Long before Silicon Valley, there was a network of streetcar and rail lines serving Santa Clara County, including Cupertino, and the population density was far less back then. The rails were ripped up and replaced by roads.

If you’ve visited European cities, you’ve seen the extensive streetcar lines, in addition to subway systems and interurban rail. Berlin, Vienna, and Milan are three cities I visited in 2019, and it was wonderfully easy, and inexpensvie to get around. Lyft and Uber don’t exist. I also visited Shanghai where there are no streetcar lines but there is an amazing subway system, all of which was built in the last 30 years.

Enrique Peñalosa, the former mayor of Bogota Columbia stated: “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars. It’s where the rich use public transportation.”

VTA has managed to create a public transportation system that neither the rich, poor, or middle class use except as a last resort. They continue to cut routes while running far too many empty buses along El Camino and Stevens Creek because they need to maintain 15 minute headways to ensure that PDAs (Planned Development Areas) have that level of service.

It is almost always faster to ride a bicycle from your home to your destination than to use VTA, a result of the combination of having to walk to a bus stop, wait for a bus, ride a bus that shares the roadway with cars, then walk from the bus stop to your destination. Due to continuing reductions of VTA service

In Cupertino we funded the Via on-demand Shuttle, which is extremely popular, and much more cost-efficient than VTA. On-demand shuttles are a much better use of public money than further funding of VTA. Due to Covid-19, and Social Distancing requirements, the Via Shuttle service has been temporarily reduced, but once we have a Covid-19 vaccine we expect to go back to full service, if we have the funding. Adjacent cities have expressed interest in expanding the Via shuttle to their cities. Pouring more money into VTA buses would be a mistake.

Completing the light rail system would be wonderful, but there’s no money for that. We need to find other transit solutions. The Cupertino VIA shuttle is a good start. Electric bicycles will make bicycle commuting more practical for many, and for trips of ten miles or so, it will not be appreciably longer in time than driving, and will be faster than using public transit.

We also have to understand the long-term impacts of Covid-19. There will be a reluctance to use mass transit at all, plus many more people will be remote-working many days of the work week. We also have to understand that for many people, especially in Silicon Valley, the 8-5 job is a thing of the past. As an engineer, I frequently worked late into the night because of a need to communicate with colleagues and customers in Asia, and rarely arrive at work the next day until 10-11 a.m.. Not many workers are going to be willing to wait for an infrequent bus at midnight.

One City Council member deplored the lack of a “Transit Center” at the new Westport project. We must comprehend that a transit center without transit is senseless. Until we have plans, and money, for separated-grade rail transit on major corridors there’s no need for “Transit Centers.” Few Cupertino residents would drive to a transit center, park, then get on a VTA bus that goes up to Mountain View (Google) or Menlo Park (Facebook), especially since these companies offer private bus transportation directly to their campuses. Someone in South San Jose or Almaden Valley might ride fast light-rail to Cupertino or points north, but there are no plans for such light-rail. We also have to realize that the permanent increase in remote-working is going to have a long-term positive effect on traffic congestion. This will make the use of mass transit less compelling.

 I was talking to one constituent two weeks ago who told me “with solar panels on the roof of my house, and an electric car, the incremental cost of driving is very low, basically the cost of wear items on the car, such as tires.” He succinctly stated the likely future of personal transportation that is environmentally friendly. The societal changes that would make the use of mass transit, were it to ever be built in this area, are unlikely to occur. The satirical web publication, The Onion, said it best "Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others" (https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-favor-public-trans-1819565837).

We need to look at the big picture when looking at transportation solutions. Electric cars, electric bicycles, ondemand shuttles, and fast interurban rail that takes people from areas with sufficient land for housing to Silicon Valley job centers is the future. We cannot force people to live in expensive, high-density housing when they prefer single family homes with yards, gardens, and nearby parks. We also have to consider the fact that many tech companies will allow workers to do remote-working long after the current pandemic is over. It is a huge cost savings to companies to be able to have less expensive office space. Now that companies are learning how to gauge performance by results, rather than on whether or not a worker is present in the office, there is no going back

I believe in the Democratic Party Platform which states: "Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.”

