Gov. Jerry Brown Makes Strongest Statement Yet In Support of High Speed Rail
Many, many people have had a role in bringing high speed rail to California, but none more than Governor Jerry Brown. In the early 1980s he proposed the first bullet train for the state, to connect Los Angeles and San Diego. The legislature killed the project in 1983 after Brown left office, but the concept remained and by the late 1990s planning had begun again.
With Brown again in the governor’s office, and with voters having approved $10 billion in funding at the 2008 election, the time is ripe for Brown’s HSR advocacy to finally come to fruition. And the governor is poised to do everything he can to make high speed rail happen. Speaking at the LA Times editorial board, Brown called on legislators to approve spending some of the Prop 1A bond money to get construction started:
Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday that he will formally request that the Legislature approve billions of dollars to start construction of the California bullet train next year and will work hard to persuade skeptical lawmakers that the project is critical to the state’s future.
In his first extended remarks on the $98.5-billion project since a controversial business plan was unveiled last week, Brown said that the state will have a broad need for the system in the long term and that it represents a significantly cheaper alternative to additional highway and commercial aviation investments.
“As an idea, if you think of California as growing and expanding, then it fits into it,” Brown said at a meeting with The Times’ editorial board. “It is based on an optimistic assessment of where California is going.”
Of course, the article by Ralph Vartabedian and Dan Weikel mentions “skeptical lawmakers” but does not actually quote any legislators. The reporters did back up their assertion with evidence, so it’s strange that the “skeptical lawmakers” claim remained in the article. Most legislators are actually supportive, with anti-rail people like Senator Alan Lowenthal being outliers.
In any case, Brown clearly understands what California’s future needs and how we get there. Whereas HSR critics and many in the media cannot look past the present day, Brown knows that there is such a thing as “the future” and that we ought to plan for it.
The governor also had a message for those who want to block or derail the project:
“Lincoln built the transcontinental railroad during the Civil War, and we built the Golden Gate Bridge during the Great Depression,” Brown said.
The governor downplayed widespread criticism that the rail construction would destroy businesses, damage farms and displace homes along the route. He recalled that during his time as Oakland mayor, opposition surfaced against every building project from people concerned about traffic and those complaining about structures that would block sunlight.
“It is part of the reason we can’t get anything done in the state,” Brown said about opponents of building projects. “You don’t make an omelet unless you break the egg.”
This is why Jerry Brown is an excellent leader. He knows that the state’s future requires moving ahead even in the face of challenges and opposition. Some people like the status quo, despite high unemployment and a looming energy crisis, and will do everything they can to prevent change from happening.
But we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us and did what it took to build the infrastructure that enabled prosperity. We too must build now so we can enjoy a better life in California in the future.
Sure happy he got elected and not Meg.
Let’s just hope he stays in long enough for the HSR project to reach completion. “Progress” is apparently not a word in the Republican dictionary, and I’m saddened by that.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
That would mean serving at least 23 years as Governor, until the age of 95.
Jesse D. Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Well crap. How many terms can he last again? :P
VBobier Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
This one may be Jerrys last, If He wants to run for a 4th and last term, I’m Ok with that, but that’s up to the Governor.
about time!
[Note from Robert: This person posting as "Reality Check" is not the same person who has been using that name here for years.]
I am truly astonished by the complete ignorance of people who think this is a good idea financially. I’m guessing it’s the same kind of people who over leveraged their homes in the last decade and are now wondering why the big bad bank is taking the keys.
Our (the citizens of California) best hope is the bond rating agencies. I hope they give this organization a B/B or worse driving an 11% rate. Maybe that will be sufficent to knock some sense into some people about the financial realities associated with this project.
Anyone supporting this project at this point is completely insane and has no concept of reality when it comes to finance. None. Nada. Zilch.
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Oh, and if you think it makes financial sense, please call.
I have some investments for you and I want to retire early.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I don’t have liquid assets, but I can sell you my bridge.
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I’d never read your blog. Good stuff.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Thanks.
Derek Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Reality Check, I guess we’ll have to take your word for it!
joe Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
“Our (the citizens of California) best hope is the bond rating agencies.”
Yes, our best hope is the bond rating agencies, the ones that rated mortgage back securities as low risk as sovereign debt.
California is required, by it’s constitution, to pay for eduction and it’s debt/bonds before paying any other obligations such as fire police prison. CA cannot declare bankruptcy.
Our bonds will be sold and bought up without problem.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Others have pointed out flaws to your argument. But there’s a more fundamental point here.
