Kings County Tries Putting Up More Roadblocks to HSR Construction

Aug 27th, 2013 | Posted by

Apparently engaged in an all-out effort to prevent HSR stimulus funds from being spent on construction by the September 2017 deadline, Kings County is blocking high speed rail soil work even as Tulare County approves it:

Kings County has refused to cooperate with such testing, saying the project does not comply with the county’s general plan.

Larry Spikes, Kings County’s top administrator, confirmed the stance. Public Works Director Kevin McAlister says a letter was sent Aug. 16 to the CHSRA denying the request, referencing non-compliance of the project to the county’s general plan, citing safety, circulation and the county’s dairy element, he says.

CHSRA spokesperson Lisa Marie Alley acknowledges receipt of the letter and says “we are working with Kings County to see what our next step might be.”

But McAlister says since the county is not going to change its general plan, “I don’t know how we can proceed.

Kings County sued the California High Speed Rail Authority to try and block construction, and one of their arguments was that the necessary environmental approvals had not been obtained. But these soil tests are a part of the environmental review. So Kings County is trying to have it both ways.

The strident opposition from Kings County leaders against the high speed rail project is self-defeating. HSR will be a huge boost to Hanford and Kings County, reducing pollution and travel costs while bringing jobs and higher property values to the region. With an unemployment rate of 12.6% they are in no position to turn down lasting economic development opportunities.

But such is the world of 2013, where a determination to maintain the status quo at all costs trumps willingness to innovate and build new economic opportunity. California should continue moving ahead with HSR in Kings County and throughout the state, as it’s the state government’s job to promote economic development and environmentally friendly transportation solutions. Eventually, one hopes, Kings County will see the benefits and come along for the ride.

  1. morris brown
    Aug 27th, 2013 at 22:18
    #1

    Robert writes:

    The strident opposition from Kings County leaders against the high speed rail project is self-defeating. HSR will be a huge boost to Hanford and Kings County, reducing pollution and travel costs while bringing jobs and higher property values to the region. With an unemployment rate of 12.6% they are in no position to turn down lasting economic development opportunities.

    Kings County officials and citizens obviously take the opposite views and conclusions regarding their well being. Good for them. It takes a lot of “guts” to stand up to the Governor and all that he and his controlled Legislature can throw at them. And they live there and certainly should know what is in their best interests.

    Derek Reply:

    Ah yes, the ol’ argumentum ad populum.

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    “Socialism! Marxism! Whatever sounds scaryism! Archie Bunker shouting form his chair! Rabble, rabble, rabble!”–rdleis (from the comments section of the Sacramento Bee)

    Emmanuel Reply:

    Umm no? A state referendum trumps everything in principle and by law.
    This was an offer to cooperate. If they refuse, CHSRA should still be able to proceed. There’s no reason why every County deserves special treatment. If we gave everyone a year to work out silly, unfounded obstruction we wouldn’t get anything done before 2070.

    synonymouse Reply:

    civil disobedience – same principle as an inmate hunger strike.

    VBobier Reply:

    The State will bring in law enforcement and there will be arrests if that happens.

  2. D. P. Lubic
    Aug 27th, 2013 at 23:12
    #2

    Just thought this might be of interest.

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/21/5667453/denhams-ploy-backfires-on-high.html

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    And I like this comment!

    “Socialism! Marxism! Whatever sounds scaryism! Archie Bunker shouting form his chair! Rabble, rabble, rabble!”–rdleis

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    http://www.cyclelicio.us/2013/aaa-pedestrian-safety-access-history/

    D. P. Lubic Reply:

    All of these are from this set of transportation links that could be of interest to people here.

    http://thedirecttransfer.com/

    Mike Reply:

    DP, I had exactly the same thought on reading Robert’s post. Namely, with STB having asserted jurisdiction, not only does CEQA not apply, but (I believe) local plans and permits don’t apply. At least as I understand it; admittedly this is a complex legal subject and it would be great to have a guest post by an expert in railroad law who could lay out exactly what is going to change now that STB has asserted jurisdiction.

