Why Don’t We Just Get Rid of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District? That Useless Board, ‘N Everything

And then just throw the GGB into the BATA along with all the others where it belongs?

That way, we wouldn’t have to put up with the useless GGB District’s unconstitutional, crazy-ass policies or listen to them insult Colorado.

Check it:

“…[t]oll collectors are the bridge’s ambassadors to the motorists who use it and firing them could cost the district its public face, some directors argued.”

Why does the district need “a public face?” I mean, does the Bay Bridge need its own district? And who elected these directors? Why do some of them live hundreds of miles away?

Why do we need the district in the first place?

Via David Yu

Just asking, Bro.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “Why Don’t We Just Get Rid of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District? That Useless Board, ‘N Everything”

  1. Dave D. says:

    …We needed the district in the first place because the State didn’t have the money to build the GGB. California was committed to the bay bridge and it was tapped out. So the district was formed and 5 counties put up the money. The directors are elected by the county sup’s and it’s for life. The ratio is based on how much the county contributed when the district is formed.
    ….But you’ve pointed to the flaw in the facecream : A district without a constituancy. The folks who use the bridge have no input whatsoever. The district was supposed to fold when the Bridge was paid off, but a flimflam was pulled and the bridge district became the bridge and transportation district. As long as it has debt., it lives. The larkspur ferries and the buses guarentee evrlasting life. Willie brown had a hand in the legislation that accomplished this. There’s more, too.