Passenger Trains > California bullet train project scores major court vict

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-high-speed-rail-story.html

Major victory for bullet train project: Appellate court overturns lower court ruling

a major victory for California’s bullet train project, an appellate court Thursday overturned a lower court ruling that found the state failed to comply with the law in developing a funding plan for the $68 billion line between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The new ruling sets aside a decision last year by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny who found the state failed to meet legal requirements, in part, because its plan did not identify all the funds needed to complete a first usable segment, and did not have all of the environmental clearances needed. The lower court judge said voter-approved bond monies could not be spent until the plan was redone.

The three member panel, in a 3-0 vote, found the law required two funding plans. An initial one, it said, did not have to meet all of the requirements of the law, and was mainly intended to help the Legislature decide whether to appropriate money for the project. The appellate ruling found that a second funding plan that meets state requirements still has to be developed before California actually spends any of the bond money. The ruling also determined that state officials acted properly in validating that the bonds could be sold.

The state appeals court ruling could help free up billions of dollars in state funding for the project, which is expected to begin heavy construction soon.

Dan Richard, chairman of the bullet train agency, welcomed the decision, saying the state is “committed to building a modern high-speed rail system that will connect the state, precisely as the voters called.” He said the system “will be a clean, fast, non-subsidized service, and will create jobs and enable smart, sustainable growth while preserving farmland and habitat."

Stuart Flashman, one of the plaintiffs attorneys, said an appeal of Thursday’s “disturbing” decision will be considered.

“The ruling is a microscopic examination of the ballot measure. It parses and analyzes it to death,” he said. “When most people read a ballot measure and decide how to vote, they consider what the measure means, read the arguments for and against and decide. This decision destroys people’s trust in what is put on the ballot.”



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/14 07:34 by mrltim.

Yes....Let's build it.....

The lawyers have made their money--now California can start building.

I hope the naysayers realize that Court challenges like this costs millions. I think we should charge them with "wasteful spending" on Legal Cost "overruns".

Joe

...the justices added, "contrary to the trial court's determination, the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee properly found that issuance of the bonds for the project was necessary or desirable." In ordering Kenny to vacate his ruling that the authority's preliminary financing was deficient, the appeals court said the plan "was intended to provide guidance to the Legislature in acting on the Authority's appropriation request (in mid-2012). Because the Legislature appropriated bond proceeds following receipt of the preliminary funding plan approved by the Authority, the preliminary funding plan has served its purpose."

The ruling represents the second legal victory in a week for the rail program at the appellate level. On July 24, a different three-judge panel from the 3rd District ruled in the rail authority's favor and upheld Kenny's approval of an environmental impact report that selected the Pacheco Pass between Gilroy and Los Banos as the preferred corridor for high-speed trains between the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley. The San Francisco Peninsula communities of Atherton and Palo Alto had challenged Kenny's approval of environmental work for the Bay Area-to-Central Valley section of the rail line.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/07/31/4049535/appeals-court-approves-bond-sale.html?sp=/99/406/#storylink=cpy

A giant waste of money. If built it will be a financial disaster.

When will this wastefully spending stop? If just a portion of this money were put into Amtrak, we could have new equipment, more trains...and maybe even flowers in the diners!

Note that the court did not rule on whether the HSR program is non-compliant with the
governing California laws. This is a narrowly-defined ruling only regarding the
bonds - so there is more to come.

The lawyers will have more checks to cash...

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Note that the court did not rule on whether the
> HSR program is non-compliant with the
> governing California laws. This is a
> narrowly-defined ruling only regarding the
> bonds - so there is more to come.
>
> The lawyers will have more checks to cash...

It's going to be a real pig wallow.

Yes, and the Erie Canal will be a huge boondoggle, likewise the Panama Canal, the first few transcontinental railroads...

Nobody rides these newfangled high speed train things. Just ask the French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and all the rest.

Louisiana Purchase was a big waste of money as was Seward's Folly.

Comparison with Louisiana Purchase, etc is ridiculous. Does anyone really believe that the alleged cost of 68 billion is not greatly underestimated?

