It’s hard to believe we’ve been haunted by Jerry Brown’s “Unicorn Legacy of the Bullet Train” for 10 long years.
In keeping with Brown’s typical fairy-tale wishes, this toy had no reasonable plan, or candor, in mind as to practicalities in building it or in operating it. The only concrete part of the scheme is that it was to be sold to voters so the sycophants could declare, “hey, it was voter-approved.”
Once again, the public was deceived by Sacramento’s lies of Proposition 1A.
Gullible people liked the “feel” of high-speed rail transporting people from L.A. to San Francisco. Others knew better.
Nearly four years ago, I wrote and gave these facts on how Jerry Brown Inc. sold his maniacal legacy:
* Before promotion 1A began, somebody with the checkbook had already spent $58 million on consultants, impressive brochures and European travel (enamored with Japan’s system and others) without “one inch of track.”
* $33 billion final cost for 800 miles of track;
* (to be) completed by 2020;
* no increase in taxes, yet “appropriates money from the general fund to pay bond principal and interest;”
* travel time from L.A. to San Francisco in 2 hours, 40 minutes, for $50 (per ticket);
* no subsidies necessary for operational expenses;
* all funding and environmental approvals will be obtained before construction starts.
* Shortly the reported cost tripled. Channel 7-NBC San Diego covered a news conference as late as Nov. 6, 2011, giving a figure of $98.5 billion with completion stretched to 2033.
* Mysteriously, the number shrank to $68 billion; the $33 billion vanished.
An October 2015 Los Angeles Times headline read: “$68-billion California bullet train project likely to overshoot budget and deadline targets.” There have been numerous negative headlines about this massive taxpayer onus since that time. The latest projected figure is $77.3 billion, with expectations of the cost being $100 billion.
That’s about right. The politicians sell it at $33 billion but it’s really $100 billion. That cost is now coupled with a completion date of 2033.
Inarguably, this project was ill-conceived. The crux of the debacle was the absence of any credible explanation on building it. Other components causing skyrocketing costs are:
* Continuing changes; more here, less there;
* Needed land has not been acquired timely and property values are increasing;
* More land is needed;
* More necessary utilities are needed;
* Safety barriers are required keep the bullet train from crashing with private freight trains;
* “so-called third-party negotiations were difficult;”
* Lawsuits exist, and more are threatened (taxpayers must pay those bills).
One contractor, “Spanish construction giant Dragados, was hired in 2014 and as of six months ago, had not started construction. They are “seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in additional payments.” They are contracted to build only a 65-mile section.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office gives a dismal report about funding risks. Attracting outside investors would need California to offer ridership-revenue guarantees. However, back in 2010, the LAO opined that “appears illegal.”
Quentin Kopp, retired judge and Bay Area politician, was once chairman of the High-Speed Rail Authority and helped sell the bullet train to voters. He’s now suing to stop it, saying, “It is foolish, and it is almost a crime to sell bonds and encumber the taxpayers of California at a time when this is no longer high-speed rail. … And the litigation, which is pending, will result, I am confident, in the termination of the High-Speed Rail Authority’s deceiving plan.”
One year ago, the state Legislature allowed the Rail Authority to sell “voter-approved” bonds, calling it a “milestone.” The angered Kopp responded: “It’s deceit. That’s not a milestone, it’s desperation, because High-Speed Rail Authority is out of money.”
Baruch Feigenbaum, an assistant director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation, agrees with Kopp. The Rail Authority’s own hired analyst reports this system will not be self-sustaining but will require “massively high-ticket prices” or $100 million of taxpayer money annually.
Environmental attorney Stuart Flashman, co-litigant with Kopp, says the “often-promised environmental benefits” won’t happen. Other countries have shown no decrease in cars on the road, and initial construction alone of the system will generate “more greenhouse gases that the train could recoup in 80 years.”
A rowdy taxpayers’ revolt is long overdue in California.
Betty Arenson is a Valencia resident who believes in the Constitution in its entirety and that laws should be upheld and apply to everyone equally.
COMMENT POLICY: We welcome comments from individuals and businesses. All comments are moderated. Comments are subject to rejection if they are vulgar, combative, or in poor taste.