A good financial move is something that generates income over the long term. A bad financial move is one that generates increasing losses over the long term.
$100 billion for HSR – which is self-sustaining in terms of its operation and generates billions annually in new economic activity and millions in tax revenue – means income is generated that covers debt service payments and then some. We know that not building HSR leads down the path of increasing losses. $170 billion for freeways and airports is a much higher cost than $100 billion for HSR, and the freeways generate losses, with a farebox recovery rate of 0%.
This present recession, which HSR critics and opponents never acknowledge, is in large part the product of dependence on oil. The housing bubble was fueled by cheap oil. When that cheap oil went away in 2006, the system of home finance (subprime mortgages and such) was no longer sustainable. People could have continued to afford those loans, absurd as they were, if oil remained cheap. This was particularly the case in areas where foreclosures hit hardest – San Joaquin County, for example. So if we maintain our oil dependence, and do nothing to limit it, we are facing much greater costs in the future that will throttle economic growth.
So it is obvious to everyone that building HSR is by far the smart financial investment. It would indeed look silly if someone thought that the status quo was just fine, that we weren’t in a crippling recession and that oil isn’t a problem. When one does a reality check, however, HSR is the smart move.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Um right, and the subprime mortgages and housing surplus had nothing to do with it.
joe Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Housing surplus? If you admit the surplus is in areas where it was economical to commute when there was cheap oil.
I don’t agree with Robert that cheap oil alone did in the economy, it’s been part of the problem since the 1973 oil shock and recessions in the 70s. Oil was part of this down turn ….
Barry Ritholtz
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/big-lie-still-most-popular-column-on-wapo/
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I didn’t say it was the only factor. But it was a primary factor, and it seems clear that the rise of oil prices above $3/gal in 2006 broke the back of the bubble.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
But the oil prices were already rising in 2004-5. How come the bubble didn’t form in 1999, when gas was $1/gal?
schrodinger Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:47 am
I enjoy your blog, Robert, but your statement that the end of cheap oil caused the housing bubble is wrong.
Did you know there is one state that didn’t have a housing bubble? Texas. You know why? Firstly because they had regulations that banned people from taking on high risk mortgages. Secondly, because Texas embraces sprawl. Little zoning regulation keeps housing cheap and living standards high. It discourages speculation because people know that if prices start to rise, more houses will get built.
In California, environmental laws and terrain restrict housing supply. This encourages rising house prices, property bubbles and speculation.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 2:06 am
Arizona and Nevada embrace sprawl; Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington do not. So how come urban growth-bounded Portland had a moderate housing bust whereas growth-fueled Las Vegas crashed?
schrodinger Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Great question. There must be more to the story than I said.
Firstly the Nevada and Arizona economies have been far more dynamic over the past ten years than the Oregon economy. Even after Nevada crashed, it had still added twice as many jobs per resident since 2002 as Oregon. Arizona added three times as many.
Secondly, I’m sure you would be surprised to learn that Las Vegas does have an urban growth boundary of sorts. The city is surrounded by Federal Land, which is made available for development at a very slow rate. The whole thing was engineered by Senator Harry Reid, with protection of the environment being used as the excuse. Enriching land owners and rent collectors, was, of course, a wholly unintentional side effect.
http://cityform.mit.edu/files/Projections10_catenaccio.pdf
The final reason I think is cultural. Las Vegas was partly built by refugees from growth limited California, and they brought with them the attitude that buying a house would make them rich in the same way that the previous generation did in southern California. Zoning, environmental laws and terrain stopped coastal California from meeting the demand for housing. People wealthy enough to own property did very well for themselves as housing prices rose. They contributed generously to the enviromental groups that helped to make them wealthy while supporting Prop 13.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Nevada right now has one of the highest unemployment rates nationwide. It also ranks worst on measures such as foreclosures and increase in unemployment rate. So if it added many jobs per resident, chances are it just added jobs per resident in 2002, which means the job growth came entirely from population growth.
Las Vegas is surrounded by federal land, but this did not stop population growth. This is not the same as what is happening in California, where growth control is clearly impeding population growth in desirable areas, and directing it to the High Desert and the Upper Central Valley.
The mentality argument I have more sympathy with. Chris Bradford made the same point: difficulty building in LA and Miami led to growth-fueled growth in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tampa, and Orlando, which had the biggest growth in housing prices and the biggest subsequent decline.