Proposition 16, if it passes, would repeal the section of the California Constitution that states "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Discrimination and preferential treatment would once again be legal if Proposition 16 passes.

While Proposition 16 is a State, not a City issue, it is of deep concern to Cupertino residents because if it passes, and racial discrimination/preferential treatment is once again made legal, many of our residents will be negatively affected.

Let me unequivocally state my position: I strongly oppose Proposition 16. It is unethical, it is terrible public policy, and it will actually hurt the people that it claims to help. And I say this as a lifelong progressive Democrat. I have opposed racial discrimination ever since I was a teenager and my position has never changed.

Preferences in college admissions can legitimately be based on socio-economic considerations, differences in K-12 educational opportunities, geography, and physical or other disabilities. Using some of these criteria would increase racial diversity by default. But explicit preferences/discrimination based on race, ethnicity, color, gender, or sexual orientation, should not be made legal.

It's not accurate to state the Proposition 16 restores Affirmative Action in California. Affirmative Action was not made illegal by Prop 209. Affirmative Action based on socio-economic factores, based on the quality of K-12 education, based on geographic factors, etc., is still legal. What is illegal is Affirmative Action based on race, gender, or national origin.

“Optical Diversity”

The goal of Prop 16 is "optical diversity." This phrase was coined by Sheryll Cashin, law professor at Georgetown University, who, in her book Place, Not Race, pointed out that the result of affirmative action policies was “optical diversity” rather than diversity of students based on their socio-economic circumstances.

Increasing Diversity in College Admissions

It's a reasonable goal to try to increase diversity in the UC and CSU systems, but using racial preferences is a dangerous path to walk down. In the past racial, religious, and ethnic preferences have been used to discriminate both against, and in favor, of different groups.

We can, and have, found better ways to increase diversity of historically underprivileged groups.The lack of factual evidence in the campaign by the proponents of Prop 16 is unacceptable.

A Band-Aid Approach Instead of a Root Cause Approach

Proposition 16 doesn't address the root cause of the lack of diversity. To address the root causes, you have to start much earlier than college, but that would require a lot more spending on education, something the State of California is unwilling and unable to do.

Multi-Racial Students

If you use racial preferences how do you deal with the increasing number of multi-racial students? Should an applicant be able to choose whichever race would increase his or her chances of admission? Should an applicant be required to specify which percentage of each race they are? How do you verify claims of race? Right now, an applicant’s race is whatever race they claim and there is no verification permitted.

Looking at the Big Picture

We need to look at the big picture and not create more racial tension. When Proposition 209 passed it was because of discrimination against Whites had been legitimized. Even though the reason for racial preferences and quotas was to address historic and systemic discrimination, people didn’t think that that was the right way to solve the problem. Long term, we have to address the systemic racism, part of which is economic, that is the root cause of these disparities.

Other Ways to Address College Admissions

One proposal for college admissions has been a lottery system. There would be a minimum SAT or ACT score, and a minimum GPA for each institution, and then there would be a lottery. This would put a lot of the after-school cram schools out of business. No more paying someone to write essays either. With the temporary elimination of consideration of SAT and ACT scores in admissions, and if Prop 16 passes, a lottery may be the only practical solution. Weighted and adjusted GPAs would still be used and admissions offices already look at the classes offered by a high school as well as the quality of a high school. AP classes and grades, and AP test scores, will become increasingly important for admission to the top-tier schools as a substitute for SAT and ACT scores.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is that Prop. 16 is bad public policy, at least when it comes to college admissions. Using racial preferences in college admissions is a dangerous path to walk down. In the past it’s been used to discriminate both against, and in favor, of minorities.