News

Caltrain ponders tax increase to fund operations

Palo Alto urged to take leadership position in raising funds for cash-strapped agency

A year after barely avoiding draconian service cuts, Caltrain officials have several reasons to feel optimistic even as they continue to scramble for new funding sources to keep the trains running.

The agency, which draws funding from transit districts in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties, withstood a financial crisis last year after San Mateo County Transit District (Samtrans) drastically cut back its contributions, prompting other agencies to follow suit. The result was a $30 million deficit on a budget of roughly $100 million.

The good news for the cash-strapped agency is that its popularity continues to soar, thanks in large part to contributions from major employers such as the Stanford University Medical Center and Facebook, according to Yoriko Kishimoto, a former Palo Alto mayor who currently leads the group "Friends of Caltrain." Kishimoto, who updated the City Council Rail Committee on Caltrain's latest efforts Thursday morning, said that increased ridership has created a 25 percent revenue increase for Caltrain over last year, putting a dent into its operating deficit.

Stanford University Medical Center, for example, announced last month that it has already offered Caltrain Go Passes to all of its employees. As of mid-December, about 2,000 employees had signed on for the monthly passes. Kishimoto estimated that the hospitals' contribution brings Caltrain $1.4 million in annual revenues. Facebook, she said, has shuttles operating for each train.

"The good thing, overall, is that every month since then (last year's financial crisis), Caltrain ridership has been going up and revenues are going up," Kishimoto said.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

But the recent uptick in revenue doesn't erase the need for a dedicated funding source, which Caltrain still lacks. One idea on the table for addressing the agency's long-term needs is a sales-tax increase for San Mateo County. Kishimoto said Caltrain will be conducting polls and surveys in the coming months to gauge the likelihood of such a measure passing. Another proposal, from state Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, would raise the sales tax in all three counties to support Caltrain.

Kishimoto said Hill will detail his proposal at the Feb. 2 meeting of Friends of Caltrain.

Either tax proposal would have to be approved by voters before it's enacted.

Mark Simon, Caltrain's executive officer of public affairs, said the agency is facing two problems: the structural funding deficit and the need to modernize Caltrain, an ambitious effort that includes electrifying the tracks.

"Caltrain is one of the few transit agencies that don't have a dedicated source of funding," Simon said. "We can put a sales-tax measure on the ballot, but we'd like to know a little more about whether it would pass."

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

In addition to considering a possible tax measure, Simon said Caltrain is reviewing its entire business model and considering how it allocates costs to the three transit partners.

But while its long-term finances remain a glaring problem, Caltrain's budget for the coming year is unlikely to feature any service cuts.

Simon said the agency plans to balance its books in fiscal year 2013 (which begins July 1) through the same one-time tactics that it used in the current year, including contributions from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and payments from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) to Samtrans for right-of-way. These measures are expected to buy Caltrain another year to solve its structural woes.

"We're not in immediate crisis, but we haven't solved the long-term crisis," Simon said. "It buys us the time and the breathing room to have the kinds of conversations that we need to have with each other and with the community."

Though her group hasn't taken a firm position on a particular funding measure, Kishimoto said a sales-tax increase and Hill's three-countyproposal so far seem to be the most promising solutions currently on

Most Viewed Stories

Most Viewed Stories

the horizon.

Though her group hasn't taken a firm position on a particular funding measure, Kishimoto said a sales tax increase and Hill's three-county proposal so far seem to be the most promising solutions currently on the horizon.

Councilman Pat Burt, who represents Palo Alto on the Peninsula Cities Consortium, a coalition that meets regularly to discuss rail-related issues, said it's too early to decide which solution to support, given that the polling hasn't been conducted yet. Burt said the measure that currently looks "most promising" would likely be a sales-tax measure.

Kishimoto said Caltrain, as a regional service, is at a major disadvantage when it comes to competing for federal funds, which she said tend to go to urban projects such as subways or intercity services. While Caltrain stretches from San Francisco to San Jose, much of its ridership comes from the Peninsula. Palo Alto's downtown station is Caltrain's second busiest station after San Francisco.

"We're kind of in nowhere land," Kishimoto said. "Maybe Palo Alto can help be an advocate in saying that we're falling between the cracks -- that there's a new model for the United States, that we're a metropolitan area and we need funding for regional rail."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Caltrain ponders tax increase to fund operations

Palo Alto urged to take leadership position in raising funds for cash-strapped agency

A year after barely avoiding draconian service cuts, Caltrain officials have several reasons to feel optimistic even as they continue to scramble for new funding sources to keep the trains running.