Personally, I’m more skeptical. Ed Glaeser notes how bubbles can sustain themselves – i.e. the growth-based growth of the Southwest and Florida. The reason it didn’t happen in Texas is that Texas has a much more solid economy; people move there for the jobs, rather than for the rising housing prices.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:16 am
Apparently Schrodinger has never heard of “drive until you qualify.”
Problem with that is that you can wind up with some very long commutes, on the order of 50 to 100 miles or more. We have people doing that here in the East, where I live. Add in a pricey house, then balloon you commuting costs, and then. . .
We also have no zoning here in West Virginia, and our economy crashed, too.
Economically, I should mention this is really two states–the Eastern Panhandle (which is close enough to Washington to have a commuter train), and the rest. The state as a whole doesn’t look so bad, mostly because it has been in an economic hole for years; when the crash came, we didn’t have that far to fall. Not so in the Eastern Panhandle, though, which has a lot of construction people out of work. I know, I work for the unemployment office here as an auditor, and not only see and speak to the claims people, but to business owners.
At that, the bust still hasn’t been as bad here as others for property values because, for better or worse, partially because we do have a driving alternative called a commuter train, and we have that job center called Washington at the other end of that route, although I do wish both the state and the local businesses would pay Washington wages while they go about charging Washington prices (jobs here–the same jobs, I might add–pay as little as one-quarter as what the same job pays in Washington. I’m talking professional positions, such as accountants).
Reality Check Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:42 am
Robert, for starters, no one pointed out the flaws in my argument because there are none. You’re starting to look like a project gadfly.
Thsi si the new reality:
The projected annual revenues are just over $1 billion.
The O&M cost each year is just under $1 billion.
The debt service on $100 billion is over $3 billion each year, but lets say you get half in grants its still over $1.5 billion a year in debt service.
That is not self sustaining. The system will run at least $1 billion short, and that assumes it is able to draw the projected ridership.
Eric M Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 10:37 am
The project annual revenues from the SF-LA segment are $2-3 billion.
O&M is about $1-1.5 Billion
You are out in left field for the $98 billion dollar debt servicing. If you did your homework and didn’t try to spit out false garbage, you would know that IF CA borrowed all $100 billion at today’s general obligation bond prices, the payments would be no more than $500 million a year.
Now, do the math again!!
Hmmm, not the $1 billion dollar loss, but a surplus instead.
Speaking of losses, how much do you think the roads will bring in with all the toll booths set up all over the state, along with the gas taxes and vehicle fees? It’s not more than 60%, which leaves 40% TO BE SUBSIDIZED!! That is definitely not self sustaining.
Eric M Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 10:46 am
That should be payments of $500 to a billion. And all the money is not going to be borrowed all at once anyways. It will be over the next 20 years.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Economic nonsense. Nobody anywhere is going to lend money to such a dodgy, exposed, high-risk, pork-larded, contractor-captured body for a return of 0.5% or less.
And you clearly know nothing of construction or staging if you pretend that borrowing is anything remotely like uniform over time, let alone such a protracted period.
Smart money would ruthlessly minimise up-front costs, focus upon the very earliest possible operationally profitable start-up date like nothing else, involve commercially motivated and experienced operators from the very beginning, and have a realistically slow service introduction schedule and a realistic system capital growth plan guiding all capital investments at all times.
There’s zero such smart money involved in CSHRA. They’re (that is, the cost-is-no-object consultant mafiosi who run the place) are in fact doing the exact opposite of all of the above.
That might make our little pom-pom twirling blogger brigade happy, but it isn’t going to fool the commercial paper markets for a millisecond.
Brian Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 11:59 am
Eric is pointing out the real world interest costs of CA General Obligation bonds. Federally backed loans would be even cheaper.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
It’s much easier to have 90% funding for a $2.7 billion project than for a $98 billion project.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Try 5-6.5 billion dollars a year actually, depending on whether they are tax exempt or not.
jim Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
The medium ridership estimates for 2040 (after the ramp up is complete) are revenue $2.3B, O&M, $1.04B, trainset renewal (rolling stock being expensed in the year of acquisition rather than depreciated, I assume), $200M. Which gives an operating surplus, EBITDA, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, of approximately $1B. A private company will have to pay taxes. Structures, which will have to be returned at the end of the franchise in pristine condition, depreciate. Borrowed money has to be amortized and interest paid on it. $1B a year doesn’t go very far in covering ITDA. This isn’t an attractive proposition for the fabled private money.