  3. Joe
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 08:33
    #3

    Wikipedia indicates that a large fraction of income in Kings County comes from California Government spending. If California is going to build another Facility, I bet it’s not in Kings County.

    VBobier Reply:

    Threaten Kings County Supes with loss of state money and jobs and they should come to heel like the dumb baggers they sound like they are…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    why is it when the republicans use such tactics they are called opressive overlords and worse but when Democrats use those tactics they are on the “side of angels?”

    Joe Reply:

    There is no entitlement for state jobs or state infrastructure.

    Make it hard to build state projects and the state will build elsewhere. It is their decision to obstruct the EIR and it comes with benefits and consequences.

    VBobier Reply:

    Agreed, there should be HELL to pay… Threaten to move the jobs to Tulare, even if you have to buy mobile offices to house them in for a bit, I’m sure Tulare would love the jobs coming from Kings…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    that will teach them to not bow down to the overseers…then maybe we can take away the electricity grid and water, those are state resources also…that will show them

    Joe Reply:

    How theatrical.

    Kings County officials are acting like a*****es

    They may have a right to be a*****es but they don’t have an entitlement to additional state projects.

    Something like half of personal income in Kings County comes from government jobs. Maybe California should withdraw and stop occupying Kings County. Ca can spend that money and put those jobs elsewhere.

    Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.

    VBobier Reply:

    Agreed, lets Kings county go without the jobs, they’ll change their tune when people start complaining to them and if they are ignored, recall campaigns could be launched against the supervisors of Kings County.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    I am right there with you. You go get them, make an example out of those jerks. How dare they not agree with you. And after you tried to help their ignorant asses by granting them a stop on the golden HSR line.

    Better to cut them off at the knees now before some other county gets an idea to rebel also. I mean itis not like they have some inherent right to believe what they want. And certainly the state should somehow punish them for not knowing what is good for them.

    Lets enact this plan immediately

    Walter Reply:

    I like the part where you defended dishonest obstructionism as basically a form of freedom of conscience.

    John, these folks literally sued the state for not doing enough environmental review one week and then told them they won’t cooperate with any of the environmental reviewing nonsense the next. If they actually stood for something, they’d be working with the state to get the environmental review done. The CAARD jokers on the Peninsula can never make up their mind as to whether the Authority is doing too much or too little outreach. If they were genuinely concerned about informing the community, they too would trade in solutions rather than “concerns.”

    If it isn’t to destroy high-speed rail at any cost, I can’t even tell what these folks even pretend they’re trying to accomplish anymore.

    Miles Bader Reply:

    That’s the thing: there seems to be no actual principled reason behind their objections, it’s all knee-jerk cultural/tribal teabagger religion. They don’t care a whit about whether it’s actually good or bad for their county, they object because it’s a project promoted by their tribal enemies.

    The annoying thing is that these same losers will end up benefiting from CAHSR…

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    They have not been dishonest about the obstructionism at all….they have been quite honest about it. They tried to stop HSR at the beginning, in the middle, and currently.

    they don’t agree with you, its a free country, they dont have to explain their reasons and they dont have to be logical.

    You cant advocate “punishment” of an entire community because you disagree with their viewpoint. This is America, you are allowed to hold unpopular views without “the state” causing you pain. The very idea that withholding state money would be used to “punish” a community is ridiculous regardless of political affiliation.

    joe Reply:

    You cant advocate “punishment” of an entire community because you disagree with their viewpoint.

    Freedom from consequences. It’s not in the constitution.

    The threat of withholding public money is why Menlo Park settled a lawsuit over deficient affordable housing in 2012.

    wikipedia says 50% of personal income in Kings Co. comes from government jobs.

    It’s perfectly reasonable to expect the state to not open new or expand existing facilites in counties that are less reliable, more prone to “revolts” or abuse of EIR.

    synonymouse Reply:

    Palmdale and its real estate developers are attempting to punish the entire state of California by usurping billions they do not deserve.

    Forget 27 miles of tunnel to go to Mojave. Time for a base tunnel for the same or better price.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Joe

    So you are advocating that the government use its power to punish an entire county that has done nothing illegal???

    Think about the path this leads to for just a second. Right now it is HSR, but if you believe this is ok, then think of the other situations that are just the same over different issues.