The agency, which draws funding from transit districts in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties, withstood a financial crisis last year after San Mateo County Transit District (Samtrans) drastically cut back its contributions, prompting other agencies to follow suit. The result was a $30 million deficit on a budget of roughly $100 million.

The good news for the cash-strapped agency is that its popularity continues to soar, thanks in large part to contributions from major employers such as the Stanford University Medical Center and Facebook, according to Yoriko Kishimoto, a former Palo Alto mayor who currently leads the group "Friends of Caltrain." Kishimoto, who updated the City Council Rail Committee on Caltrain's latest efforts Thursday morning, said that increased ridership has created a 25 percent revenue increase for Caltrain over last year, putting a dent into its operating deficit.

Stanford University Medical Center, for example, announced last month that it has already offered Caltrain Go Passes to all of its employees. As of mid-December, about 2,000 employees had signed on for the monthly passes. Kishimoto estimated that the hospitals' contribution brings Caltrain $1.4 million in annual revenues. Facebook, she said, has shuttles operating for each train.

"The good thing, overall, is that every month since then (last year's financial crisis), Caltrain ridership has been going up and revenues are going up," Kishimoto said.

But the recent uptick in revenue doesn't erase the need for a dedicated funding source, which Caltrain still lacks. One idea on the table for addressing the agency's long-term needs is a sales-tax increase for San Mateo County. Kishimoto said Caltrain will be conducting polls and surveys in the coming months to gauge the likelihood of such a measure passing. Another proposal, from state Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, would raise the sales tax in all three counties to support Caltrain.

Kishimoto said Hill will detail his proposal at the Feb. 2 meeting of Friends of Caltrain.

Either tax proposal would have to be approved by voters before it's enacted.

Mark Simon, Caltrain's executive officer of public affairs, said the agency is facing two problems: the structural funding deficit and the need to modernize Caltrain, an ambitious effort that includes electrifying the tracks.

"Caltrain is one of the few transit agencies that don't have a dedicated source of funding," Simon said. "We can put a sales-tax measure on the ballot, but we'd like to know a little more about whether it would pass."

In addition to considering a possible tax measure, Simon said Caltrain is reviewing its entire business model and considering how it allocates costs to the three transit partners.

But while its long-term finances remain a glaring problem, Caltrain's budget for the coming year is unlikely to feature any service cuts.

Simon said the agency plans to balance its books in fiscal year 2013 (which begins July 1) through the same one-time tactics that it used in the current year, including contributions from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and payments from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and San Francisco's Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) to Samtrans for right-of-way. These measures are expected to buy Caltrain another year to solve its structural woes.

"We're not in immediate crisis, but we haven't solved the long-term crisis," Simon said. "It buys us the time and the breathing room to have the kinds of conversations that we need to have with each other and with the community."

Though her group hasn't taken a firm position on a particular funding measure, Kishimoto said a sales-tax increase and Hill's three-countyproposal so far seem to be the most promising solutions currently on

the horizon.

Though her group hasn't taken a firm position on a particular funding measure, Kishimoto said a sales tax increase and Hill's three-county proposal so far seem to be the most promising solutions currently on the horizon.

Councilman Pat Burt, who represents Palo Alto on the Peninsula Cities Consortium, a coalition that meets regularly to discuss rail-related issues, said it's too early to decide which solution to support, given that the polling hasn't been conducted yet. Burt said the measure that currently looks "most promising" would likely be a sales-tax measure.

Kishimoto said Caltrain, as a regional service, is at a major disadvantage when it comes to competing for federal funds, which she said tend to go to urban projects such as subways or intercity services. While Caltrain stretches from San Francisco to San Jose, much of its ridership comes from the Peninsula. Palo Alto's downtown station is Caltrain's second busiest station after San Francisco.

"We're kind of in nowhere land," Kishimoto said. "Maybe Palo Alto can help be an advocate in saying that we're falling between the cracks -- that there's a new model for the United States, that we're a metropolitan area and we need funding for regional rail."

Comments

Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:02 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:02 am

A sales tax increase for Marin Co. is not the answer.

What we need is a gas tax for all the Bay Area counties to go towards all public transport.

We need one transportation authority to oversee all public transport by road, rail and ferry. We need to cut down on the number of administrators and consolidate expensive duplication of personnel and equipment. We need to consolidate ticketing and services to provide a sensible overall service in the Bay Area, not small competitive services which try to outdo each other rather than complement each other.