If there’s no major (much larger than the Prop 1A contribution) private money contribution, I really don’t see where the money is going to come from. There will have to be a wholesale change of attitude in Washington, on the Democratic side of the aisle as well, for Federal money to flow on the scale this plan needs. When ARRA proposed $8B for HSR for the entire country it was regarded as a princely sum. In 2010, Democrats in the House negotiated with Democrats in the Senate to settle on $2.5B for HSR for the entire country. And there will have to be a wholesale change of attitude in Sacramento. This last budget was balanced by cuts, as I recall.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
What are you people going on about? California just issued some 30 year go bonds at a little over 5 %. That is $5 billion just for interest plus another couple billion for a sinking fund if you were to finance a $100 billion.
Reality Check Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Its not the state that will get these bonds, its the CAHSR Authority.
Reality Check Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
LOL.. $2-3 Billion in revenue? You really are in la la land.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Huh? Debt service isn’t repaid by fare revenues. And it’s not repaid by the state of California. Your analysis quite literally does not add up.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
If it isn’t paid repaid by fare revenues nor by the state of California, how, pray tell, is it repaid?
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Right now only the $9.95 billion Prop 1A bond is repaid by the state. The federal government is giving California around $4 billion which is part of the overall national debt. The rest of the funding comes from unclear sources. Some will be repaid by fare revenues, I’m sure. Hopefully more of it comes out of either deficit spending or tax revenues or both. Debt is dirt-cheap right now and the US government in particular would be well advised to go into more of it for infrastructure. But nothing in the business plan envisions all $98 billion comes out of farebox revenue or from the state of California.
Reality Check Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:47 am
Oh and I do believe that it is others who have pointed out the flaws in your argument, not mine.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Hey, “Reality Check”,
There’s been a (clearly different) person posting using that name for many years now. You’re quite obviously not him/her.
Please choose another pseudonym.
Thanks.
Reality Check Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:43 am
No.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Charming.
Eric M Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 10:40 am
He is probably friends with the David Florez that keeps posting the same cut and paste on all the news article about California high speed rail.
Reality Check Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Yeah, right. All I do is cut and paste. Yup.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:46 am
Will the real Reality Check step forth, and explain the difference in writing style, and perhaps hazard a guess at whom we are dealing with? (I think I know, and this person is toxic).
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:50 am
In the meantime, let us keep a light attitude about some of this:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Reality Check Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Its a certainty you don’t know me.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
You need to use a different username. Richard Mlynarik is right; you’re not the same Reality Check who has been posting on this blog for years.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Robert, how could another person using the same name get on here, especially one like this? As I recall, new names have to provide a new e-mail address or something as a back-up identifier.
And equally importantly, what became of the old Reality Check?
And I still say this guy’s writing style looks an awful lot like another guy who really hates transit, who thinks it’s too noisy, dirty, slow, and inconvenient–for everybody. That other guy thinks those self-driving cars are the cure-all for everything transit related, too, and thinks rail promoters like most of us here are a bunch of socialist hippies or something. If this is that other fellow, he also likes to accuse people plenty, too, like of using multiple user names, which he himself has apparently been guilty of. Alon Levy can fill in details better than I can, having run into this fellow on other weblogs for quite some time.
Of course, I could be totally wrong. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
I honestly doubt it.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
To be more precise: the style is different. Mixner never engages people he talks to, even other people who’re anti-transit. (And if he did, he wouldn’t do it with me.) He also isn’t brazen enough to try to stand ground when people tell him he’s using the same name as another commenter. And so on.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 5:48 am
Perhaps I was confusing two guys. Mixner/???? was one, and the other talked about being real or for Real Americans(tm), and thought the suburban lifestyle would eventually rule the world.
Still, it’s curious as to what happened here. What happened to the original Reality Check, and where is this fellow coming from?
Or is it possible we still have the original Reality Check, and something has happened to him?
Just curious, is all.
Sobering Reality Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
No, not that “reality check”, and yes, I’ve selected a new username.
I could care less if transit is noisy, dirty or slow because I will never use it. What I don’t like is irresponsible spending by government agencies; this project has reached that point. The notion that we should build something, be damned the cost, can only come from individuals whose parents never told them no, someone who is so wealthy that they don’t care, or they are so poor that they are too uneducated to understand it.
The other of course is that their thought process is in fact so Socialist in nature that they believe the State has an absolute obligation to provide everyone with “things” that can only be delivered by taking from others. If it’s your belief that the State has the right to extract that money to pay for projects such as this, then rest assured, Calirfornia will cease to have any wealth at all.
