Assemblymember Ira Ruskin, whose 21st State Assembly district includes the Peninsula rail corridor-straddling cities of Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto, is termed out this year and the three Democratic candidates to replace him in the heavily-Democratic district spoke about high speed rail to the Palo Alto Weekly:

Rich Gordon has a simple solution for improving the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the agency charged with building the $43 billion system between San Francisco and Los Angeles: Sack its board of directors.

Gordon, one of three Democratic candidates running for Ira Ruskin’s seat in the state Assembly, said the current board has neither the transparency nor the expertise to guide the enormous undertaking to a successful conclusion. And while he has other ideas for improving the controversial project, in his opinion the board is a good place to start.

“I think the current membership of the rail authority needs to be tossed out and that the Legislature needs to take action to reformulate the authority and its governance,” Gordon told the Weekly in a recent interview.

I’m open to ideas for reforming and improving the Authority, but what exactly is sacking the board of directors likely to accomplish? They’re among the few people in the state who have expertise on this project. It seems to be that the last thing we’d want to do is toss aside those who have that expertise – the current board of directors. If there is a specific thing Gordon can point to that indicates a member should be given the heave-ho, then it’s worth discussion. But if there’s not, I just don’t see the point.

Gordon went on:

In Gordon’s view, the rail authority’s board of directors should include members who represent local communities and who have technical expertise about major transportation projects. In his view, the current board, which was appointed by the state Legislature and by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, doesn’t meet these criteria….

Gordon said he would be in favor of giving local jurisdictions more power over the construction of the high-speed rail, a position he shares with Kishimoto.

I quite strongly disagree with this. The project is a statewide project. It is NOT a project for just the local communities and jurisdictions, but a project for all Californians. Giving those local communities more power over the project also increases the likelihood that we get a flawed project or one that is extremely expensive.

Too often, local communities affected by a project act as if they have some kind of veto power over the project or its design – and they don’t. They have a lot of input, as it should be, but the ultimate decision lies elsewhere. There’s no way that dozens of city and county governments can effectively plan a project of this kind, and it is simply unfair for 38 million Californians to be held to the whims of those few localities. The current method, where a board that is selected on a regional basis by the duly elected representatives of the people of California, is a fair and sensible approach.

Of course, I am all in favor of adding folks with technical HSR experience to the board. However, that is not likely to produce the kind of results HSR critics favor.

As to Yoriko Kishimoto:

As a council member, Kishimoto helped pass a resolution in October 2008 urging voters to support Proposition 1A, which approved $9.95 billion in state funding for the high-speed-rail project. Though she said she still supports the project, she now regrets her earlier endorsement of Proposition 1A.

“I’m a fan of rail, but this was a flawed structure and it gave power to the wrong board,” Kishimoto told the Weekly. “It wasn’t set up correctly.”

The article didn’t explain what Kishimoto thinks is flawed about the current board and structure, but seems to agree with Gordon that more local power and control is needed. If so, I would disagree for the same reasons I gave above. Like it or not, Palo Alto is part of the state of California, and must abide by decisions made by the rest of the state.

Kishimoto said she favors the approach taken by state Sen. Joe Simitian, who has been using his budget-oversight powers to demand more information, accountability and transparency from the rail authority.

Hard to disagree with this, as long as the budget oversight power doesn’t hamstring the Authority’s ability to continue building the project and earn federal money for the 21st Assembly District.

She has been a staunch advocate of local involvement in the controversial state project. She takes some of the credit for the rail authority’s recent decision to drop the hotly contested “berm” alternative from their design options in Palo Alto — a decision the agency said was based largely on community opposition.

Kishimoto has made some statements in support of HSR, but clearly is trying to also keep the HSR critics and NIMBYs in her city happy. It’s a tightrope, but it may help for these candidates to remember that about 60% of this district voted for Prop 1A. Most of those voters still do not regret that decision.

Then there is Josh Becker:

Becker also said he favors giving local residents a greater say on the rail project. A legislator, he said, should be responsive to the citizens, and Becker is still in the process of gathering feedback from the constituents in the 21st Assembly District. When it comes to the rail project, Becker so far has more questions than answers.

His biggest questions surround the rail authority’s business plan — a document that has drawn a barrage of criticism from state legislators, rail watchdogs, the Legislative Analyst’s Office and, most recently, State Auditor Elaine Howle’s office. Critics have persistently challenged the business plan’s projections for how many riders will use the rail, its reliance on federal grants and its discussion of risk management.

Becker criticized the rail authority for not being as responsive to community concerns as they should be. He also said the rail authority has been reluctant to release the types of information residents and state officials need, including a plan to pay for the system.

“I think they’ve been lax in coming up with details and that’s critical in my mind,” Becker said. “My focus is the business plan. Let’s find a business plan that works.”

That’s all fair enough, though again I disagree with the call for more local control. I’m all for improved business plans, though Becker ought to keep in mind the flaws of the State Auditor report.

It may be due to the author’s own choices, but it would have been nice to see these candidates’ views on HSR as a concept. Do they agree that we need it to provide for prosperity in the 21st century? To get people out of their cars and reduce our dependence on oil, the consequences of which we are seeing right now in the Gulf of Mexico? To reduce our carbon emissions and try to stop sea levels from rising and inundating part of AD-21?

Those points ought to be made as well. Candidates for statewide office are expected to pledge to represent their constituents, and while calls for local control are popular, these candidates would do well to remember that if elected, their responsibility will be to the people of California, and to ensure that Prop 1A, which remains the will of the voters, is implemented fully.