Council votes to take position on MTA spending bill after heated debate
Loading...
Summary
After extended debate over a state bill that would limit MTA funds to bus purchases and highway repairs, the City Council voted 10–3 to adopt the motion on the city’s position; members disagreed on local control, the federal consent decree and Proposition A constraints.
The Los Angeles City Council on July 27 took a formal position on pending state legislation that would restrict the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to spending on bus purchases, bus support and highway repairs. The measure was debated at length before the council recorded a roll call vote of 10 ayes and 3 noes, approving the motion to adopt the stated position.
Councilmember Goldberg opened the discussion by asking whether the council should oppose legislation intended to enforce a federal consent decree requiring the MTA to purchase a specified fleet of clean‑fuel buses. Councilmember Bernsen argued strongly in favor of opposing the bill — saying that allowing the state to micromanage local transportation priorities would strip funding away from the capital improvement projects that councilmembers have programmed for their districts.
Other councilmembers raised counterarguments. Councilmember Walters said the MTA had signed the consent decree voluntarily and that criticizing compliance with the decree was problematic for transit‑dependent districts. Councilmember Pacheco argued the proposed legislation could handcuff the MTA’s ability to mitigate local blight and support district projects. Councilmember Feuer urged neutrality earlier in the conversation (saying the MTA should comply with the consent decree but that the bill could unduly restrict flexibility), while others emphasized the need to preserve local control and Proposition A spending allocations.
After more than an hour of discussion considering the consent decree, Prop A funding split, and local capital needs, the council took a roll call and approved the motion by 10–3. The vote recorded on the floor was 10 ayes and 3 noes; councilmembers who supported the motion said that passing the legislation would reduce flexibility for local calls‑for‑projects and threaten planned capital work in districts.
The council also noted the timing of a scheduled hearing in Sacramento (August 16) and asked staff to monitor the bill and report any necessary follow‑up.