Walter Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 11:27 am
So you would have the construction of all public roads ended immediately?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 11:52 am
They could fund roads with user fees. Two, three bucks a gallon should cover the costs of all the roads, the police to patrol them and the courts for the tickets issued. Medical costs, in theory are already covered with automobile insurance. The stuff Medicaid is picking up for the people who use up all the medical benefits from the insurance shouldn’t be much more a gallon….
How much? LOL.
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
For the Bridge.
(For whatever reason it didn’t stay in the thread)
Robert:
How convenient to omit this from Gov. Brown:
”
Still, the start of construction with the money in hand represents “a prudent next step,” and the state could find future sources of funding in new types of federal bonds, in state taxes or even by securing more federal funding, Brown said. ”
If there were ever promises that the voters were led to believe in 2008 they were:
1. NO NEW TAXES
2. The $9.95 billion will be all the funds that California Voters will ever have to contribute to the project
How times change.
Jack Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
I’d pay a higher tax to get this done, and I’m conservative. Morris why do you even care anymore, you’ve won, the train won’t make it up PAMPA in your lifetime, hell I’ll be in my 50′s…
StevieB Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Funding from state taxes does is not the same as new taxes. I recall the voter were told the bonds together with any available federal monies, private monies, and funds from other sources, would be used to construct the California High Speed rail system. If the Governor wants to include state taxes as other sources of funds he can ask the legislature.
Howard Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
A California High Speed Rail Transit District, including only the Phase 1 Counties, fee could bring in more money for CHSR without raising State taxes. Options for new fees include new development transportation impact fees, airport congestion relief fee and/or an electric vehicle annual mileage fee.
Derek Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
No new taxes, ever? Even if the people vote for them?
joe Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Morris Brown mis-remembered Jerry’s Campaign Promise.
http://www.jerrybrown.org/brown-begins-fall-campaign-launch-first-tv-ad
In the ad, Brown calls for California to “live within our means, ……..return power and decision-making to the local level, closer to the people, and no new taxes without voter approval.”
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
California will need to raise taxes to fund investments in all forms of transportation. A statewide rail plan that includes but is by no means limited to HSR, with everything from more streetcars and light rail to commuter systems and indeed the bullet trains, would be something I expect Californians would be willing to fund.
Sobering Reality Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
California will not have to raise tax dollar for airport expansion.
Peter Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 5:26 am
Tax increases are going to be needed to pay for, well, everything. We’re going to be pretty screwed without it.
When Election Time comes again to vote for Governor of California, remind me to vote for Jerry Brown. I’m ashamed now I didn’t vote for him, but I didn’t know his stand on the California High Speed Rail until now.
So, we don’t have the money to properly finance our universities, and must charge undergraduates $12,000 a year to attend UC Berkeley, but we can somehow afford $98 billion to build a high speed rail system?
Interesting priorities!
Jack Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
College shouldn’t be subsidized by the state; The universities just factor the state subsidy and federal grants into the tuition costs and then increase accordingly.
joe Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
As a founding faculty of a CSU school, I am amazed. Who told you this fantastic lie.
This amazing economic truism is easily debunked by two simple facts. State and Federal support for college has been constantly dropping as Universities have had to turn to other sources of funding, taxes on grants, tuition, donations from Alumni. Costs are going up as State and fed support are dropping, If this economic fallacy where true, tuition would be lowering as government support drops. And of course private schools would be a bargain.
Private School, Stanford Univ’s current tuition is $13,600 – per quarter.
joe Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
HSR vs Education.
What would you say to someone who asked you to weight the value of a X dollars spend on a University versus spending that same money to save a life?
I would say it is a false choice.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:08 am
I would say it is the very real choice that every society makes every second of every day and has done so for thousands of years.
How are things arranged on your planet?
joe Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
We funded both education and public transportation infrastructure.
Apparently on your planet HSR won out.
StevieB Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
How can you prioritize able bodied college students over the needs of disabled veterans?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
There’s homeless veterans in the streets of California and tuition is only $12,000….
schrodinger Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
The Federal government starts the wars. Don’t use think that homeless veterans should be a Federal responsibility?
J. Wong Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Unfortunately today, you could kill HSR and that $98 billion would not go to reducing tuition at the state universities. Given that its $98 billion over 30 years, that’s about $3.2 billion per year but of course not spending it on HSR does not mean it would go to higher ed’.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
We need to do all of these things. Fund HSR, make college free again, provide universal health care, etc. It is a false choice to say we can only do some of those things. We have to do all of them if California is to have a chance at prosperity in the 21st century.
