German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseHaving the Privilege of Discussing “Transit Racism” with Fuhrer Mann
[tags]bru, metro, transit racism, hypocrisy, eric mann, damien goodmon, get la moving[/tags]
Yes ladies and gents, yesterday I finally met up with the renowned and very well compensated leader of the Bus Riders Union, Eric Mann, in the boardroom during the fare increase public comment period. I started the conversation - okay okay scolding - telling Eric how much I loved rail and hated seeing him use the blood and struggle of my ancestors to push his personal self-aggrandizing and enriching agenda. I then proceeded to apologize for not being able to afford to attend his recent gala at the Crystal Ballroom of the Biltmore Hotel, explaining I had to put food on my table and buy my bus pass instead. You know how life is for we commoners.
I then handed him my card and encouraged him to personally contact me to discuss the issue further. I asked for his card in return, but being the celebrity he is - he was all out of cards! I was so befuddled by his presence that I forgot to request he write down his info on the back of one of my cards. Darn - maybe next time.
The highlight of our interaction came a few minutes later when I got to personally present him with one of the dozens of flyers I made [above], which I circulated throughout the board room and among the press.
The picture is of B.R.U. organizers on the subway platform after an anti-war march, that was posted on their website and was the highlight of a previous MetroRiderLA post. I and others were hoping he’d light fire to it so he would have to be personally escorted out and forever banned from MTA headquarters, but alas Fuhrer Mann was plenty more disciplined than that.
I got to personally deliver the flyers to two of the B.R.U. organizers in the picture and head B.R.U. organizer Manuel Criollo. You see, Manuel and I started this week on not so pleasant terms. After deboarding the 710 at the Leimert Park bus stop at Vernon/Crenshaw early Monday morning, I saw he had organized a non-permit rally in Leimert Park. Well I couldn’t just let that continue without being addressed - not in my own backyard. It’s bad enough I have to spend my time ripping down their illegally placed posters and yard signs.
I began my conversation with Manuel asking, “How can we run bus service with a 50-cent fare and $20 monthly pass,” and then asking him to compare the price of gas and labor today compared to 1997 - but I was being logical, I didn’t expect he’d really respond, and he didn’t.
While expressing my disgust of these race-baiters using Leimert Park as their backdrop, I thought it was ironic that one of the little yellow shirts said they had every right to be there, because in a tactic similar to Reagan announcing his 1980 presidential campaign from Philadelphia, Mississippi while proclaiming support for “state’s rights,” the Minutemen had protested in Leimert Park. I proceeded to point out to the Mann pawn that we were protesting that race-baiting organization just as we would have been protesting the B.R.U. had we known they were going to stage an event, and the Minutemen had a permit.
But I’ve digressed. Eric, call me when you have time to pull away from your struggle to prove your relevancy and fill your pockets on the backs of my forefathers.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
Anger at Eric Mann and his legion of the faithful is understandable. I believe that in the UK, such cults are known collectively as the Loony Left. But I’d dial down the rhetoric a notch or two. The BRU knows exactly what buttons they’re pushing and they feed on drama. Against the odds, let’s work for less heat and more light.
Nice. Well written and acted upon.
My problem with Mann and the BRU is not merely his point-of-view and his (their) opinions, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.
My bigger problem, that gets steam pouring out of my ears, is that the media presents their views unquestioningly. I wouldn’t say that they present the BRU views “as fact,” but the local media reports on the fare hearing (I watched those on Channels 2,4,5,9 and 13) slanted their reports completely through the BRU lens and did not present any opposing views.
It’s one thing for the Daily Bruin to laud Eric Mann, I wouldn’t expect much from a college newspaper where nobody gets paid. But I do expect more from our local TV news (why, I don’t know, I’ve been watching it for 18 years, I should know better). At least the articles in L.A. Times were somewhat even-handed.
The end of the consent decree was the end of eBRU relevance. They are desparately grasping at straws to prove BRU still means something. In general, I found the whole public testimony aspect of the day like something out of 16th century England (probably where the this tradition comes from). Honestly, the most meaningful input that Metro received came from the many emails, thoughtful blog postings, and the advocacy group alternative fare proposals that came in during the 30 day advance notice period. I hope that future public processes can utilize technology better to reduce the circus atmosphere - seriously, did you see the person that came dressed as a sunflower? Escapees from Disneyland’s Enchanted Tiki Hut do nothing to further the cause of fair and equitable transportation for all. Good for you for taking on Mr. Mann and minions.
But c’mon Matt, where else do you get to see a citizen flip off over a dozen public officials to the cheers and laughter of a 300-person audience?
I have to say given John Walsh’s past antics, though the one yesterday was entertaining, I was expecting a bit more. I figured no one could top that and left shortlty after the Walsh performance.
Dressed as a sunflower?
It’s not anger Donald - it’s disgust and confrontation. They’re going to do what they do, and unfortunately they still have access to very large microphones. Nothing I can really do about that. But I’m going to call them out when the opportunity presents itself, and encourage people to leave their foot at the BRU’s neck while they’re down.
As one of 300 speakers yesterday I knew whatever fare restructuring I recommended wasn’t going to be heard. Something as important as a fare increase wasn’t going to be determined on the fly of a political show. I participated in the discussion through SOCATA fare increase discussion that went into evening hours a couple of months ago, and while I didn’t vote for the SOCATA proposal, I didn’t vote against it.
So I took the opportunity of the sideshow yesterday to say what every person who really knows about this issue and knows about the B.R.U. wants to say, but the media doesn’t report, and I did it a room filled with the BRU’s organizers, MTA board members, Eric Mann with the cameras rolling. I was only encouraged by the non-permit protest a 0.25-mile from my home.
