Legislature
Tos II Case Progresses
05/25/17 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
A hearing was held on
April 26 on CHSRA’s Demurrer. The Court’s tentative
ruling denied the motion for preliminary
injunction and sustained the demurrer. At the hearing,
the Court adopted the ruling on the motion for
preliminary injunction, and took the demurrer
under submission. The final ruling adopted the tentative ruling
sustaining the demurrer, effectively knocking the
case out of court, but granted leave to amend the
Petition.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Petition on May 25, in response. After the announcement of the Federal Transit Administration grant to Caltrain for its Electrification Project in May, 2017, the Director of the Department of Finance issued a letter authorizing CHSRA to obligate $713 million in bond funds for Caltrain.
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Petition on May 25, in response. After the announcement of the Federal Transit Administration grant to Caltrain for its Electrification Project in May, 2017, the Director of the Department of Finance issued a letter authorizing CHSRA to obligate $713 million in bond funds for Caltrain.
Allies Challenge AB 1899's Constitutionality
01/31/17 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
Five individuals, three non-profit organizations, the
Town of Atherton and Kings County amended their
lawsuit today, seeking a ruling that the California
High-Speed Rail Authority's (CHSRA) efforts to obtain
construction funding from a voter-approved bond
measure violate the state constitution. The case is
the second one filed as Tos v. California High-Speed
Rail Authority, or Tos II. Legal papers are
available
here.
The Third District Court of Appeal had previously ruled that Prop. 1A, the 2008 $9.9 billion high-speed rail bond measure, created a "financial straitjacket" restricting the use of the bond funds. Plaintiffs allege in their suit that the Legislature's passage of AB 1889 created a tool that attempts to evade the bond measure's restrictions.
However, because AB 1889 fundamentally alters that voter-approved measure, plaintiffs allege it is unconstitutional, as are the funding plans that rely on it. Newly added as a plaintiff is retired judge and former CHSRA Chair Quentin Kopp, who helped write Prop. 1A and has joined the case to defend that measure as the voters approved it. Read More...
The Third District Court of Appeal had previously ruled that Prop. 1A, the 2008 $9.9 billion high-speed rail bond measure, created a "financial straitjacket" restricting the use of the bond funds. Plaintiffs allege in their suit that the Legislature's passage of AB 1889 created a tool that attempts to evade the bond measure's restrictions.
However, because AB 1889 fundamentally alters that voter-approved measure, plaintiffs allege it is unconstitutional, as are the funding plans that rely on it. Newly added as a plaintiff is retired judge and former CHSRA Chair Quentin Kopp, who helped write Prop. 1A and has joined the case to defend that measure as the voters approved it. Read More...
Multiple Groups File Opposition to AB 1899
06/27/16 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
Today, a group of organizations have united in
a
letter
opposing AB 1889, the attempted grab of Prop. 1A bond
funds. They are: TRANSDEF, the Train Riders
Association of California, Preserve Our Heritage,
Citizens for California High Speed Rail
Accountability and the Community Coalition on
High-Speed Rail. When the bill was later amended, the
groups sent an
updated letter.
In an attempt to evade the requirements of Proposition 1A, the HSR Bond Act, Caltrain has sponsored AB 1889. The bill would give CHSRA full discretion to declare that a rail corridor or segment is HSR-ready. This is a big deal for Caltrain, because its electrification project cannot qualify for $700+ million in bond funding under the current law. It wants the money now. Read More...
In an attempt to evade the requirements of Proposition 1A, the HSR Bond Act, Caltrain has sponsored AB 1889. The bill would give CHSRA full discretion to declare that a rail corridor or segment is HSR-ready. This is a big deal for Caltrain, because its electrification project cannot qualify for $700+ million in bond funding under the current law. It wants the money now. Read More...
Will Sen. De León Take HSR in New Direction?
06/22/14 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
A striking column by George Skelton
suggests that the incoming Senate leader,
Richard De León, could set a very different tone
with HSR, forcing the Governor to change the
project so it finally makes sense.
