VTA tax on hold while lawsuit goes forward
Appeals court ruling will delay road work — and make it more expensive
A Saratoga woman’s lawsuit is holding up money from a tax hike that Santa Clara County voters approved last fall to fund a BART extension through downtown San Jose and various road and transit improvements.
Officials are now worried some “shovel-ready” projects in the traffic-choked region could be delayed 12 to 18 months. The Valley Transportation Authority began collecting the half-cent sales tax in April after 72 percent of voters approved it in November.
“As the transportation authority for the county, VTA is responsible for ensuring the transportation network remains in a state of good repair,” said VTA Board Chair Jeannie Bruins. “Time
spent on this legal battle could extend into years, adding to the cost of implementing these needed projects.”
The lawsuit by Cheriel Jensen, 78, claims Measure B’s language was unclear and misleading to voters and that the BART extension will eat up the majority of funding, an estimated $6 billion over 30 years.
Jensen’s lawsuit was dismissed by a judge earlier this year, but she appealed to the 6th District Court of Appeal.
Now the money’s going to an escrow account where it will be held until the issue is resolved. About $40 million has been collected since April, said VTA spokeswoman Linh Hoang.
Jensen also argues the BART extension will be extremely difficult — if not impossible — because of an aquifer that sits below the site of the planned downtown San Jose station.
“They’re planning to build a deep tunnel in the aquifer,” said Jensen, who worked 20 years as a planner for San Jose and Santa Clara County before teaching environmental planning at San Jose State. “If they have to drain the aquifer to do this, can we lose all that water? No, we can’t. The whole concept is a problem.”
Jensen said the measure’s backers promised voters the money would fix potholes and improve interchanges — but the BART construction will consume all the money because of the aquifer’s location.
“This is a project that’s going to eat up so much money that there won’t be money for anything else,” she said.
Robert Fabela, the VTA’s general counsel, said Jensen’s main argument is that Measure B was a “general” tax, not a “special” one — and that it should be invalidated.
“I’m very confident that the court will deem it to be a valid measure,” Fabela said. “A judge already ruled her case had no merit, and we’re confident the court of appeals will affirm that decision.”
Revenue from the tax would benefit nine areas, according to VTA officials. The biggest chunk, $1.5 billion, is slated for the BART extension. Other areas include $750 million for highway interchanges, $350 million for a State Route 85 corridor and $250 million for bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Residents frustrated by gridlock, potholes and inadequate public transit overwhelmingly approved the tax, but it was not without its detractors, includ- ing taxpayer groups and some environmentalists and transit advocates who felt it put too much money toward projects for automobiles.
Asked about the funding holdup while she waited for a VTA bus in downtown San Jose, Mary Sagura said she supports paying more taxes for transit improvements — but she wants to see her dollars go toward the bus service and not BART.
“I take the bus all the time,” said Sagura, a flea market cook who doesn’t own a car and rides the bus seven days a week. “The only people who want BART live out of town.”
Jensen was part of a group that sued the Santa Clara County Vector Control District a few years ago over mosquito abatement, claiming that fogging or spraying of pesticide illegally encroached on private property and that environmental review was needed. A judge dismissed the lawsuit.
If Jensen loses in the appellate court on the Measure B lawsuit, she can appeal to the California Supreme Court, but the retired planner isn’t sure if she’ll do that.
“Those are decisions,” Jensen said, “that haven’t been made.”