We need someone with some common sense to take over and improve service for all (including those who commute independently). We need to realise that public transport serves us all even if we do not choose to use it. We need someone to realise that this is a public service, not a profit making business.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:04 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:04 am

Sorry, I meant San Mateo county, not Marin county.


common sense
Midtown
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:33 am
common sense, Midtown
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:33 am

Caltrain has such a big deficit, they can hire failed candidate for San Francisco Mayor, Bevan Dufty, as interim PR manager for $75/hour, or about $150,000/year. The previous incumbent was paid around $100,000/year. And they didn't interview anyone else for the job or post the job for applicants...

Pile on the sales taxes - for Caltrain, for Palo Alto city infrastructure repairs, etc... it's no wonder people shop on-line.

How about they raise the ticket prices?


coooper
another community
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:52 am
coooper, another community
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:52 am

Sales taxes are already maxed out, even more so if Gov. Brown's sales tax gets enacted.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:24 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:24 am

Cooper, agreed.

We can't just keep raising sales tax. When will sales tax be capped, 15%, 20%?

A flat tax on gas is a much better option.

Sales tax anomolies will only cause more people to shop online, shop out of area or drive to the neighboring city - particularly for big ticket items.

What we need to do is understand that public transport serves us all. As freeway drivers, we want less cars on our freeways so that we can get where we are going in an efficient amount of time. Poor public transport means more cars on the freeways as well as local streets.

For every commuter who is not served by public transport, it generally speaking puts one more car on the roads that we all use.

Even those of us who don't use cars or public transport to get to work, we still expect our dentists to be in their offices, our kids' school teachers to be in school on time and our fresh food to be delivered to our stores on a daily basis. We all benefit in so many ways from efficient public transport.

Putting a tax on gas means that we all pay the tax according to how much we travel and we can all choose how much we travel by choosing where we live in relation to where we work and where we go to spend our recreation. That is much better than raising sales tax when we can choose where we want to spend our money and how much we want to spend at any one time. The places that would benefit most from sales tax increases would be online and out of town shopping hubs like Gilroy (for example).

Putting up the cost of individual Caltrain tickets is the wrong way to go. Caltrain needs to encourage more people to use the trains but to use them at offpeak times when there are empty seats. Encouraging cheap tickets after 10.00 am, family tickets, group tickets, are all good ideas that other cities use. Promoting Caltrain for large concerts and other entertainment events should be considered. Free parking at Caltrain stations after 3.00 pm would encourage evening use.

Innovation is the real answer, not more of the same.


psa188
Los Altos
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:28 am
psa188, Los Altos
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:28 am

Didn't Santa Clara county voters just raise sales taxes to pay for BART?
Why do we have to raise sales taxes again? The 2000 measure A sales tax was supposed to pay for these Caltrain-related projects:

# Improving Caltrain by double-tracking to Gilroy and electrifying from Palo Alto to Gilroy.
# Increasing the level of Caltrain service.

I will vote "NO" on any more sales tax increases. We need to get the projects that we're already paying taxes for.


psa188
Los Altos
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:36 am
psa188, Los Altos
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:36 am

Resident says "Free parking at Caltrain stations after 3.00 pm would encourage evening use."

BART already does this:
Web Link
"Daily parking fees are required Monday through Friday from 4:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. BART customers using the disabled person parking spaces at stations with daily parking fees are required to pay the established parking fees at times when those fees are in effect."

Note that BART parking becomes free at 3:00 to encourage discretionary ridership. This is a good idea that Caltrain needs to consider before raising taxes.

Oh yes, I forgot to add that the 2000 Measure A sales tax we pay in Santa Clara County is also supposed to pay for "Funding operating and maintenance costs for increased bus, rail and paratransit services."

The problem is that the VTA Board diverted all the Measuse A money to BART and to get what we're already paying for vis-a-vis Caltrain the electeds are going to try to get us to raise taxes again. Vote "NO."


