Oh come ON. We need that money NOW to improve transportation, especially for grade separation, which will SAVE LIVES.

This selfish lawsuit may literally kill people. What a terrible individual.

This ballot measure pulled the wool over the eyes of those who voted for it, and
all the lawsuit is doing is requiring that they not switch the usage around.

Notice that the state freed up a lot of transportation money subsequently to the measure. Some people were so desperate for road maintenance that they voted Yes, but now that
road maintenance will come from state funds. This amounts to double taxation.
The state funds are available immediately, but they have been missing for several years
now.

The new tax lasts 10's of years. The subsidy to VTA for operating expenses was a
waste of money given VTA's low farebox recovery. This was the bulk of the tax. The
measure doesn't even but a hard limit on how much can go to VTA salaries (out of the
total). The VTA operating subsidy is the only thing hurt by the delay. I say Good on that.

Maybe voters should counter sue Cheriel Jensen for economic damages brought on by delaying these necessary projects.

Oh no! It is not Cheriel Jensen. She is just the one who put her name on it.

It is all about Gary Wesley. He is what I would call an ambulance chaser, but in this case, it is voter chaser. Everytime!

So tired of him!!

I did a quick search on Gary Wesley in the VOICE. 10 pages of references.

I'm sorry but the fact that ANYONE would support this lawsuit is sick, there seem to be plenty of adults who haven't moved past "taking their toys and leaving" when they don't get their way.

If you look up Cheriel Jensen and me online, you will find we both have criticized the VTA for years for different things. The lawsuit is principally based on non-compliance by the VTA with California Government Code Section 50075.1 which requires that a local special tax measure state the specific purposes for use of the tax proceeds to be collected and provide that the money will only be used for those specific purposes. The VTA wrote Measure B to create the option of switching the use of the tax proceeds from the stated purposes to any other "prudent" purposes which 3/4th of its Board of Directors might later fancy. Most or all of the money might be spent on south county BART extensions, for example. If and when you read section 50075.1, you might start to see why such an option violates that state law. You would also need to read the measure. If, on the other hand, you are employed by the VTA or in line to profit financially from its transportation projects, be sure to remain anonymous.

This set up where cities full of people have Zero vote on the VTA Board
depending on what year it is reeks. It's unconstitutional. One person one vote
is part of the U.S. Constitution. So it's no wonder that VTA makes incredibly bad choices and operates an incredibly bad public transit empire.

Now they are trying to ditch contributing to CalTrain and redirecting that funding to their other games.

They deserve no more money. Good for this lawsuit. Do the people kvetching about the delay in their pet projects realize that summed all up together these bones VTA through the North County are only 10% of the total funds raked in by the tax. The law rightfully requires that promises be binding. So kvetch no more. The promises are not binding. They're going to muck with the plans anyway.

This lawsuit is totally overdue. VTA has used other fast and loose allocations with other measures as well. The current measure devotes to a wasteful extension of BART an outsize proportion of funding (if we trust their estimate even, let alone if they use more).

This is not just extending BART. It's building a subway through San Jose for BART, just to cross town a few miles. Wastefully expensive. They have a sloppy light rail
system that is barely usable and barely used, but it connects to the BART station at Berryessa. Why spend $10 Billion extending an antiquated overloaded system
to try to patch the poorly designed light rail? They can't have it both ways.
The light rail could be fixed but it would cost money separate from BART.