    Can Utah withhold state funds to counties that allow abortions.? Can the SF city government refuse to send fire engines to the republican offices if they are on fire? This isn’t just a slippery slope, it is just plain wrong

    In America the government should never use it’s power to compel private citizens who have done nothing wrong. If you want to seize the land with emanate domain then fine, but using state poer to compel people to change their minds or suffer the consequences is what China and North Korea do, not here.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    John, is it bad that I first read your comment as “punish an entire country” and thought, “wait, doesn’t he support the strikes on Syria?”?

    joe Reply:

    Okay – you win. We should surgically strike Kings Co.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    I support military strikes on every target within Kings County that is under the control of the Assad regime. This is consistent with opposing military strikes.

    joe Reply:

    In America the government should never use it’s power to compel private citizens who have done nothing wrong. If you want to seize the land with emanate domain then fine, but using state poer to compel people to change their minds or suffer the consequences is what China and North Korea do, not here.

    Kinds Co. is a not a private citizen but a subordinate institution of the State of CA. Citizens in Kings Co. want HSR – it is not unanimously opposed.

    What gets me (and Alon) is this: Bombing Syria is a moral act. Conditioning government spending is a criminal act. That speaks to a value system where Money is more important than human life.

    Then we have the obvious:
    http://almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=11251

    Menlo Park settles housing lawsuit
    City commits to updating plan, finding affordable housing sites

    Possible sanctions for not complying with the state housing laws include a moratorium on all non-residential building permits and the withholding of grant funding to maintain the local roadway network.

    According to the staff, the city may need to provide the zoning necessary to add sites for 1,975 housing units, both market-rate and affordable housing, to its current stock of 12,500. One of the first steps will be an inventory of local housing, existing capacity for additional homes within current zoning, and any new housing built since 1998, which could be deducted from the preliminary number.

    Mandating 1975 new units out of 12,500 is over a 10% increase!

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    1. Menlo Park was breaking state laws. There were sanctions proposed after due process. So what “crime” is Kings County guilty of? They filed lawful lawsuits, they have filed objections and fought with every legal means necessary. That is different then a community that is breaking a law

    2. You completely ignored the slippery slope argument. Please tell me how you judge when the state gets to “compel” communities and when they don’t.

    3. I do support military strikes on Syria and it is a completly non related situation. Kings county has not release sarin gas on citizens, if they did, however, I would support a federal government military strike to stop them. But since you brought it up, at least I am not a hypocrit. Someone here keeps claiming to care about the poor people of Bangladesh, but apparently the poor people of Syria can be bombed and gasses to extinction and that is ok

    Joe Reply:

    No one is being prosecuted in kings co

    You are such a drama boy.

    Don’t cooperate with the state and the state will reciprocate and invest in more cooperative counties. Pretty simple. No entitlements.

    Kings co can sue in court to force CA to move more government jobs to subsidize thier economy if you this is such a crime and injustice.

    Joe Reply:

    Bombing Syria is sociopathic.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    John: I am the only person here who makes arguments regarding Bangladesh. I’m also undecided about Syria, on purely utilitarian grounds of “could a US military campaign end the carnage?” and more specifically “is Obama’s plan likely to end the carnage?”. I’m hesitantly positive about the first question and hesitantly negative about the second.

    joe Reply:

    Syria is in a Civil War.

    And we do not have a King so if the President wants to bomb he must have Congress’ approval.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    The president does not need Congress’ approval. There is much constitutional precedent that the president can start shooting anytime he wants. But if you want to go by strict legal definitions, the War Powers act give him 90 days, we could do a lot of damage in 90 days.

    As for the actual ability to execute the action, I have no fair that Obama is prepared to do what is necessary. War is a brutal nasty business and he has no stomach for what it takes to prosecute such an action. I have more hope, however, that the actual people executing the plan, will find a way to make it work.

    Its a simple thing really, fine the guy in charge and reduce the 100 square yards around him to cinder. Without him, there is no Syrian government to fight against. Such is the weakness of any dictatorship, they have to get rid of anyone powerful enough to hold the country together as a security measure. But weather it is effective or not, it has to happen to make sure the world knows that chemical weapons are a line you do not cross, its simple schoolyard bully politics.