Mark Simon
another community
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:50 am
Mark Simon, another community
on Jan 26, 2012 at 11:50 am

Regarding Bevan Dufty:
Here's what the San Mateo County Transit District, which manages Caltrain, actually did: We had a vacancy for community relations manager and some immediate critical work that needed to be done to communicate with the community about some construction work and continuing outreach with the bicycle community. That construction work included closing three major roadways in San Bruno. We couldn't wait to communicate to the people of that community -- the need was now. Because of continuing budget cuts and unfilled job vacancies, we didn't have the resources to do the work without someone on hand. We hired a person who has been out of office for more than a year, who worked as the mayor's director of neighborhood services for seven years and who had worked for the Los Angeles Transportation Commission, in addition to eight years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. His credentials for this kind of work are unassailable and virtually unequaled. We hired him on an interim basis while we go through the process of recruiting a permanent replacement. That process will include a job posting, a full recruitment, testing and interviews. In the meantime, we hired someone who was a great fill-in -- on a temporary, part-time basis without benefits at $75 an hour. If you include his predecessor's benefits and salary, we are paying Mr. Dufty less. He ultimately will be here less than 90 days.
If you would preferred we do the full recruitment process, which we will do, we would have not had someone on hand at a crucial time in the schedule of a major construciton project. Instead, because of Mr. Dufty's work, a weekend of road closures resulted in not a single complaint from the residents, who were well informed.
Yes, we have a continuing, structural deficit. But the work we are doing -- including keeping a community informed about a major construction project -- does not stop.

Mark Simon
Executive Officer for Public Affairs
San Mateo County Transit District


Frank
Ventura
on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Frank, Ventura
on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:08 pm

> Didn't Santa Clara county voters just raise sales taxes to pay for BART?

My first answer was: Yes, Measure B in 2008 raised sales tax 1/8% so VTA could fund BART.

But doing a quick web search to find the Measure I found that Santa Clara County has has raised sales tax a few times before to fund BART and most likely will have to again since Measure B doesn't quite fund it.

But that does not make a difference beyond the frustration that these projects often (always?) cost more than they are advertised as costing (HSR, Bay Bridge, Mitchel Park Library - these always come in way more expensive then when they started).

We need a good working Caltrain, and I support having a permanent source of funding. Personally I'd favor a gas tax over sales tax.

BART coming to Santa Clara County does not help us in Palo Alto - it will come from Freemont around through San Jose and stop at San Jose Airport. And if you're thinking let's just replace Caltrain with BART - you would not be alone but be prepared to pay a lot more for to fund that; never mind a huge construction project up and down the peninsula as the tracks have to be grade separated before the first BART train could stop here.



Remember Measure A
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm
Remember Measure A, Old Palo Alto
on Jan 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm

@psa188
Thanks for reminding us about Measure A. We were told in 2000 that those funds would support Caltrain and were shown detailed plans for a Caltrain route across the bay to Fremont if the measure passed. I voted for it enthusiastically. The funds were diverted to the BART extension. I'm not falling for it again.


transportation taxes
Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 26, 2012 at 5:32 pm
transportation taxes, Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 26, 2012 at 5:32 pm

Most local highways are funded by county sales taxes. Why doesn't Caltrain automatically get a share of that money instead of having to create a new tax?


Reality Check
another community
on Jan 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Reality Check, another community
on Jan 26, 2012 at 5:37 pm

interested readers may want to check out the Caltrain-HSR Compatibility Blog, here:

http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com

While this blog (as the name suggests) is focused on how best to integrate Caltrain and high-speed rail (HSR), the very high-quality postings here (going back for years) -- along with many of the reader comments -- provide excellent technically- and operationally-well-informed and extremely well-researched insights into what's wrong with Caltrain completely apart from HSR.


Donald
South of Midtown
on Jan 26, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Donald, South of Midtown
on Jan 26, 2012 at 5:40 pm

Sales tax is a terrible way to finance transportation, especially mass transit. When the economy goes bad and you most need mass transit you find your source of funds drying up. VTA has found themselves in trouble several times because of this, but apparently a sales tax is seen as the easiest funding stream to get approved.


coooper
another community
on Jan 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm
coooper, another community
on Jan 26, 2012 at 7:26 pm

They're also planning to divert solo-driver carpool lane tolls to BART. Why shouldn't Caltrain get some of those revenues?


Will
Greenmeadow
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Will, Greenmeadow
on Jan 26, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Is CalTrain is such dire straits that they need Kishimoto to stump for them in front of the city council?


Thomas Paine IV
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 27, 2012 at 9:04 am
Thomas Paine IV, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 27, 2012 at 9:04 am

Cal Train exec's need higher pay. The exec. director currently struggles to make ends meet on a annual comp. package of $550,000 when adding in his various paychecks SAMTRANS, CALTRAIN etc. Yes, I'll vote for higher taxes because he is hurting.


psa188
Los Altos
on Jan 27, 2012 at 9:49 am
psa188, Los Altos
on Jan 27, 2012 at 9:49 am

Frank says: "BART coming to Santa Clara County does not help us in Palo Alto - it will come from Freemont around through San Jose and stop at San Jose Airport. And if you're thinking let's just replace Caltrain with BART - you would not be alone but be prepared to pay a lot more for to fund that; never mind a huge construction project up and down the peninsula as the tracks have to be grade separated before the first BART train could stop here."

