Right-Wingers Launch Effort to Repeal High Speed Rail At November 2012 Election
In a move that should surprise precisely nobody, two right-wing Republicans – State Senator Doug LaMalfa and former Congressman George Radanovich – have apparently filed an initiative to repeal high speed rail at the November 2012 election.
The “Stop The $100 Billion Bullet Train to Nowhere Act” is currently pending at the Attorney General’s office, awaiting a title and summary before it can be circulated for signatures. The key question is whether LaMalfa and Radanovich have any money to pay for signature gathering to put this on the ballot – it would cost at least $2 million to gather the 800,000 or so signatures required and given that there is not a lot of time to do so, with most other paid signature gatherers busy on other pending initiatives, they’ll need deep pockets if this were to have a chance at all of making the ballot.
My guess is, as of right now, that LaMalfa and Radanovich don’t actually have the money. They’re filing an initiative in hopes that someone will step up and fund it for them. This is not so different from when LaMalfa helped file an initiative to repeal AB 32 in 2010 – once he filed it right-wing and oil company money flowed in to put it on the ballot as Prop 23. But Prop 23 went down in flames in November 2010, suggesting that Californians support green jobs and sustainable projects and have little interest in following Republicans down a path of oil dependency and ruin.
LaMalfa is also running to replace the retiring Wally Herger in Congress, so this may be a bid for national attention and potentially national money in his run for Congress. As we know, House Republicans are vehemently anti-rail, as they are currently in thrall to their oil company donors (such as the Koch Brothers), so this could be LaMalfa’s attempt to prove to a national audience that he is just as wingnutty as Jeff Denham, Kevin McCarthy, and the other yahoos in the California Republican caucus.
Unless funding materializes to actually put this on the ballot, I’m not going to worry about it. Still, it is a good reminder for HSR advocates that the opposition feels emboldened, and believes that Californians really would be willing to sacrifice their future on the altar of right-wing dogma. Now would be as good a time as any to push back hard in defense of high speed rail and in defense of California’s future.
LA to SF is “nowhere”? I’d like to see their definition of “somewhere.”
Howard Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 12:39 am
I wonder what official title the Attorney General will give it?
StevieB Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:52 am
The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond for the 21st Century Repeal Act.
Tony d. Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 4:42 am
The ICS is from Fresno to Bakersfield, isn’t electrified nor will run high-speed trains, and isn’t guaranteed to ever get to LA or SF. But I digress; efforts should be going towards revising the project (ie HSR regional commuter networks), not killing it outright.
ant6n Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:17 am
If you consider the ICS only, you should call it the 10billion dollar to nowhere act.
If you say 100billion, you clearly mean the whole system, which goes somewhere.
VBobier Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:29 am
The ICS is not meant to be electrified at this point as It’s the Initial Construction Segment, Not the Initial Operating Segment, a very big difference, electrifying It at this point would be a waste of money as then It would be a target for copper thieves, Once energized It would be safe from theft of course, as anyone stupid enough to try & take the copper cables would be just fried thieves…
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:14 am
Brown has already killed the hope of “revising the project” by firing Van Ark who had grasped the key issues and was attempting a rationalization.
Brown is no longer competent, closeted and surrounded by toadies, lobbyists and influence peddlers. Mega-Meg could have been talked into a reasonable facsimile of Prop 1A long-term intentions.
VBobier Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
You have no idea what You are talking about syno, Gov. Brown is very competent, You on the other hand, I have no idea.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Brown was never competent, he’s closeted and surrounded by toadies, lobbyists and influence peddlers.
There. Fixed it.
VBobier Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
A lie, is still a lie, He’s competent & rich enough to sue You into the grave, Free Speech only goes so far.
Robert,
I think the number for this one is 500,000 votes or so (5% of number who voted for governor in last election). For constitutional amendments (like other cancel high speed rail initiative), it is 8% of 800,000. 500,000 is still a very big number, although not impossible.
morris brown Reply:
January 24th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
From:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_California
you find you need 504,760 valid signatures to get on the ballot and have 150 days from the time the AG approves circulation to get that done.