TRAC Issues Plan B
02/24/14 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
The Train Riders
Association of California has issued its Plan B, what
to do when the HSRA’s project craters. The Plan
strategically attempts to use the $2.4 billion in
federal ARRA funds before they expire in 2017. This
Plan B differs from TRANSDEF’s Plan
B, which
proposed a wholesale revision of Proposition 1A
and a repurposing of the entire $6 billion dollars
appropriated for the Central Valley project. That
plan has much greater uncertainties, because it
would require a return to the voters. The time
involved in doing that, given the very short
timelines for construction, favors taking a more
strategic approach. Hence, TRAC’s Plan B:
Senate Bill Doles out Goodies to Legislative Districts
07/06/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
The strategy to pass
HSR funding was to dole out goodies: Senate President
pro Tem Steinberg handed out this summary to Senators. This was apparently
his primary tool to gather support for the $8
billion HSR funding bill known as S.B.
1029. Read
More...
CA Legislature: Know-Nothings Approve HSR Funding
07/06/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
Friday's no-margin
majority vote in the CA Senate to fund the $6 billion
130-mile HSR project in the Central Valley was marked
by a stunning disconnect between the majority that
passed the budget measure and the members most
informed about the project. The majority plugged
their ears to the detailed explanations of the
measure's flaws given by three courageous Democratic
Senators and the Republicans. Facts didn't matter.
Senator Simitian of Palo Alto gave the speech of his life.
Although a long-time supporter of the concept of High-Speed Rail for California, Simitian’s conclusion was: "This is the wrong plan, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time." He was also concerned that voters would react to this vote by turning down the Governor's tax extension measures in November, with devastating consequences to education and social service programs.
Senators DeSaulnier and Lowenthal, Chair and former Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, who have held countless hearings on High-Speed Rail, spoke out strongly against the measure. These three and Senator Pavley were the only Democrats voting against the funding measure.
According to press reports, a 2010 promise by the President to secure the vote of Representative Jim Costa on health care reform resulted in the federal insistence that its HSR funding go entirely to Costa's Central Valley district.
The three Senators were convinced that spending $6 billion in that area would put the State at great risk of being left with a very expensive piece of useless track.
They produced an alternative plan that would have spent most of the money on immediately useful track improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco, including a $2 billion extension of Caltrain to the Transbay Transit Center. Read More...
Senator Simitian of Palo Alto gave the speech of his life.
Although a long-time supporter of the concept of High-Speed Rail for California, Simitian’s conclusion was: "This is the wrong plan, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time." He was also concerned that voters would react to this vote by turning down the Governor's tax extension measures in November, with devastating consequences to education and social service programs.
Senators DeSaulnier and Lowenthal, Chair and former Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, who have held countless hearings on High-Speed Rail, spoke out strongly against the measure. These three and Senator Pavley were the only Democrats voting against the funding measure.
According to press reports, a 2010 promise by the President to secure the vote of Representative Jim Costa on health care reform resulted in the federal insistence that its HSR funding go entirely to Costa's Central Valley district.
The three Senators were convinced that spending $6 billion in that area would put the State at great risk of being left with a very expensive piece of useless track.
They produced an alternative plan that would have spent most of the money on immediately useful track improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco, including a $2 billion extension of Caltrain to the Transbay Transit Center. Read More...
Senate Holds Fiery HSR Hearing
04/18/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
On April 18, Budget
Subcommittee #3 conducted a hearing on High-Speed
Rail. Chairman Joe Simitian asked many pointed
questions as to the viability of the proposed 130
mile Central Valley project. Compelling testimony
from the Legislative Analysts’ Office cast strong
doubts on assertions in the HSRA Business Plan that
the Authority would be able to access cap and trade
revenues as a backstop for 20+ billion in missing
funding for its Initial Operating Section (IOS).
Without a fully-funded IOS, opponents of the Central
Valley project assert that the Authority cannot
legally access Proposition 1A Bond funds. TRANSDEF
provided the following testimony: Read
More...
TRANSDEF's Testimony at Senate HSR Hearing
03/13/12 Filed in: High-Speed
Rail
I’m David Schonbrunn of
TRANSDEF. We’re transit advocates that have been
litigating HSR EIRs for the past 5 years, and have
been highly critical of the Authority’s route
decisions, their engineering and their ridership
modeling. We see the Authority slowly changing
direction and heading in a more viable direction. We
give great credit to the Peer Review Group for their
courageous comments, which were instrumental in
bringing that about. But we are more outspoken: we
vigorously oppose the Central Valley project and urge
you to not fund it. Many environmental groups, under
the aegis of the Planning and Conservation League,
sent the Governor a letter opposing the project, for
the reasons identified by the Peer Review Group and
Legislative Analyst. That creates credibility
problems for the Governor, who is touting this
project for environmental reasons.
Read
More...