I'm not saying BART should replace Caltrain, exactly the opposite. I'm saying that some of the 2000 measure A revenue, which everyone in Santa Clara County generates, was supposed to go to Caltrain but was diverted to BART. Thus Caltrain comes back and proposes YET ANOTHER TAX. Vote "NO."


Joseph E. Davis
Woodside
on Jan 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Joseph E. Davis, Woodside
on Jan 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm

An uneconomic train such as this should simply be shut down as a waste of funds (not to mention a public nuisance). If we need to control traffic on the highways, we should use congestion pricing.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2012 at 12:51 pm

Joseph

What a silly idea. If Caltrain were to close down and congestion pricing was on the highways, how would teachers, office workers, shop workers, restaurant workers, nurses, .... get to work? We can't all work flexi hours or go by bike!


common sense
Midtown
on Jan 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm
common sense, Midtown
on Jan 27, 2012 at 1:23 pm

Resident - what percentage of office workers, shop workers, restaurant workers, and nurses use Caltrain today? for the 3 county area serviced by Caltrain, there are over 1.4 million workers, and we know there are about 20,000 Caltrain riders - so that's less than 2% of the workers.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 27, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Common Sense

I was talking about the congestion pricing that the poster above me had mentioned, not the shutting down of Caltrain.

If there was congestion pricing it would encourage people to use public transport, but if that was closed down, then my scenario would take place.


Joseph E. Davis
Woodside
on Jan 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Joseph E. Davis, Woodside
on Jan 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm

Resident, there are numerous solutions that would arise by natural means to solve the problem. There is nothing silly about it.

- people could use their cars.
- people without cars could buy used, cheap cars.
- people could use car sharing services.
- people could carpool to divide down car expenses as necessary.
- people could use privately provided bus or taxi services (government regulations restricting competition in this area in order to benefit cronies would likely have to be removed to make this affordable).

What is silly is pouring taxpayer wealth into a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy which provides horrible transit service value for the money.


Donald
South of Midtown
on Jan 28, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Donald, South of Midtown
on Jan 28, 2012 at 9:54 pm

Yes, Joseph, they should all drive cars like "normal people". After all, 101 at rush hour isn't that bad, is it?


Joseph E. Davis
Woodside
on Jan 29, 2012 at 8:10 am
Joseph E. Davis, Woodside
on Jan 29, 2012 at 8:10 am

Donald, traffic management is what congestion pricing is for.


jb
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 29, 2012 at 1:23 pm
jb, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 29, 2012 at 1:23 pm

There is an inherant conflict in supporting public transit with a gasoline taax. Those who buy and use the gasoline and pay the tax to support public transit will no longer contribute to that support when they get out of their cars to use public transit. With fewer drivers buying gasoline, where does support for more heavily used transit come from? It seems to be a fact that transit will always need back-up funds in addition to fares.

Better that gas tax be used for cleaner air and other efforts that become unnecessary as the drivers depart their cars for public transit. And, inevitably, the drivers will catch on that their tax does not support services or mitigations for them and rebel against paying those taxes.


Engineer Paco
Green Acres
on Jan 29, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Engineer Paco , Green Acres
on Jan 29, 2012 at 5:04 pm

I understand how the folks want to cling to the 19th century and have a choo-choo train carry a declining number of people at taxpayer expense. Who cares that we have to pay the CalTrain CEO(?) $500,000+ a year to hold on to our childhood fantasies of times gone by. As long as somebody else pays for our ticket to maintain the illusion that somehow a service is being provided and our childhood dreams remain intact, who cares? Has there ever been a sales tax/fee that politicians have not liked?


Ever ridden the train
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 29, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Ever ridden the train, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 29, 2012 at 7:52 pm

I have, it's pretty packed. Be a shame to lose all the tax payees that ride the train and force them into unemployment.

What transportation does not get subsidies. Even walking is subsidized.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

On Wednesday, we'll be launching a new website. To prepare and make sure all our content is available on the new platform, commenting on stories and in TownSquare has been disabled. When the new site is online, past comments will be available to be seen and we'll reinstate the ability to comment. We appreciate your patience while we make this transition.