The outcome of last week’s election is disappointing on a national level. Although there seems to be a trend toward voting for conservatism, the results are mixed outside of the presidential race, including in California. On the state level, Prop 36, which would toughen penalties for drug and theft crimes, won with almost 69% of the votes. Economic progressive measures like Prop 5 (lowering voter threshold to approve new local taxes from 2/3 to 55%), Prop 32 (raising the minimum wage), and Prop 33 (expanding local rent control) were defeated. However, socially progressive measures like Prop 3 (ensuring the right to marriage) won overwhelmingly. On the local level, San Francisco voters chose a moderate for mayor. In the East Bay, a progressive mayor of Oakland and a progressive Alameda County District Attorney were both recalled. Progressive Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón was also recalled. Recall proponents blame those officeholders for being “soft on crime.”
I think voters in California are clearly pushing back against progressive politicians due to concerns about law and order following the pandemic. Downtown areas have not fully rebounded, and public transit ridership serving these areas has not yet been restored.
Since the start of the pandemic, homelessness and drug use on transit, particularly on the rail systems, have become much more visible. Initially, soon after the “stay at home” orders were issued, rail systems like BART continued running long trains despite a massive decline in ridership as a public health measure to promote social distancing. Many bus and rail systems slowed fare enforcement or even stopped fare collection to reduce interactions between transit employees and riders, thus reducing virus spread. Additionally, following the death of George Floyd, there has been a movement to discourage use of sworn police officers on transit. Over time, transit has become a “safe space” for anti-social activities, and elected officials have been slow to react, hurting downtown recoveries and transit revenues.
When I traveled to Southern California in 2022, I noticed a clear contrast between LA’s Metro Rail system and the San Diego Trolley. In Los Angeles, I saw more homeless people and drug use on the B and D lines. In comparison, this situation wasn’t apparent on the San Diego Trolley, where many stations have security guards and frequent fare checks on board the trolleys.
When I visited Los Angeles in 2023, things had somewhat improved. The Metro played classical music at MacArthur Park Station to deter homeless people from gathering, but this measure had its critics.
On the other hand, earlier this year, I saw the recently renovated Willowbrook Station deteriorating, with a broken elevator and feces on the platform.
Negative impressions take years to overcome and transit systems require concerted measures to improve security. BART recently introduced new fare gates that have enhanced fare revenues and onboard security.
There has been an argument about whether not enforcing the law is a way for progressive activists to restore economic equity, given that other measures are not feasible. However, I believe that not enforcing the law harms the progressive cause overall. Socially vulnerable people—women, the elderly, the disabled, and young parents—do not benefit from transit when security is lacking. They benefit immensely when transit is safe, reliable, and affordable. Transit workers also deserve a safe working environment to ensure the continued delivery of affordable mobility.