    What I find amusing, is that Obama finds himself in exactly the situation that he criticized so severely in the past. With all the international countries supporting us in private and not in public I am sure it is not lost on him how it is no fun when you have to make the tough call that is sure to displease.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Simple, as in “took 9 months in Iraq.”

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    The war in Iraq took 4-6 weeks. The occupation was the rest of the time.

    It would be the same in Syria. A war would be very quick, an occupation would be hell

    joe Reply:

    Oh My, We knew and didn’t say anything and the US has no defined military objective.

    U.S. Had Intel on Chemical Strike Before It Was Launched
    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/30/us_had_intel_on_chemical_strike_before_it_was_launched

    The disclosure — part of a larger U.S. intelligence briefing on Syria’s chemical attacks — raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions for the American government. First and foremost: What, if anything, did it do to notify the Syrian opposition of the pending attack?
    ….
    In a call with reporters Friday afternoon, senior administration officials did not address whether this information was shared with rebel groups in advance of the attack.
    ….
    2 things we did not hear from Secretary Kerry. (1) What is our military objective? (2) What legal justification is the Administration using?”

    Oh what the F**K. Bomb ’em anyway.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    your right joe, its just non-American people. Let them be gassed. I mean what are the chances that North Korea takes this as a green light to use chemical weapons, they probably don’t even get CNN in that country.

    Joe Reply:

    I would NOT bomb US citizens so i am being consistent by not wanting to bomb Syriai also think us has a right to defend US citizens but no such right to unilaterally police the world.

    What is done in Syria is unrelated to the N. Koreans.

    How does N Korea deliver a gas payload to the US? FedEx or UPS?

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Ah yes, the “we don’t police the world” argument.

    Truth is, we do police the world. And that means deciding when to send a message. You see here in the real world, other countries watch what happens. So if we let Syria get away with using chemical weapons, the North Korea and Iran are going to think they can do the same thing. So then it is an artillery strike in South Korea or an attack on an American Embassy in Turkey. You see, if we don’t do it then it grows to a real problem.

    But I will play. The world is just as you want. No US intervention. It is obvious the UN is not going to do anything. No other country has the will or the capability to go it alone.

    So how would you propose fixing the problem, or do I assume too much? Are to willing to let Syria use chemical weapons without consequence? Are you willing to let genocide happen again?

    What is your solution?

    Joe Reply:

    We don’t police the world. Pretty stupid to try.

    Bombing solves nothing but creates more problems and death.

    Solution is to not establish or support dictators. Also not bomb places.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    The US policing of the world has lead to about 50 years of relative peace, I would say we are doing a better than average job. So no, it is not stupid to try, it is perhaps a little futile (because there will always be another tin plated dictator) but not stupid.

    Bombing (and war in general) has been an effective, if blunt, way of solving problems. When the other guy is dead, the argument tends to come to a conclusion. It does create death, but US air power has been an effective means to an end for many decades at this point.

    Appeasement, on the other hand, is not an effective deterrent and has not been successful in preventing or containing dictators and people who commit these mass atrocities.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    Peace, man

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    Inter arma enim silent leges

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_arma_enim_silent_leges

  4. Walter
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 08:42
    #4

    Last week, Kings County was concerned about the lack of environmental review.
    This week, Kings County says it will not stand for any of this environmental review business.

    What a shocker, folks! It looks like HSR opponents are hiding behind a paper shield of “done right” while spewing their utterly disingenuous “concerns” at every opportunity!

    VBobier Reply:

    Agreed, their NUTS, The CHSRA needs to just ignore them.