California has the money to do those things and more. It remains a wealthy state. The question is whether the political will exists to go get that money.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Don’t forget buying unicorn feed! We’re rich enough to afford to premium name brand unicorn feed, and, damn it, we’re special enough to deserve a whole herd of them.
Think we can do without unicorns? False dichotomy! Koch brothers’ propaganda. Big Oil just HATES unicorns.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:11 am
Robert, a lot of this program depends on developing trust in government. If the government promises something and fails to deliver, or has severe cost overruns, or has an unwieldy bureaucracy, people will just stop believing what it says. Modern-day conservatism has to be understood in the context of the Vietnam War and Watergate, which reduced people’s trust in institutions and transformed conservatism into a nominally anti-state ideology. The same is true of big chunks of liberalism that center around community empowerment.
Jonathan Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 8:25 am
Watergate and Vietnam? Does that mean that both modern-day conservatism and “big chunks of” [...] “community empowerment” liberalism are both Baby-Boomer phenomena?
How much credit do you give shadow of Vietnam and Watergate for, in the Occupy movement?
I’m curious.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Well, the Occupy movement is not a Boomer phenomenon, so it can’t be too influenced by the events of the 1960s and 70s. I’d say the triggers for it are more recent events that cause disillusionment among the under-30 set:
1. The merger of corporation, lobby, and state; that’s where the misguided focus on corporate personhood as the symbol of this comes from.
2. The government’s willingness to bail out the financial sector no matter what the cost is while counting pennies when it comes to jobs. I’ve seen little emphasis on jobs in the Occupy rhetoric, but at 5% unemployment, nobody would care about corporate power.
3. A wave of foreclosures backed by big banks; part of the protests is Occupy Homes.
The common thread to all three is a feeling of fatalism, of living in a society run by and for other people or big institutions. (P.S. I suppose you could add ballooning tuition and debt to this list, but I haven’t seen any indication it’s an important issue).
joe Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I agree with 1, 2 and 3 but think you’re not looking hard if you wrote this:
“P.S. I suppose you could add ballooning tuition and debt to this list, but I haven’t seen any indication it’s an important issue”
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
I see a preponderance of Americans deeply in debt from student loans (some can’t go because of tuition) and families wiped out by medical expenses.
Spokker Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
The Occupy movement looks bigger than it is because of all the homeless and drug addicts who are using it as an excuse to pitch tents among the protesters.
Might explain some of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRjVC867hv4
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
You know, they said the same about J14, at least when there weren’t protests that drew close to 10% of the national population. It was bullshit, and was just an excuse for the police to brutally tear people’s tents down, arrest them without charge, and beat them up. It’s easy enough to dismiss hipsters who complain about corporate personhood as their main issue, but when it’s people who are unemployed or homeless or wiped out by debt or job-insecure who complain about being roughed up, it’s another matter.
Spokker Reply:
November 13th, 2011 at 12:41 am
They make the public spaces they inhabit inoperable. They harass people not part of the movement. Here is what is going on at these protests whether they’ve got a point or not.
We’ve got an attack on a news crew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNjQuHeYlJg&feature=player_embedded
Harassment by protesters on business owners: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/occupiers_terrorize_us_eatery_o4dKzxi3n03WyJWAJu4AhO
A small business owner had to lay off 21 workers due to disruptions: http://www.dnainfo.com/20111101/downtown/financial-district-cafe-lays-off-21-workers-because-of-occupy-wall-street
Shitting on vendors, literally: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/11/07/socal-street-cart-vendors-hurting-after-occupy-group-splatters-blood-urine/
Racism comes very easy to the 99%: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEcXvy2I1yw
There is a general lack of respect for freedom of the press, whether professional or amateur: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/11/occupy_wall_str_25.php
Photography is Not a Crime has been covering some attacks against independent/amateur journalists. http://www.pixiq.com/article/occupy-san-diego-activists-attack-woman-recording-them
I think what started as a protest without direction but good intentions has been hijacked by the worst in society.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 14th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
So, I visited the tents in Providence, and it’s just a normal encampment with signs. Some of the signs are about banks and greed, some are schedules of working groups, some are about jobs.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
There’s plenty of drug addicts in the 1%, it’s just that the pharmacies and the liquor stores in their neighborhoods deliver.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
You’re definitely on to something here. The Occupy movement is one facet of a far broader movement that wants to make government work again. Occupy offers one possible model. There will be others. But most Millennials lack the anti-government attitudes of Boomers and Xers. It won’t be easy or quick to rebuild that trust, because it requires rebuilding institutions and practices. But it’s going to happen.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:50 am
The Tea Party loves big government. As long as the Big Government is Republican.