In general you need at least 25% more than that number because they have to be valid signatures, and there are always a good number ruled in-valid.
If you have the funds, getting the signatures is not a big barrier. In that case about $1 million would do the trick.
However, with all the labor unions especially and others (Siemens, Alston etc.) willing to defeat such an initiative, you need an advertising war-chest, most likely much larger than that to succeed.
Sobering Reality Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:58 am
$3-5 million will do it given where people are on this laughing stock. That’s nothing.
RubberToe Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:55 am
Thats about what, 1-2 minutes worth of oil company profits? Should be a slam dunk. They might as well go for broke and require the tearing out of all current rail networks in place in the entire state.
RT
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
They’ll probably get it on the ballot… unless the oil companies decide to tie their money up elsewhere, which they might. They’re dumping cash into a losing battle in Wisconsin and they’ve got trouble back east…
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
If they can’t prevent Gingrich from winning Florida, they have trouble nationwide.
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
The Grinch vs. the Evil Queen – what’s not to like with that card? What’s Nancy got on him – he’s really one of the Boys from Brazil?
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
The main thing she has on him is, um, everything he’s ever said and done.
Unfortunately, Romney is gaining ground now. Curse the GOP for being rational.
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 11:19 am
The Grinch probably is a little crazy but not a mediocre Son of TARP. I watched his moonbeam moment last nite on C span. He did mention the bloated costs of guvmint projects.
Romney nominated will certainly bring on a 3rd party challenge. I mean who needs a contest between 2 Wall Street shills?
So you will get your four more restive years of Obamarama. Feel better now?
Peter Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 11:21 am
“3rd party challenge”
Oh, please, God, please let it be Trump.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 11:37 am
The Grinch probably is a little crazy
Nah, he very coldly and with a calculating gleam in his eye plays bitter angry old white guy quite well. It’s hard to tell the difference when he’s letting bitter angry frat boy under it all, show.
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 11:59 am
The high pitched quality to his voice when he is on a roll reveals a foaming side to his personality. Cold and calculating that would be the three crones. Right out of Macbeth.
Trump is a TARPer. It will be Palin, maybe and Paul.
Guess what, it isn’t between LA and SF it’s between somewhere outside Fresno and somewhere outside Bakersfield. Why… We don’t have $100billion to spend for the whole thing.
So a non-story like this instead of the auditors thrashing the Authority, anyone else not terribly surprised?
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 5:14 am
Honestly, this is all going to come down to whether the Legislature authorizes sale of the bond funds. If they authorize the funds, the project as a whole will go forward. If they don’t, game over. Until then, everything is a non-story.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:11 am
Actually… no.
You could make such an interpretation from the LAO report, but not the BSA one.
There’s two issues that need to be solved, although they are remiss in pointing out that both are something Mr. Brown is already trying to fix: contract oversight/personnel shortages AND a hiccup in the Business Plan.
In the first case, Brown is vehemently ripping apart the state HR system to make it easier to hire people. The HSR Board is also free now of “in the tank” types like Pringle, Crane, Kopp, and Diridon. And with the creation of a Transportation Agency, there would be more legislative oversight AND no shortage of Caltrans employees to pitch in when needed. The difference between Brown and others is that he’s not pointing the finger at Ahhhnold for creating such a disastrous arrangement. He’s fixing it and letting results speak for themselves.
On the other hand, the Auditor is probably right that QTC’s won’t work leveraging the Prop 1A money. But that doesn’t really matter because what we can likely build the IOS using just the Prop 1A money and federal match. The issue is what do you do when you have San Jose to Bakersfield or Merced to Palmdale and no one wants to be the concessionaire?
