Why I believe cyclists need to vote for Measure I

I've made various cases for passing Measure I - the re-upping of the sales tax for SMART. Here is my down and dirty argument why cyclists should support Measure I.

It is incredibly important at this point for anyone who cares about cycling in Sonoma County to vote for Measure I.

Why? Path? Trains? Sustainability? Finances?

Nope. Politics.

At this point, every Supervisor in the County, National Representative, State Representative, Mayors, etc... have endorsed Measure I. All of the key stakeholder organizations I know of have endorsed Measure I. Except one - the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition. The SCBC took a "no endorsement" position. I am on the board, and I disagreed with this position. Hey, it's a democracy.

The net result is that if this measure loses, "The Cyclists" will be blamed. Not just SCBC (700 members) - the closest thing to a political arm of this demographic. I mean the thousands who bike every day, line up for Levi's Gran Fondo, students who bike to school. etc... A recent Press Democrat editorial referred to "a few disgruntled bike advocates". Not a good look.

We have spent decades becoming non-marginalized. Slowly and surely building political capital. And now in order to "teach SMART a lesson", we are trying to blow up all that hard work and piss off the entire power structure in the county. This political capital is why we were able to get in their face and clear out the Rodota Trail. Why the mistrial in Amy Suyama's death was pushed for a retrial where the assailant was convicted. Why new road projects might just have a complete streets component. Why we get bike lanes and paths. Why we get targeted enforcement efforts on the road, and bait bikes in the racks.

Shortly, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority will start work on redoing Measure M. It was a 1/4 cent sales tax passed in 2004 for transportation projects. Four Percent of that money went to bike/ped projects. That's a LOT of money for our projects.

The draft renewal for Measure M almost triples that amount to 11%. That's a lot of beans. A group led by Supervisor Lynda Hopkins' husband Emmitt Hopkins is lobbying to get that number up to 20%. At some point that measure will be put in stone and there will be a number.

The SMART train is a key component of SCTA's vision. The original measure M put 5% of the money towards some of the original push for SMART. The board of the SCTA is heavily invested in SMART - four of the board members are on the SMART board, the head is Supervisor Gorin who has endorsed the measure.

If the final bike/ped percentage in Measure M drops by a percent or two it would be a disaster. The process doesn't even need to be capricious - there are a lot of very important competing wants for that money, and groups like SOSRoads will be advocating for that money for the roads instead of bike ped, often roads like CA-12 or the Narrows that we are not allowed to use. We don't need to be seen as an enemy, just as a uncooperative group, to lose the support that gets us funding and support.

Who exactly will be taught a lesson if Measure I fails? At this point I'm afraid it might be Sonoma County Cyclists. Don't hate the player, hate the game.