If it hadn’t been for the dirty farking hippies and the nattering nabobs of negativism in the librulllllll media we would have won in Vietnam using Richard Nixon’s secret plan. The whole Watergate imbrogolio was nothing more than a plot by the evil librullllllll media and dirty farking hippies to bring down their hero Richard M Nixon.
http://harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081080
schrodinger Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:32 am
So you position is that we should raise state taxes to build HSR, make college free again, and provide single payer health care? Ok.
My comment was really that Jerry Brown has his priorities wrong. He is willing to fight for billions in expenditure on HSR while he raises tuition at UC to levels that will be unaffordable for many middle class folks. The trouble is that without excellent education, Californians won’t be able to win the high paying jobs in the global economy. Without those high paying jobs, Californians won’t be paying large amounts of tax to support state government. Witout those tax revenues, the state goes broke.
If there is any spare money in the budget it should go to restoring the universities and schools to what they used to be.
wu ming Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
jerry brown does not raise tuition at the UCs, the regents do, and they are completely independent from the state gov in making that decision. brown has been a critic of the higher tuition, FWIW.
Tony d. Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Robert,
I’m a progressive as well, but damn! How about just making college and health care affordable and accessible. Free?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Yes, why not? Public universities used to be free in parts of the US. CUNY was free until the 1970s. In Sweden, university is still free – and unlike in some other European countries where education is very cheap, there’s no trend toward moving away from free education and toward higher tuition. It all depends on what the government is willing to spend money on.
(And for the record, no, it’s not an efficiency thing. Unlike health care and transportation, education doesn’t cost much more in the US than in the rest of the first world.)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
CCNY was free. University of California was free. My brother-in-law ran across his tuition bill for 1969, at the respectable state college. 150 hours of minimum wage work per semester. Or something you could earn with a 30 hour work week over the summer. …but back then large companies hired college students over the summer so the college students would come back when they graduated.
jim Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
I got my BA from Hunter College, CUNY in 1975. IIRC I had to pay $25 per semester registration fee.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
I got mine from the National University of Singapore in 2006. The unsubsidized tuition it charged to foreign students was S$10,000 per semester. Locals get subsidized down to S$3,000. Any further reductions require you to indenture yourself to the company or government ministry that’s paying your tuition and pledge to work there for three years after graduation.
synonymouse Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Start off with a $200,000 cap on any and all state annual employee compensation. That’s the most they are worth.
And be sure to admonish any ship-jumping UC Chancellors to turn out the lights and close the door behind them on their way to Hahvid.
I would support a transportation tax paid at the pump to pay for improvements. No problem at all. I’d estimate about $3 billion for every 10 cents per gallon of gas per year. That could go a long way.
I wasn’t really around during Jerry’s first term in office and haven’t paid much attention to what he has done for the past 20 years or so. Has he always been such a straight-shooter, or is this only because he is now older and not concerned about his political future anymore?
And hey DP Lubic, how do you explain this guy’s support of HSR? So much for your theory…
swing hanger Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Brown lived in Japan for six months as a semi-recluse in 1987 in order to write a book and study Zen. Maybe he rode the shinkansen a few times…
OT, but does anyone have a copy of Judge Kenny’s most recent decisions?
StevieB Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Atherton I and Atherton II.
The data’s old, but California has been dropping in terms of the share of its federal taxes which return as federal spending.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html
With that amount of money leaving the state ($45 B in 2005), I can see why the state is in dire fiscal straits.
Unlike the NEC, which must have 20 Senators, California has 2. The House delegation must be equally ineffective. For things to change, the representatives must understand that they are Californians first, and not Republicans and Democrats.
I’m sure PAMPA will take the subway that Beverly Hills doesn’t want:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/12/national/a080117S59.DTL&tsp=1
And developers trying to fix a route? them damn NIMBY conspiracy theories again
StevieB Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 11:59 am
NIMBYs want to place a station half a mile where the road dead ends into the fenced side of a country club instead of the center of Century City where people work. All so the tunnel stays under city streets in Beverly Hills. Geologists found a fault right through that NIMBY preferred station location. Beverly Hills will have to prove the geologists wrong as the court presumes a public agency decisions on an EIR are correct.
From the Wall Street Journal, apparently available by subscription only and thus copied below.
———-
Nov 12th.
Train to Neverland
California’s railway gets more fantastic all the time.