VBobier Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:33 am
I think You mean the ICS, As the DOT money and Prop1a are for the ICS, We’re not at the point of It being the IOS, not even close.
VBobier Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:36 am
About the only way for the ICS to become the IOS is for additional DOT money to arrive sometime in 2013, but for the moment, the 1st Constructed Segment has enough funding, provided the Legislature does their part of the funding.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:45 am
Let me clarify:
With 9 billion in bond money and a 1 for 1 federal match (speculative I know– you get awful close to the 20 billion estimate for an IOS .
Point is, if the Authority et al. admit that to be the case…everyone going to freak out because no one in public finance understands QTC’s… The self-flagellations from all of Obama’s ground troops will begin upon receipt of sackcloth…locusts will dine on the remaining carcasses…yada yada.
In fact, the opposite is true. BART and Metro are just trying to make sure that HSR doesn’t interfere with their “Liebensraum” type long term plans:
BART wants to find the dough to Ring the Bay, reach Tracy & Stockton, expand it’s capacity inside the core areas, and even put a toehold in Vallejo.
The MTA, meanwhile is just looking to build an entire fixed guideway system … from scratch.
Normally, this would not be that big of a fight… but because the Highway Trust Fund is now insolvent… everyone is fighting everyone else like dogs for even the tinniest sliver of the pie. High speed rail has never been the problem… it’s the
WHOLE FREAKING SYSTEM OF NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS F***** IN THE A**
California’s fine, just fine, I tell you (if it secedes and can figure how to live without the Colorado River)….
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:06 am
@ Tom
Comments on BART are right on the money. This article, altho coming from a GOP bias, does highlight some very real Obama baggage:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/25/after-three-years-its-time-to-admit-president-obama-has-failed/
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:38 am
Yeah it dawned on me that DeSaulnier’s frustration must be because he probably sees an opportunity to connect Contra Costa County to Stockton, Modesto, and Merced via commuter rail but is upset because BART is doing San Jose’s bidding right now even though there’s no real ability to make ACE more frequent….
That’s probably making South Bay pols insist on IOS North, even though I think what should be done is Merced to Palmdale for an IOS….
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:49 am
BART Vader is indeed “a master of evil”.
Quite possibly, maybe probably, a progenitor, along with others, of some of the more grotesque excesses and mistakes of Stilt-A-Rail. Infuriating PAMPA with threats of berms was classic agent provocateur destabilization.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
…ACE more frequent… run more trains so they can be even emptier?
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Synon–
Stay away from the peyote, please.
You are conflating two separate issues here: The fact that BART (and CAHSR potentially) can’t use legacy tracks and the fact that BART (and potentially CAHSR) has specific design flaws that render costs to be much higher than otherwise.
The catch is this: correlation does not equal causation. BART and CAHSR could be the transportation equivalent of “walled gardens” and not cost any more than the alternative.
The reason, which I will repeat ad nauseam, is that there is not sufficient oversight of federal money to make this possible because of the symbiotic relationship between contractors and the feds during the Cold War. The only way you get realistic cost containment is to kick the feds out of the room (as if).
However, because the population of the US is starting to peak, the fed is going to get a lot stingier (by their standards) and that’s going to put the heat on the contractor mafia. PB will get whatever is coming to it in due time.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
-Adirondacker.
That’s my point. Right now ACE is empty because it has limited appeal. But my guess is that for 5-10 years the only option to reach CAHSR from the Bay Area or LA is to take either Metrolink or a service like ACE to the end point.
But if you could take ACE from Merced to Stockton and then transfer to BART via the “yellow” or “blue” line? You could almost get that commute down to 2 hours (what ACE is now) but what you would sacrifice in all likelihood is eBART (which I’m sure Mr. DeSaulnier) is protective of.
Eric Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
“You are conflating two separate issues here: The fact that BART (and CAHSR potentially) can’t use legacy tracks and the fact that BART (and potentially CAHSR) has specific design flaws that render costs to be much higher than otherwise.”
