The ballot arguments against Measure B warned that the measure was broadly written and that the VTA could just spend all of the money (borrowed against the sales tax stream) for BART (or other projects especially beneficial to San Jose). But local politicians dutifully lined up behind Measure B, and it passed with the additional help of money from special interests that stood to profit from projects - including the multi-BILLION DOLLAR BART extension. Now these same local politicians complain.

I'm not an anti-taxer "Promote the general Welfare". But because of just the plethora of 'opps - we Promised BUT' that usually pop up around here for Bonds, Tax Measures. I now usually vote NO when there is not a clear and legally enforceable First Priority list in the text of the measure. Such a "legal guarantee" to the electorate does not even have to cover all the spending - just, say 50%. Make sure the Priority is legally enforceable - not 'a promise' and I think we would do better at getting What We Think we were voting for.

And elected officials - would start to notice.

In this case - Kriss and others complained before the Measure, but did not Vote NO on the boards when they had the chance. VOTE No officials - Please VOTE No McAllister. (I know Joe will VOTE no) DUH "no one actually believed'?

I voted no on B. Can we put a measure on to rescind B? I’d happily support that. Or maybe a ‘defund VTA’ measure?

Measure B’s bait-and-switch has made me really cynical about ever voting for such a measure in the future. At least from the VTA. It won’t be worth my effort to carefully read any such proposal. I’ll save time with a quick No vote.

It seems the grand jury report highlighted several areas for improvement for VTA. It would be nice to see a future Voice article that explores what is being done to fix VTA's systemic problems.