Could a memorandum issued by Pima County Chuck Huckelberry on April 3 signal the end to the great Pima County election integrity debate?
Probably not, since the Pima County Democrats go back to court on April 21 in a two-hour hearing that determines if the party gets remaining election data files it requested through its attorney Bill Risner. Risner’s request for attorneys fees from the December 2007 trial also remains a contentious issue between the county and Democrats.
As promised in this week’s Skinny, here’s a copy of Huckelberry’s April 3 memo along with pages of supporting documentation regarding new election procedures and security methods the county administrator has directed the Elections Division to begin.
Open wide. It’s a mouthful. You can also read it at www.pima.gov.
This article appears in Apr 3-9, 2008.
The skinny link does disclose that a mere 20 some pages of the much more then 100 more then that pages are ‘new.’
That the county hosts the four megabyte file is not surprising. Few regular voters will go without phone service long enough to download it.
But it is quite odd that the blog entry says even less for other then broadbanded willing to hunt when it should instead actually excerpt far less in actually ‘mere’ text like the following ‘In any event’ hiccup:
“….the
County stood to gain only from the general improvement in transportation mobility
realized from the approval of the RTA, nothing more. In any event, the election results
were not manipulated.
That our presidential election might have energy profitteers putting there hand out for an additional $42 BILLION just statewide, like when they started scheming to bypass Tucson IMMEDIATELY after hustling us into widening the route THROUGH tucson, despite it being in the midst of even greater mismanagement of local transit resulting in threats to make ‘examples’ of some of the most genuinely efficient applications of bus infrastructure, while not increasing the burden to the wealthiest most obscenely ‘developmentally’ bribed riders (largely unionised defense contractors getting essentially private door to door service) is astounding.
Is it too late to put the RTA back before the voters given Glock and ‘berry’s admission of being likewise conflicted and not willing to actually help even the currently riding public ride- not even in actual dollars?
The primary fact here is quite simple. Three times as many people could ride. WIthout additional cost. WIth over twice as much revenue, well over that, without a increase in rates at all.
In fact potentially eight times as much revenue for transit could be the result if management was willing to risk growing the system by making it profitable as above.
The purpose of the RTA transit funds is to deny expansion in the form of larger buses where passenger need them. Instead it imposes too small but nonetheless not needed trips in between those that could be afforded better if only the fares for the poor got subsidized. A poor person could apply for a ‘grant’ to cover about $179 AT LEAST of there pass subsidy for example. The rest of us able to board paying just $144 more then them (this is a riddle in the errors I make if anyone cares) do to our willingness to say ride a half full bus on the hour wellafter 5pm instead of a quarter filled one every half or third of an hour– like unbelievably the second to the last trip down Broadway on a Sunday is scheduled!
In other words for TEN additional minutes of such service entire drivers are employed for hours on that day of rest if not the entire day!
Chuck calls this increased mobility. For less money there could be no two hours without a trip. Unless, again, you fear how many new riders might render road widening plans obviously insane. That is the cost of letting transit grow. Less competition from ‘municipalities’ and there auto friendly leaning ‘partners.’
Be ashamed for linking to such elitist keyed tripe!