BART is a broad gauge track (5′ 6″), and isn’t physically compatible with any other rail system. Everyone else (just about all USA freight railroads, and most all HSR systems worldwide) is using Standard gauge (4′ 8.5″)
Tony d. Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
After three years it’s time to admit that President Obama has failed? Perhaps one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard! Its not Obama who champions the rich over everyone else or who’s sole purpose is to make him a one-term president (the hell with running an actual country).
Alon Levy Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Yes, it is actually President Romney who champions the rich. He just does it with more sensitivity than the other Romney, the one with the tax return scandal.
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
“California’s fine, just fine, I tell you (if it secedes and can figure how to live without the Colorado River)….”
I figure California would make a treaty with Colorado, and jointly fight off the forces of Arizona nad New Mexico. ;-)
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
“The MTA, meanwhile is just looking to build an entire fixed guideway system … from scratch. ”
I consider the current MTA attitude frankly awesome. If it is typical of the difference between LA and SF attitudes, LA is rising.
VBobier Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
BART can’t have any of Prop1a, Nor can Metrolink to the south as neither one is HSR in the least.
Nadia Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:32 am
Besides the auditor report, the other news is Obama didn’t mention HSR in his State of the Union address which a journalist described as:
“a sharp departure from previous years’ speeches in which when he vocally championed a nationwide network of railways.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/206299-rail-left-at-the-station-in-obama-state-of-the-union-address
paul dyson Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 7:58 am
Yes, our President certainly damned HSR with inaudible praise this year. A very loud silence.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:53 am
His address was, for an Obama supporter, horrible. But that’s only because he had good achievements, but weak proposals. Usually a state of the Union is the other way around…
David Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:08 am
There’s no chance of getting a comprehensive transportation bill this year, so why bother. The White House can continue working behind the scenes until after the election.
Peter Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Not to mention the fact that the prospect for HSR is a LOT better if Obama doesn’t make it an issue in the campaign and actually wins than if he did make it an issue and lost.
If he loses, there’s no chance for a future in HSR. If he wins, he can still back it.
neville snark Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:26 am
Exactly.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 8:54 am
Did you think you were on RedState or something?
David Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:06 am
I’m sure Robert will take a swat at it. Everyone is focusing on the “increasingly risky” financing angle, but anything worth doing carries risk. Is there anything new in the report, aside from the bean counters’ trepidation? The contract splitting is bad but hardly a scandal.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:50 am
The Auditor does address the ability to leverage the Prop 1A money with QTC’s and it’s not promising. However, instead of derailing the project, it will probably make the Authority and other bureaucrats figure out how to use those tax credits better than anyone else which could be a real windfall…
(QTC’s are used currently for things like affordable housing. But even the developers that do those types of projects get frustrated because it gets complicated, fast.
Paulus Magnus Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:59 am
According to the auditors, O&M expenses weren’t accounted for by the Authority. That is mildly important.
StevieB Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 2:22 pm
O&M are the responsibility of the concessionaire and will be discounted in the contract.
Even if this makes it onto the ballot by some miracle, the $5.00+ per gallon gasoline prices that many analysts are expecting this summer will be a pretty nice counter argument to those trying to derail the bullet train. Unless of course the anti-rail ballot proposition will also somehow magically also bring gas prices down to $2.00 per gallon, from now until the end of time…
RT
I’m a little confused. Maybe someone can shed some light here. Isn’t construction supposed to begin in Sept? Don’t we vote in November? Is there another vote going on before then or is the actual construction date just a goal that isn’t quite concrete yet?
J. Wong Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:29 am
It is interesting as to what effect the initiative would have if the Legislature does release funds to HSR before the election. That is the real question since this must happen before construction can begin in any case.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 10:56 am
No, construction cannot start until at least January 2013 when they’re scheduled to hire the construction firm.