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
Ms. Arenson is perhaps half accurate in her diatribe about the “Crazy Train Gets Crazier.” Do not be deceived by her references to me. I support, and have since 1994 as a State Senator, genuine high-speed rail. The present plan is conventional diesel rail, not high speed. High-speed rail is electrified by definition, and usually runs on dedicated tracks. That means dedicated to high-speed rail and not shared with commuter or freight trains. It would be helpful if Ms. Arenson understood those points. Jerry Brown did not “sell” high-speed rail in 2008, as voters approved Proposition (not “promotion”) 1A. After becoming Governor in 2011, he embraced the project and has done so since, disregarding the present plan’s violation of Proposition 1A and promises to voters and taxpayers.
I am a plaintiff in a pending lawsuit in which Stuart is not a “co-litigant” with me. He is co-counsel for eight other plaintiffs and me, together with Mike Brady of Redwood City. The basis of the suit is legislative action in 2016 to appropriate without voter approval $715,000,000 from the Proposition 1A general obligation bond issue of $9,950,000,000 to defray the $2,000,000,000 cost of electrifying the Caltrain commute train from San Francisco to San Jose. I am a plaintiff not because I have soured on high-speed rail, which operates successfully in 11 other nations in Europe and Asia, or I oppose the electrification of Caltrain. I support the electrification of Caltrain, but not using money voters approved for a specific purpose, and not Caltrain electrification as such. Parts of Ms. Arenson’s column which are accurate is that further federal funds are prohibited by House of Representatives legislation, which although never adopted by the U.S. Senate, as a practical matter means no federal funding until another Obama-type becomes President and Pelosi becomes Speaker again. Arenson is wrong in stating: “One year ago, the State Legislature allowed the Rail Authority to sell ‘voter-approved’ bonds . . .” I explained above the nature of such legislative action which is the subject matter of the above-mentioned lawsuit.
I recommend Arenson interview people who know the subject matter before writing such inaccuracies as if she’s a version of Donald Trump.
C’mon guys, Betty has a long history of presenting her conservative nonsense and being critical of anything she deems as progressive. Facts, not so much. She is a living example of what watching FOX NEWS does to the mind.
All opinions and ideas are welcome. Factually inaccurate, libelous, defamatory, profane or hateful statements are not.
Your words must be your own. All commentary is subject to editing for legibility. There is no length limit, but the shorter,
the better the odds of people reading it. "Local" SCV-related topics are preferred. Send commentary to: LETTERS (at) SCVNEWS.COM. Author's full name, community name, phone number and e-mail address are required. Phone numbers and e-mail addresses are not published except at author's request. Acknowledgment of submission does not guarantee publication.
As restrictions remain in place for gatherings and events in Los Angeles County, one of Santa Clarita’s most important traditions will take place on an online format in 2020.
The holiday shopping rush is upon us! As with everything this year, checking loved ones off your shopping list will look a little different in 2020. There will be no braving the crowds and tussling for the first crack at the doorbuster deals on Black Friday.
In his monthly message for October 2020, Santa Clarita City Manager Ken Striplin spotlights results of the city's 2020 public opinion survey about the quality of life in our community.
As with everything in 2020, this year’s State of the City event will be different than years past. We are looking on the bright side, embracing the necessary changes for safety’s sake and rejoicing in the fact that this year’s event is truly inclusive of the entire Santa Clarita community.
The Santa Clarita Community College District Board of Trustees will hold a video/teleconferencing special meeting via Zoom on Wednesday, Jan. 27, beginning with a closed session at 4:00 p.m., followed immediately by open session at 5:00 p.m.
Five Point Holdings, LLC recently announced the sale of additional homesites at its Valencia community, previously known as Newhall Ranch, and the line-up of homebuilders for the first phase of the community.
As COVID-19 vaccination continues for health care workers and those over 65, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday California is looking to prioritize the next phases of vaccination efforts by age, rather than occupation.
Tejon Ranch Co. declared victory for its 8,000-acre Grapevine mixed-use development after a Kern County Superior Court judge ruled against an Arizona-based environmental group that dubbed the project “damaging.”
In 2019, Valencia High School student, Pedro Roman, was diagnosed with Leukemia. After one long and hard-fought year, Roman is now in remission due to the success of his latest treatment.
California Public Health officials lifted the regional Stay at Home Order statewide on Monday as Los Angeles County Public Health officials confirmed 43 new deaths and 6,642 new cases of confirmed COVID-19 countywide, and Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital in Valencia reported five new deaths on Saturday and Monday.