  5. Paul Dyson
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 08:50
    #5

    The HMM monthly report for July detailing its activities in the Palmdale – LAUS segment makes interesting reading. There’s an undercurrent of complaints about LACMTA proceeding with Metrolink upgrades that constrain HSR sharing the RoW. On top of that today’s LA Times carries a story about LA County Supervisors approving Disney expanding its production facilities on the east side of Santa Clarita (Placerita Canyon). Very HSR adjacent. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-disney-development-production-placerita-canyon-20130827,0,6447376.story
    So is LA County pretending that HSR is not coming, kicking the can down the road because it will not happen during the terms of the current Supervisors, or deliberately obstructing the project with these actions? Is L.A. being more subtle than King’s County but with the same objectives?

    synonymouse Reply:

    Movie production facilities are hardly forever, but 6-7 mile tunnels pretty much are, relatively. They filmed ‘Hurricane Express” in the San Fernando Valley and it was a quasi-“Western”. Under solid tracts, malls, freeways now.

    Paul Dyson Reply:

    500,000 sq ft of sound stages etc has a certain materiality to it. And they are not the only ones in the area. Unlikely to be pleased with train noise.

    adirondacker12800 Reply:

    The whole point of sound stages is that they are relatively sound proof.

    Elizabeth Reply:

    It was decided a long time ago that you would have to tunnel under it or avoid it

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/31/local/la-me-high-speed-ethics-20101031

    Michael Reply:

    Drawings, photos, and site plans.
    http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/69660

  6. morris brown
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 09:01
    #6

    Just as the CHSRA has exaggerated population growth as a vehicle to convince the necessity of HSR, the just adopted Plan Bay Area and its planners do likewise.

    See:

    Plan Bay Area: Telling People What to Do

    http://www.newgeography.com/content/003899-plan-bay-area-telling-people-what-do

    Mike Reply:

    Thanks for the update; it’s nice to know that your buddy Wendell Cox is still hammering his anti-planning, anti-transit, pro-sprawl message.

    Derek Reply:

    Anti-planning need not be pro-sprawl. In fact, zoning laws helped create sprawl in the first place. But I doubt Cox would be in favor of eliminating those laws.

    TomA Reply:

    Sure it doesn’t need to be – but it almost always is. You rarely here someone say we need less planning so I can build some superdense skyscapers in already dense urban areas.

    Derek Reply:

    That’s only because we’ve eliminated the right for neighboring property owners to be compensated for loss of sunlight, and added restrictive zoning laws that don’t give people and developers the choice.

    synonymouse Reply:

    CAHSR is sprawler.

    Derek Reply:

    Only around those stations where parking is overbuilt to the point where the parking doesn’t pay for itself.

    jonathan Reply:

    You have a really perverse definition of “sprawl”.

    VBobier Reply:

    It’s the US Census that says CA is growing to 50 Million, it will happen and you can’t stop that from happening Morris…

    VBobier Reply:

    My mistake, it’s CA DOF(Department Of Finance) that says that CA is growing, which I gather you hate Morris.

    SACRAMENTO
    — California’s population will cross the 50 million mark in 2049 and grow to
    nearly 52.7 million by 2060, according to new
    population projections released today by the
    Department of Finance.
    This population gain – nearly 15.4 million between 2010 and 2060 – would exceed the current
    populations of either Illinois or Pennsylvania, and would represent enough new residents to
    currently rank as the fifth largest state in the Union. The 2060 population will be 39 percent
    higher than the state’s most recent 2012 population estimate.

    NEW POPULATION PROJECTIONS: CALIFORNIA TO SURPASS 50 MILLION IN 2049

    The link above is to a PDF file.

    synonymouse Reply:

    I hate it.

    VBobier Reply:

    Get used to it or leave Syno, it’s a fact that no one can change.

    Keith Saggers Reply:

    Don’t worry Syn, there not coming to SMART country

    synonymouse Reply:

    The locals keep kvetching that the casino is going to bring in lowlifes but too many apartments and high density housing will bring in the meth set.

    BMF from San Diego Reply:

    If I’m correct, it looks like projections have been scaled back relative to prior projections. Prior to this, projections had California at over 60 million by 2050.

    Keith Saggers Reply:

    Population growth figures come from the State Dept. of Finance not those bad train people.

  7. datacruncher
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 10:35
    #7

    Speaking of the Kings County ROW, an additional article this week by the same reporter.

    High Speed Rail: East Of Hanford Route Now Favored.