Any activity that starts before then is purely for appearances, and any threats that federal money will be lost are unfounded. The September start date was a successful attempt by the HSRA at misinformation.
If you’re not convinced, then consider this. If the HSRA is correct that September is a critical start date, they’re screwed. They will not make it through the consultant selection process by Sept.
They’ve got to know this, which makes their scare tactics all the more suspect.
I’m not terribly surprised, given the rather lackluster performance of the CHSRA. I think most half way informed members of the public, who are not train geeks and spend their days commenting at Clem’s blog or here, see stuff like connecting Central Valley cities, and wonder what in the world that has to do with HSR from LA to SF (or maybe I’m projecting my desire of an I-5 alignment on the masses-i’d rather have some sort of HSR built ASAP than using it as a Central Valley economic revitalization project). Or the mess we’ve gotten bogged down in the Peninsula with the NIMBYs (Altamont vs Pacheco).
At this point I’m pretty skeptical of HSR’s prospects in CA. Just give me an electrified Caltrain and decent VTA service and I’ll be happy.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:25 am
Neither of those things are even remotely possible without HSR. San Jose Airport will have nonstop flights to X’ian and Hyderbad before those things happen without high speed rail’s impetus.
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:28 am
If you want to save “high speed rail’s impetus” pressure the CHSRA Directors to not take Tejon off the table.
Amanda in the South Bay Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:35 am
At this point, why doesn’t the VTA just shut down its transit services in Santa Clara County and just be BART’s lobbying/funding arm in the South Bay?
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 11:39 am
That would be redundant as MTC is “BART’s lobbying/funding arm in the South Bay”.
blankslate Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Umm… because of the vast majority of jobs and residences in Santa Clara County that are not and cannot possibly be served by the BART system?
StevieB Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Caltrain is currently deciding which stations and trains to eliminate in order to continue service with current funding levels. The commuter rail currently has little hope of electrification in the next 15 years and may cut back service to the minimum only providing for morning and evening commuters.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Amanda–
Every county has a separate transportation district. Moreover, as Santa Clara County doesn’t even pay into the BART parcel tax, VTA has control over what gets approved there in way that other jurisdictions don’t….
The reason there’s little hope for VTA to get it’s act together is that the downtown San Jose area is anchored by Adobe…who it is well known did something to Steve Jobs in a former life and thus incurred his wrath. Other tech firms doing well are farther west and clustering around Palo Alto. That also has zero to do with BART.
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Ring the Bay – The Phantom Menace
VBobier Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
You’ve been watching too many movies Syno…
No one Who wants HSR cares one bit about stupid ol Bart…
A farmer who wants California HSR is interviewed in a KQED video. He envisions the HSR Authority moving his house to another part of his ranch if necessary with no cost to himself. This is a sharp contrast to the retired couple who lament losing the home they have lived in since 2005.
Arthur Dent Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
One gets picked up and placed on another corner of his property, while the other is kicked off their property and out of the neighborhood. It is a sharp contrast. Small wonder they have differing views.
Nathanael Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 1:49 pm
No evidence that the other is going to get kicked off their property and out of the neighborhood, is there?
Well, so much for the Central Valley IOS.
It looks like a few billion more about to be abstracted to backfill BART (aka PB’s northern “bookend” black hole in “urban” San José, Capital of Silicon Valley!) and get thrown away at Metrolink FRA olde tyme commuter rail. More business as usual. It’s the “new-and-improved” way!
From the Sacramento Business Journal:
Jerry Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
So does that mean that BART will be the new HSR??
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
In MTC’s mind BART is HSR and vice versa.
VBobier Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Nope, As BART is not HSR… Prop1a requires matching funds from Federal or Private or both, without matching funds, none will get spent.
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 11:54 am
A few changes to the law and a tame judge, et voila.
morris brown Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
I don’t see any possibility that Prop 1A funds could be diverted to extending BART. Much more likely is an attempt that has been very blatant to get funds to electrify CalTrain, using the ruse that this is a step forward for HSR. This is what “Friends of CalTrain” has been pushing for along with obtaining a new source of funds to subsidize the CalTrain operation.
