var _ndnq = _ndnq || []; _ndnq.push([’embed’]);

BART officials want voters to trust them with another $3.5 billion of taxpayer money. But they’ve done nothing to earn that trust.

Instead, they have recklessly spent what they have, grossly understated how much their ballot proposal would raise property tax bills and devised plans to use money from the measure, intended for capital projects, to indirectly cover inflated labor costs. Related Articles East Bay Times election picks

Voters in Alameda County, Contra Costa and San Francisco should say no — hell no. They should reject Measure RR on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Despite the problems facing the transit agency, it makes no sense to approve five decades of extra taxes when Measure RR lacks a logical budget, a timeline for service improvements and provisions ensuring taxpayers and riders get what they’re promised.

The measure would authorize the district to borrow $3.5 billion through bond sales as part of a larger plan to upgrade BART’s infrastructure. The ballot wording conveniently omits that the district would tax property owners for 48 years to pay off the debt.

BART claimed the average annual bill for an average home would be $37 in Contra Costa, $39 in Alameda County and $52 in San Francisco. In fact, using BART’s own forecast assumptions, it would be about twice that.

And, using the legal language of Measure RR, which allows the district to float bonds at up to 12 percent interest, the average tax bill could be up to four times greater. That worst-case scenario could produce average annual bills of $150-$200.

After this newspaper in July challenged BART’s numbers, the transit agency claimed our calculations were wrong. They weren’t. Since then, BART quietly stopped using its phony numbers but never acknowledged its deceit. That’s not surprising. BART staff have inappropriately become an overtly political propaganda arm of the board of directors.

To understand what a sham measure BART now proposes, consider the context.

The district estimated earlier this year that it faces a $477 million operating shortfall over the next 10 years. That’s due largely to labor costs, exacerbated by irresponsible contracts in 2013 and 2016 that provided wages and exceptional benefits the district cannot afford.

No worries, said the district spokeswoman after the latest labor deal. If voters pass the bond measure, she said, that would eliminate the shortfall. Never mind that money from the bond sales is supposed to go for capital needs, not labor costs.

Now General Manager Grace Crunican insists bond funds “would be legally bound to capital improvements and nothing else.” That’s only technically true.

Once the district receives the bond money, it can pull back operating funds previously promised for capital. In other words, bond money for capital improvements will essentially back-fill labor costs.

The district board deliberately left out of Measure RR provisions to prevent back-filling. As much as $1.2 billion, equal to one-third of the bonds, could offset operating costs instead of financing system improvements.

Then there’s the mind-boggling ambiguity in BART’s plans for spending the bond money. Voters cannot determine if they’re buying a refurbished system or merely making a down payment.

Measure RR is supposed to help close a gap in the district’s 10-year capital needs projections. But BART says it plans to spend the bond funds over 18 years or more.

If BART issued bonds faster, tax rates would be higher. On the other hand, if Measure RR is really part of an 18-year capital plan, then there’s no budget for that time frame accounting for other needs and revenue sources.

BART officials say, don’t worry. We’ll figure it out. Trust us.

History shows they can’t be trusted. Vote no on Measure RR. Insist on a measure that guarantees promised improvements and provides meaningful taxpayer safeguards.