    The URS report August 14 included this short paragraph. Referring to Authority staff, URS writes “In July 2013, further verbal direction was given to replace the Hanford West Bypass 2 Below-Grade Alternative with the Hanford East Alternative as part of the single PA, and to explore options for adjusting that alignment to avoid or reduce impacts on the Baker Commodities facility.”

    More at
    http://sierra2thesea.net/central-valley/high-speed-raileast-of-hanford-route-now-favored

  8. BKwong
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 13:14
    #8

    If the courts rule that Prop 1A funding cannot be used for construction on the IOS until there is enough funding for it, could the HSR Authority still use the federal funding to start construction?

    Mike Reply:

    Not under the existing agreements with US DOT, but I suppose it’s possible that those agreements could be renegotiated. However, if there’s any requirement for state matching funds in the enabling laws (ARRA, etc.), that part can’t be waived.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    the federal funds require a state match (and for that matter prop 1a funds also require a match). You have to come up with matching state funds

    Then the question would be can you use non-bond funds to build a system covered and authorized by prop1a when those bonds dont meet the laws standard. The way the law reads its not just prop1a funds that are covred by the law but all funds.

    Alan Reply:

    Wrong. The provisions of AB3034 apply only to bonds issued under that act.

    John Nachtigall Reply:

    So the authority can’t control the parts built without those bonds?
    What about the no subsidy provision?
    Time requirements?

    In short, some provisions do apply, it would be a matter for a court as to if that is everything

    Alan Reply:

    No, the law is very specific. The restrictions contained in Prop !A apply only to bonds issued under that law. Any other funding received by the Authority would not appear to be so restricted–in other words, once the Prop 1A money is exhausted, any other funding received could be expended without the funding plans required in Prop 1A. All of the environmental requirements, of course, would still apply, and one would expect the Legislature to continue its oversight role.

    joe Reply:

    Proposition 1A (or the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century)

    “The law allocates $9.95 billion to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Of that sum, $9 billion will be used to construct the core segments of the rail line from San Francisco to the Los Angeles area and the rest will be spent on improvements to local railroad systems that will connect locations away from the high-speed rail mainline to the high-speed system. The project also requires federal matching funds, since the $9.95 billion bond covers only part of the estimated cost of the initial core segment.[2] The money will be raised through general obligation bonds that are paid off over a period of 30 years.[2]”

    BKwong Reply:

    I believe the $2.4 billion in ARRA funds DO NOT need a match, but the subsequent $715 million in HSIPR funds from 2010 require at least a 20 percent match.

    VBobier Reply:

    Well that’s only $143 million to match the HSIPR funds, shouldn’t be a real problem for the Legislature and the Governor and it should make Repubs jump and scream like a bunch of crazy apes…

    morris brown Reply:

    @BKWONG

    You are wrong.. the ARRA fund DO require a match.

    Mike Reply:

    Under the statutory provisions of ARRA (which we can all agree are not going to be amended by Congress) or under the terms of the administrative agreements between CHSRA and US DOT (which are likely subject to renegotiation)?

    Mike Reply:

    Actually BKwong is Right, and Morris is wrong. From the text of ARRA:

    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
    CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS AND
    INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

    Provided further, That the Federal share payable of the costs for which a grant is made
    under this heading shall be, at the option of the recipient, up to 100 percent

    morris brown Reply:

    @Mike:

    You don’t know from what you write. You are reading the wrong document. The grant
    agreement with the FRA for the HSR project, clearly demanded State Matching funds for the ARRA funds. I simply am not going to spend the time to show this to you — it is a well know fact by those who really know what is going on with the project. The CHSRA made that agreement with the FRA which convinced the Feds to give so much funding from ARRA for this project.

    Why not ask Robert to confirm this or better yet, go to the CHRSA website and read the grant agreement.

    BKwong Reply:

    @morris brown- You’re right. After going to the Authority’s website and reading the actual agreements between the FRA and the Authority, there need to be matches for both ARRA and HSIPR funds. Thank you for clarifying.