Los Angeles County is set to align its health order with California's by the end of the week, as the state lifted its regional stay-at-home order statewide Monday, green-lighting the reopening of in-person outside dining and hair and nail salons, among other businesses.
Officials with the California Department of Public Health on Monday ordered the Regional Stay at Home Order lifted for all regions statewide, including the three regions that had still been under the order – San Joaquin Valley, Bay Area, and Southern California.
As another winter storm hit the Santa Clarita Valley and surrounding areas, Interstate 5 was shut down through the Grapevine in "Operation Snowflake" Monday morning, with some lanes reopened by Monday afternoon.
Because of the recent rainfall, Los Angeles County Health Officer Muntu Davis, MD, MPH, is cautioning residents about beach water use due to bacteria, chemicals, debris, trash, and other public health hazards from city streets and mountain areas that are likely to contaminate ocean waters at and around discharging storm drains, creeks, and rivers.
A series of projects brought forth by Santa Clarita Valley-based organizations and agencies to aid the local homeless population could soon receive thousands of dollars from the city of Santa Clarita.
Citing the case of a convicted child rapist, Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger said Friday she’s concerned there is a growing trend that the rights of victims of some of the most violent crimes are not being protected under District Attorney George Gascón’s administration.
Medical examiners with the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office identified Benjamin Marquez IV, 31, of Castaic, as the man killed in a solo-vehicle crash that left one dead and sent another to the hospital Saturday.
The COVID-19 crisis has trashed recycling efforts and instead generated an increase in plastic waste, according to a recent study, but Los Angeles County restaurants could soon be required to make adjustments related to disposable food ware in an effort to reduce waste.
Despite signs that California’s latest and most damaging wave of the pandemic is subsiding, the state nonetheless sets a one-day record of 764 deaths on Friday.
Claims of excessive force, retaliation, and other misconduct by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will be probed during a C, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Friday.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health officials on Friday confirmed 256 new deaths and 9,277 new cases of confirmed COVID-19 countywide, as Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital in Valencia reported it's 107th death.
The Los Angeles County Library, in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, is set to host a series of free virtual workshops running every other week on Fridays from January through June.
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
3 Comments
Ms. Arenson is perhaps half accurate in her diatribe about the “Crazy Train Gets Crazier.” Do not be deceived by her references to me. I support, and have since 1994 as a State Senator, genuine high-speed rail. The present plan is conventional diesel rail, not high speed. High-speed rail is electrified by definition, and usually runs on dedicated tracks. That means dedicated to high-speed rail and not shared with commuter or freight trains. It would be helpful if Ms. Arenson understood those points. Jerry Brown did not “sell” high-speed rail in 2008, as voters approved Proposition (not “promotion”) 1A. After becoming Governor in 2011, he embraced the project and has done so since, disregarding the present plan’s violation of Proposition 1A and promises to voters and taxpayers.
I am a plaintiff in a pending lawsuit in which Stuart is not a “co-litigant” with me. He is co-counsel for eight other plaintiffs and me, together with Mike Brady of Redwood City. The basis of the suit is legislative action in 2016 to appropriate without voter approval $715,000,000 from the Proposition 1A general obligation bond issue of $9,950,000,000 to defray the $2,000,000,000 cost of electrifying the Caltrain commute train from San Francisco to San Jose. I am a plaintiff not because I have soured on high-speed rail, which operates successfully in 11 other nations in Europe and Asia, or I oppose the electrification of Caltrain. I support the electrification of Caltrain, but not using money voters approved for a specific purpose, and not Caltrain electrification as such. Parts of Ms. Arenson’s column which are accurate is that further federal funds are prohibited by House of Representatives legislation, which although never adopted by the U.S. Senate, as a practical matter means no federal funding until another Obama-type becomes President and Pelosi becomes Speaker again. Arenson is wrong in stating: “One year ago, the State Legislature allowed the Rail Authority to sell ‘voter-approved’ bonds . . .” I explained above the nature of such legislative action which is the subject matter of the above-mentioned lawsuit.
I recommend Arenson interview people who know the subject matter before writing such inaccuracies as if she’s a version of Donald Trump.
Came here to say what Mr. Kopp said. Please fact check Ms. Arenson’s “columns” before posting.
C’mon guys, Betty has a long history of presenting her conservative nonsense and being critical of anything she deems as progressive. Facts, not so much. She is a living example of what watching FOX NEWS does to the mind.