California Governor Jerry Brown must have loved “The Little Engine That Could” as a kid. Last week his state’s high-speed rail authority released a new business plan that estimates its 500-mile bullet train from San Francisco to Anaheim will cost $98 billion. The state and federal governments are broke, and private capital won’t finance the project, but Mr. Brown still thinks the state can build the train.
Three years ago the rail authority sold a $9 billion bond measure to voters on the pretext that the bullet train would cost $33 billion and be financed mostly by private investors and Uncle Sam. They also claimed the train would draw 90 million riders per year-about 15 times what Amtrak’s Acela in the Northeast draws-and wouldn’t need a subsidy. Taxpayers were all aboard.
Then reality struck. A study last year by Stanford economist Alain Enthoven, former World Bank analyst William Grindley and financial consultant William Warren examined high-speed trains in Europe and Japan and concluded that the California train could cost upward of $100 billion and would be lucky to draw 10 million riders. The authors also reported that investors were refusing to finance the project without a subsidy, which the bond measure that voters approved had prohibited.
The White House has so far offered the state $3.2 billion in grant money-provided that it builds the train in a way that guarantees a taxpayer loss. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has required the state to construct the first segment in the scarcely populated Central Valley and break ground next year. The Obama Administration’s logic seems to be that if it forces the state to build a train to nowhere, the state will then dig deeper into taxpayer pockets to connect it to somewhere.
The rail authority last year chose to build the first segment between Merced and Bakersfield. The state watchdog Legislative Analyst’s Office called the decision a “big gamble” since ridership would be too low to operate the train without a subsidy. And if the project runs over budget-what are the chances?-the authority won’t have enough money to complete the segment or electrify the tracks.
The best outcome then would be for the authority to sell the tracks to a museum for an exhibit on California dreams.
At the urging of the state analyst’s office, the legislature directed the authority to produce a more honest business plan before the state issues bonds. The authority now predicts that the train will draw 37 million riders by 2040-about equal to the state’s current population-and turn a profit on all segments. Sounds fantastic. Literally. They make the math work by assuming per-mile ticket prices at about half of what most high-speed trains around the world charge and an operating margin that’s about 50% of their revenues. Most high-speed trains run at a loss or just break even.
Rail authorities say that once the first segment turns into a gusher of revenue, private money will jump on board and finance the train’s completion. When that doesn’t happen, there’s Plan B: public borrowing.
Hold that idea. The state treasurer’s office recently released a report warning that the state can’t afford to authorize much more debt without severely squeezing public services. Debt service costs California $7 billion per year. Borrowing $90 billion to finance the train would cost about $10 billion a year. Forget about building new schools or revamping the state’s rickety water system.
Fortunately, the rail authority needs the legislature’s approval before it can start wasting taxpayer money and evicting home and business owners to pave the way for the train with no future. The legislature should just say no, but if members lack the nerve, they could at least leave the decision up to voters.
State Senator Doug LaMalfa suggests that the legislature give voters a do-over on the $9 billion bond measure they approved in 2008 when they were high on hope. Sounds reasonable. Congressman Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield has also proposed legislation to freeze federal funding for the project, which would make the train a nonstarter. It’s time Governor Brown put away childish things.
Why would one like to ride a train to LA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKnqlw3AeY0
A great video of Anthony Bourdain having a full Irish breakfast on the train between Belfast and Dublin.
State Senator Doug LaMalfa suggests that the legislature give voters a do-over on the $9 billion bond measure they approved in 2008 when they were high on hope
Wow, I mean imagine those wacky americans having the nerve to have hope. Well not to worry. republicans around the country and in washington have done their very best to make sure that that pesky hope nonsense has been stomped down for good and been replaced by good old fashioned despair. Just who do the voters think they are anyway, going around acting all happy and hopeful and stuff. sheesh.
joe Reply:
November 12th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
When they lose they want a do over. When they win, it’s a mandate.
“The best outcome then would be for the authority to sell the tracks to a museum for an exhibit on California dreams.” I don’t think back East they know strapped the Golden State’s museums are. The author should have rapped the suggestion that a class one would be interested in the orphan trackage. They don’t want to pay to maintain double track and stilts when they already have a line.
State tax revenues are faltering; Muni’s broke and wants to raise fares. Cost of living is up but wages stagnate. Get the picture? Historic practice in recessions is to lower taxes not raise them.
Did the exorbitant Bay Bridge project rescue the local economy? It does serve to remind us of at least 2 realities: China has really laid waste to US manufacturing and the Bay Area is a really expensive place to be.