    Mike Reply:

    @Morris @BKwong, I’m going to stand firm on this one. I am aware that there is an administrative agreement between FRA and the Authority that provides for state matching funds, but that agreement can be administratively modified. In fact, the Authority previously inquired if FRA would allow it to spend all federal funds first, and then all state funds (in order to make it easier to meet the ARRA deadlines) and FRA said, we don’t think that we want to do that. They DIDN’T say, we CAN’T do that. Now, I’m not sure that they’d do a 180 if Prop 1A funds were taken out of the picture, but the point is, nothing in the law prevents it.

    Joe Reply:

    There is no legal requirement for cost sharing in ARRA. the California proposal was competitive because it offered cost-sharing with proposition 1A

    ARRA policy wanted standalone projects. projects that would have utility if completed only with a ARRA money.

    I believe that policy is not statutory, rather a guidance.
    For political reasons the administration wanted all spending to create something Stanalone useful
    again that is guidance not a requirement by law.

    Keith Saggers Reply:

    I doubt the court would make such a ruling

  9. Joe
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 16:13
    #9

    Building infrastructure elsewhere is freedom, not oppression.
    Kings county is free from the oppression of the state taking County land For non-farming uses.
    Maybe you are confusing freedom with freeloading

    Alon Levy Reply:

    They could turn California into a non-voting colony under US occupation. Then infrastructure would be part of the bid to win the population’s hearts and minds. As a bonus, it would go many times over budget and still get funded by the Pentagon!

    VBobier Reply:

    That won’t happen, California is a part of the USA and the Military would not obey.

    Alon Levy Reply:

    The military always obeys. That’s why it’s a first-world military.

    VBobier Reply:

    The US Military is unlike Militaries in other counties, they don’t obey or should not obey orders blindly and without question, I was taught that We only had to obey legal orders, not illegal ones.

  10. Joe
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 18:21
    #10

    The mouse that roared

    VBobier Reply:

    Must be synos kind of people, CRAZY.

    Joe Reply:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00009MEKJ/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/176-8311034-9587430

    nslander Reply:

    OT: the son of the author of that book was my 7th grade teacher. Bitter man, but he made sure we could graph the **** out of sentence.

    joe Reply:

    Why is that skill not taught now?

    joe Reply:

    And why is my 8 year old being asked to learn cursive?

  11. D. P. Lubic
    Aug 28th, 2013 at 23:48
    #11
  12. BKwong
    Aug 29th, 2013 at 21:54
    #12

    If Prop 1A funds are blocked, would it be feasible that the CA legislature would approve funds to match the $3.3 billion in federal funding?

    VBobier Reply:

    If the votes are there, I don’t see why not.

    BKwong Reply:

    On a related question, could there be enough revenue from Cap-and-Trade alone to match the federal funding, allowing for current construction plans to proceed if Prop 1A funds are blocked?

    Joe Reply:

    If the state votes to match ARRA, prop1a is not applicable to that construction.

    Resident Reply:

    Or phrased another way – if state proceeds in a manner not in compliance with Prop 1A, they better not come after those bond funds – any of them. Kiss the whole $10B good bye. It would be interesting to see how that would be supported by the large political powers at ‘the bookends’. However, its a moot point – since they’ve already used and committed Prop 1A funds, they are already bound to compliance with prop 1A. Additionally, not clear that the commitments/requirements to adhere to the high speed rail system characteristics approved by voters in Prop 1A apply only if the bond funds are used. That would undoubtedly be a matter for another lawsuit if they attempt to skirt compliance with Prop 1A.

    joe Reply:

    Kooks think Prop1a was some awesome trap to tie-up all state HSR spending.

    First, ARRA money can be matched with any state commitment.

    Second, Prop1a doesn’t go away. The state could cost match Prop1a funds out of the general fund and build compliant infrastructure. And that Prop1a spending could finish work started under the ARRA general fund.

    Resident Reply:

    correct. In compliance with prop 1A.

    Resident Reply:

    I should say, HSR built in compliance with Prop 1A would be eligible for prop 1A. Work not in compliance would not be. HSR built not in compliance with prop 1A would not later then be able to skirt the law and start tapping in to Prop 1A. The question is whether any work not in compliance with prop 1A would be legal regardless of using or not using the bond funds.

Comments are closed.