When all is said and done (I’ll write up a postmortem in a few weeks), it has to do with the MTA board’s unwillingness to face reality until the very last moment. Part of it, yes, has to do with the chair. You can bet that if Yaroslavsky was the chair, not withstanding Villaraigosa’s comments, a fare increase would have been on the table in July and we would have been done with this by the end of April.
The process had to end now because the budget is going to be released in about a week and the numbers for “revenue” needed to be plugged in to finish it. (You’ll note that nowhere in Scenario 29 or Villaraigosa did anyone bother to disclose publicly how much many the agency would receive as a result of each proposal.) Now that they have about $40-50 million to plug into the “fare” column, they can finish their work.
Approving major things immediately after hearing public testimony is a poor means of public policy. I am sure Matt will claim that the BRU advertised this months ago, and some article buried in the Daily News proves his point. But he misses the point. Agencies need to be responsible in listening to public input yet also be fair in not pre-determining things would happen (at 10 AM, when one of the speakers at public comment talked about the Molina proposal, I knew immediately that would be approved in five hours, and said as much to a fellow observer). People spent an entire day to watch this and the ultimate result is while the result may be satisfactory (to me anyway), the process was certainly disappointing.
Here’s the link to the staff report to the Board on the proposed fare changes:
http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2007/05_May/20070524SBMItem1c.pdf
“The proposed fare restructuring effective JulY 1, 2007, is estimated to provide approximately
$80 milion of incremental fare revenues over the FY07 budgeted amount of $280 milion for
total FY08 fare revenues of $360 milion.”
What was finally adopted will generate less revenue, but there are still some reserves than can be tapped, yet again, to fill the now smaller hole.
“Claim” the fare proposal was on the BRU website 60 days in advance? It’s not a claim, it’s a fact. How did it get there?
I absolutely support public input, the more the better, the more in advance so it can be analyzed and considered, the better. Between LA county and LA city there are over 170 libraries with plenty of computers for those who don’t have them at home to chime in without even having to buy a postage stamp. This was the first time an email address was set up to receive comments, and it worked well.
No one has said much about the additional $5 million for the Immediate Needs program. So now its a total of $10 million in free fares annually that will be going to First AME and others to distribute to the truly needy. Hmmm, why no attention to that? Or the other $175 million that goes out in fare subsidy programs? See attachment F of the staff report linked above.
The BRU did a GREAT job documenting public outreach/awareness on their site and posting public comments on YouTube. I’d like to see more of that in future public hearing processes. I think all in-person public comments, whether its a community fare forum discussion, or a full fledged public hearing, should be recorded and posted online instead of just being transcribed by a court reporter. I think its more meaningful to see the emotion of the individual speaking.
Metro needs a comprehensive New Media strategy to assist it in processes like this (and board and committee meetings should be available online), it also needs to review its admin code and make some long overdue adjustments to account for technology’s ability to make public processes more inclusive.
And finally, calwatch, here’s a gift for you, you are welcome to take credit: http://www.metro.net/about_us/title_vi/default.htm
The LA Times first got wind of it on March 23, Matt. If you have a screenshot proving that the BRU got a proposal from Snoble in February or January, I would love to see it. If you are saying that the BRU represents all bus riders, you would agree they obviously don’t.
Nor should riders be forced to go to the library every week to find out the latest on what is going on. Basically they were completely dependent on the media for their information on the fare increase, since Metro didn’t put a brochure out on buses until a little over a week before Thursday. Granted, there was significant media attention in both Spanish and English, and BRU organizing, but the BRU should not be forced to do MTA’s job of public awareness. For example, Metrolink put seat drops on their trains within a week of announcing their fare hike. We all knew what the result was going to be at the end, but SCRRA staff did a satisfactory job of putting information out.
Hopefully, when budget season dies down, someone needs to do the “lessons learned” on this matter. Unfortunately, Snoble has been (rightfully) crucified by the media in the past 45 days and it will take him a long time to get the goodwill back. You should have seen some of the anger from some of these Governance Council members when Terry Matsumoto dutifully trotted out his presentation on the $120 monthly pass. I think part of the public trust in the agency has been lost because of the debacle in the process (which, you will note, has been the main thing I have been concerned about, not actual fare numbers bandied around).
Lessons learned is definitely on the internal agenda. SCRTD did fare changes on an average of 2.1 years. They had a routine process. Nothing since the 1993 merger has been routine at Metro and staff layoffs in 9 of the past 13 years hasn’t helped.
By the way, you can now subscribe to email updates and alerts from Metro by going here:
http://service.govdelivery.com/service/subscribe.html?code=LAMETRO_185 or http://snipurl.com/1m6ta
It’s new, so don’t expect overnight miracles.
I still feel that we should focus on public transit vs. personal auto, not bus vs. rail.
Not that I don’t agree with pretty much everything you said.
We act like we are fighting over the same piece of pie, when we should be making the fed/state/local govts bake more pies.
Did the BRU on the Train picture get circulated at the Metro fare increase hearings last Thursday? I would have loved to have seen the BRU’s look at that time.
Yes it was. I personally presented one to Fahrer Mann, Colonel Criollo and to two of the organizers in the picture. I won’t say which, but one didn’t like it too much.
I didn’t distribute it to the members. I sympathize with most of them who are justifiably concerned about the impact the increased fares will have on their life. I have nothing but contempt for the organizers who push the transit racism crap.
THE BUS RIDERS UNION IS RACIST!