There is a letter to the Authority, from the DOT, floating around dated Jan 3, 2012, which again clearly states the Federal funds will stay in the Central Valley.
Nevertheless, plenty of rumors are flying.
Tony d. Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Just further proof that you Peninsula NIMBYS don’t want ANY rail in your backyard, not even improved Caltrain operations. Glad that in the end you folks (who are in the minority) won’t get your way.
By the way, if true, sounds like I may love the revised business plan ;)
Clem Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Morris, it’s no ruse. A sane, cost-effective, step-by-step implementation of HSR that provides independent utility during its deployment would start with electrifying the peninsula corridor.
While it doesn’t meet the constraints of the funding currently available, on a purely technical basis there’s nothing blatant or shameless about it. It even makes a lot of sense.
Clem Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
I meant the foregoing regarding Caltrain electrification, not anything related to BART.
Tony d. Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Agreed.
J. Wong Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
You forget, @morris doesn’t want HSR on the Peninsula ever.
Tony D. Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 4:45 pm
they’re even against electrified, grade-separated Caltrain (the hell with the majority and future generations…it’s all about “me, me, me!”)
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
PAMPA is no match for BART, which has a deep well of support on the Peninsula and will do a divide and conquer. Look at how easily the 49′er move to Santa Clara was pulled off and that has a lot of downsides and costs and a lot of opposition. When BART is in San Jose the campaign will start in earnest.
synonymouse Reply:
January 25th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
There’s a very big surprise. Assume the position.
Tom McNamara Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 6:20 am
Richard,
I think what this means is nothing more than they will put in the Business Plan using the 2-track solution in the Peninsula because Richard knows that it assists BART in ringing the bay. It would be very very odd for the chairman to backtrack on a Central Valley IOS when he’s admitted publicly that he thinks it’s the right approach.
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Could be this is an MTC contingency plan for Prop 1A overturned. BART will commit the money, courtesy of Dan Richard and Jerry Brown, with lightning speed and the funds will end up forgiven when the project implodes. BART excels at this sort of carny shell game.
The Chandlers will have achieved their objective but Palmdale will be totally screwed. Serves ‘em right.
Peter Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
WHAT money? BART has no money to commit.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
BART (= BART’s contractors) have plenty of other people’s money to commit.
Just go ask/tell MTC/BATA’s Steve “inexplicably not yet indicted” Heminger to make a few extra billion over to you. Works every time!
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
The money would, of course, be pulled from CHSRA operations, with Van Ark gone and nobody to guard the henhouse, and re-directed to BART. All legal-like. My guess would be BART to San Jose and the worse off Prop 1A the more rapacious the fund-grabbing. Sf would no doubt want some for the abysmal Central Subway.
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 4:23 pm
And the Republicans would probably be wise to just let the cannibalization take its course.
Peter Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Prop 1A funds not used for high speed rail are going to DISAPPEAR. As if they never existed.
synonymouse Reply:
January 26th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
The Prop 1A funds are going to fall off the truck allright. If you haven’t figured it out yet Jerry and the Tejon gang are a bunch of crooks; they make Rizzo look like a rank amateur. They know how to do a heist.
Who’s going to stop them? Jerry, the 3 crones, the entire patronage apparatus, the unions? They can write their own ticket – they have almost got the 2/3 lock on the legislature. Jerry can probably come up with an in-house workaround with the help of Richard and Heminger and if they had to get a law they obviously have the votes. The judiciary is machine installed and machine compliant, so no worries there.
The GOP should not even lift a finger to stop the piranhas from feeding on the corpse of hsr. Why waste the money on a legal challenge when you know the fix is in. The only objection could come from Antonio, but he does not have a head start like BART. Part of the political learning curve.