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Note that the court did not rule on whether the
> HSR program is non-compliant with the
> governing California laws. This is a
> narrowly-defined ruling only regarding the
> bonds - so there is more to come.
>
> The lawyers will have more checks to cash...

The full LA Times article, available to subscribers only, reported in paragraph three:

"But the ruling by the Court of Appeals explicitly warned that "substantial legal questions loom" about whether the project is consistent with what voters approved in a $9-million bond in 2008. Important financial and environmental matters remain to be clarified by the state in a future report, the appellate court said. A number of other lawsuits challenging the project are also pending."

This will preclude any bond issuance for HSR in the foreseeable future until all legal questions and lawsuits are resolved. As a practical matter, no bonds could be sold without Bond Counsel giving a no-litigation certificate as part of closing documents; such certificate forthcoming only if there are no pending lawsuits or other legal challenges to the project for which said bonds are being sold.

Carex Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Comparison with Louisiana Purchase, etc is
> ridiculous. Does anyone really believe that the
> alleged cost of 68 billion is not greatly
> underestimated?

Such statements absolve you from using your head. Boondoggles are with us everywhere.

I think concentrating on the LA-San Francisco air market as the reason for being of CAHSR is wrong and near fatal. Networks should have been started in the south and the north focusing on origin-destination pairs in those regions. After those networks are thriving, the decision as to how to link them up could be made with a better focus on what the needs really are.

They said buying Alaska was a waste of money--WRONG! Ironically, Alaskans now enjoy what is the highest quality rail service in the country. I don't mind NINBYS minding their own backyards, but I draw the line when they try to mind my backyard! CAHSR--"geta done!"

I think everybody knows that any government project is always a wise investment of money. . .even if the money has to be borrowed.

Let's think about this. . .California HSR, like every other government project, is directed by dedicated public servants committed to progress and the public good. . . .and not by the rapaciously greedy private business sector who are really only parasites living off the infrastructure that others have built, infrastructure built under the direction of those overworked and under-appreciated dedicated public servants.

And besides. . . . the project can easily be afforded by California, which has enough money to pay mayors of small towns $500-600 thousand a year, and for prison guards and cops to be able to retire on $100-$200 thousand dollars a year at the age of 50. California could probably just fund the project through their on-going tax revenues. . . .

Narniaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .... California could probably just fund the
> project through their on-going tax revenues. . . .

California will need to. I doubt that the state will see anymore substantial Federal funding or even private financing for that matter.

See you on high speed rail, in Texas!

Sounds like the call of the Lesser Mid-American Flat-Earther--"birders" take note! It can be hot here in Summer but there's little humidity and in Winter there is no frost--reason enough for thousands/millions of Mid-Westerners to have migrated to this land of ample sunshine but little or no public transport. BTW many of those small-cities said to have 600K mayors were actually charted by Mid-Westerners. The only small town California mayors that I know of--with 600K salaries--are doing 10 to 20 in the likes of Pleasant Valley State Prison out Coalinga way. The CAHSR--lead, follow or get off the track!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/14 15:19 by railwaybaron.

march_hare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, and the Erie Canal will be a huge boondoggle,
> likewise the Panama Canal, the first few
> transcontinental railroads...
>
> Nobody rides these newfangled high speed train
> things. Just ask the French, Germans, Spanish,
> Italians, Japanese, Chinese, and all the rest.

got news for you. in this country, the days of the middle class increasing due to well paying jobs and the resulting tax revenues that helped pay for these huge infrastructure projects are over......

66

You have got to be kidding me.. Small town mayors in California make 500-600K a year? Now way!!!!!
That should be about 70-80K

bluesboyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have got to be kidding me.. Small town mayors
> in California make 500-600K a year? Now way!!!!!
> That should be about 70-80K

One mayor in a small city in LA county (maybe Bell Gardens?) made $750,000 a year. And, the city council paid themselves six figure salaries, plus perks. Perfectly legal. The mayor of Chula Vista paid herself $200,000.

Lots of folks taking good care of themselves.