.
What you don't understand is that having the CUMTD keeps people OUT of SW Champaign that you might not, shall I say, prefer to have hanging around?
Maybe I'll organize a little parade where we can get all the cars from Dobbins Downs and Fifth and Bradley and such neighborhoods and drive through SW Champaign.
Just who is your favorite rap artist, because I want to turn it up my car stereo loud enough to make sure you hear it.
Plain and simple. The cost needs to be spread throughout the community.
Show us that the CUMTD is actually doing that
"What you don't understand is that having the CUMTD keeps people OUT of SW Champaign that you might not, shall I say, prefer to have hanging around?"
I see - so the primary reason to be opposed to CUMTD is racism. How very constructive of you.
"Maybe I'll organize a little parade where we can get all the cars from Dobbins Downs and Fifth and Bradley and such neighborhoods and drive through SW Champaign.
Just who is your favorite rap artist, because I want to turn it up my car stereo loud enough to make sure you hear it."
I prefer Eminem, although I like early stuff (up to and including 8 Mile) much more. I also really like Kanye. But I don't live in SW Champaign, so you'll have to head the other direction - to another racist neighborhood without CUMTD service - to play some of my favorites for me.
What's interesting is that there's a Champaign County burglary report map and it looks like most of the burglaries are in lower-income neighborhoods anyhow. So I don't think the idea about undesirable people driving into neighborhoods even makes much sense.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts_crime_fire/map/
"Burglary Map"?
Say it isn't so. What is the purpose? To head burglars in the right direction? If it is for Police, why let the burglars know what you are thinking?
Way, Way, Way too much information.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
The people in SW Champaign appear no different than anyone else in the area. They look at their costs verses their benefits. They deemed the CUMTD's costs were too high for many reasons. Here are just a few I heard presented at the public hearing. 1) increased taxes for a service not needed by more than a potentially very small percentage of the population (residents knew upon purchase no public bus service west of I-57 was available). 2) inability to have direct input on how and where the MTD operates it buses. 3) increased environmental damage to the area by noise, sight and air pollution. 3) increased damage to right-of-ways and roads not designed to handle most of the CUMTD's equipment with no reimbursement (remember the CUMTD annexed areas not in the City of Champaign then or now). 4) increased risk to people, animals and property by these oversized vehicles (examples of buses hitting vehicles, running over curbs etc).
The CS MTD Board appears to be focused on the needs and requirements of the area and its residents. Hopefully, our right to choose through the election process is still alive and well in the country. I heard about these SW Champaign folks going door to door collecting over a 1,000 signatures on a petition to form their own MTD. I watched these people articulate their reasons for not wanting to be in the CU MTD only to be force annexed a few days later. I admired their overwhelming vote to form their own MTD. Then again, this spring, these people, by election again, with 70% of the resident voters, giving tax authority to their newly formed district for legal expenses in an effort to reverse the CU MTD's forced annexation of part of their district. This is how things should be done in the USA, these people are to be admired and encouraged as they strive to exercise their citizen rights.
I have also been told the committee, consisting of the CU MTD, cities of Champaign and Urbana, Champaign County etc. who authored and approved the much cited 'transportation plan 2025' has denied representation on their committee to the CS MTD. Clearly this denial is not in the public's interest.
well, hopefully, if i get this job at the News-Gazette, i can buy a car and "bump" my Eminem down Trails of Brittany. Funny, the majority of people who have kept the gangsta rap industry alive happen to be upper-income suburban white teenagers, "Not people from the bad part of town. These white teens who are bored with suburbia think the "THUG" lifestyle looks cool and hip. So, when i go through SW Champaign, i better not be seeing any white teenagers bumping Ice Cube or 50 cent!
So, is there a correlation of income level and music taste?
As far as bus service goes, i would only go to businesses that are pleasing to my eyes, i have no intention of going into "your neighborhood" as long as there is not a Wal-Mart next door or a new movie theater that has great prices.
so, would people be allowed to transfer to the Southwest MTD if, say, they hold a yearly pass from the CUMTD?
Wayward, that is one of my favorite songs ever - it hits me "where I live" :-)