BART directors spar over California push to decriminalize fare evasion

BART’s board of directors voted Thursday to formally oppose a bill in the California Legislature that would decriminalize fare evasion in the state’s public transit systems. The board’s 5-3 vote came after a heated debate among members.

Under state law, those who are caught evading a fare three or more times may face a misdemeanor charge, which could result in a fine of up to $400 and a sentence of up to 90 days in jail. If Assembly Bill 819 — introduced by Assembly Majority Leader Isaac Bryan — were to pass, the third violation would no longer be classified as a misdemeanor charge. Instead, a third violation would result in only a fine not exceeding $400. Bryan, a Democrat from Los Angeles, said that he authored the bill because he believes the enforcement of fare evasion rules is disproportionately used against people of color. 

At Thursday’s board meeting, BART staff, including the transit system’s police department, said they had no position on the bill. They cited data that showed that only 2% of the 2,350 citations issued for fare evasion in 2021 resulted in a misdemeanor charge, and only 1.4% of the roughly 1,800 citations issued in 2022 resulted in such a charge. Therefore, they said, the impact of the bill — if it were to pass — would likely be “insignificant.”

But the system’s directors took a different position. They heard from Brad Wilson, the vice president of the BART police union, who said that fare evasion is directly correlated with crime on the transit system — roughly 80% of those arrested on trains or at stations don’t have proof of paying the fare, he said. In that vein, Director John McPartland said the fare evasion issue is a matter of public safety.

“I would no more ask a police officer to end up going into a violent environment without the appropriate tools — or all the tools — at his availability than I would ask a firefighter to try to fight a fire without water or a paramedic to try to save someone’s life without all of his cardiac drugs,” he said. 

Director Debora Allen — a controversial figure who introduced the motion asking the board to formally oppose the bill — echoed McPartland, saying the issue is about public safety. But she and the other directors who voted to oppose AB 819 also cited an optics issue. From a financial standpoint, the transit system relies heavily on fares, and a recent poll found that safety concerns were the biggest impediment to getting ridership back to pre-pandemic levels. Directors argued that it would look bad for them to support a decriminalization bill if riders are increasingly afraid of using BART trains.

“Overall, the existential financial crisis faced by BART is caused by lost revenue stemming in part from the public concern for safety and an unwillingness to return to transit,” Director Robert Raburn said. 

Allen, McPartland and Raburn joined Directors Mark Foley and Bevan Dufty in voting to oppose AB 819. Board President Janice Li joined Directors Rebecca Saltzman and Lateefah Simon in opposing Allen’s motion. Director Liz Ames was absent from the proceedings.

Li argued that the Assembly bill would have little to no effect on the transit system’s procedures, given how few citations have resulted in misdemeanor charges issued during the past two years. This, she said, means there’s no reason for the board to take an official position on the bill.

“[The public wants] to know that we’re gonna be there and that we are doing everything we can to prevent and intervene harm from occurring in our stations. … I don’t see how us taking a position on AB 819 helps that at all,” she said. “I think it’s getting us on a tangent.” 

Li also argued that opposing the measure would make the board look “out of touch” with Bay Area politicians and lawmakers — who have largely supported the bill — and also pointed out that such widespread support means that the board’s opinion on the bill would likely not influence its fate in the state Legislature.

“If we feel otherwise, I think it’s our egos talking,” Li said. 

Director Saltzman said she was opposing Allen’s motion in part because she doesn’t want BART to be seen as promoting discriminatory practices that may be going on in other parts of the state. 

“If [Bryan] is saying that there’s targeted, racially motivated enforcement of [the rules], then who’s for me to say that that’s incorrect,” she said. “I don’t know what’s happening in his district. Just because we’re not doing that at BART doesn’t mean it’s not happening in other parts of the state.” 

The motion that passed Thursday is nonbinding; it’s meant as a signal to lawmakers who might want to consider BART’s position on the bill when deciding how to cast their votes. The bill is in the state Senate after passing the Assembly in a 62-12 vote. It needs to pass the Senate’s Appropriations Committee before heading to the Senate floor for a full vote. If it passes there, it will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for a signature.

What the motion does mean, however, is that if Democrats continue to advance the bill, they now open themselves up to headlines along the lines of “Democrats push bill decriminalizing fare evasion that BART directors opposed,” a development that isn’t hard to foresee given the recent backlash Sacramento Democrats have faced on other public safety issues.