High-Speed Rail has become a political battle between Republicans and Democrats both at the state and federal level. With events changing rapidly at the high-speed rail authority, with Van Ark's resignation yesterday, there could be change in the wind as far as the decisions where to spend the federal money. There could be a more sprinkled approach considering the exclusive use of money for the central valley has been widely criticized.
It could become the new North vs. South fight in Washington, D.C. a civil war if you will but just in California among Democrats. Both sides clammoring to grab federal dollars for their districts- either the Los Angeles end or the San Franciso end. See U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein's note to Jerry Brown. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=e2265894-22a0-4fff-abc8-a151fc583aec
However the public does not view this project politically.
Example, there are more than seven citizen groups who watch this project on a daily basis. Some were established initially as watchdog groups such as Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) who prides itself on transparency and process and Community Coalition on High Speed Rail (cc-hsr.org) whose original mantra was "do it right or don't do it" however as facts have come forward it’s clear to everyone that there is a major problem with this high-speed rail project. Others groups, established later emerged primarily to oppose the project because the facts simply didn’t justify the investment in the plan. All groups have slightly different agendas and approaches but they stay in touch. Frankly they have done a remarkable job, spending near nothing compared with the Authority's millions spent on public relations.
An informal study of each group finds their political make-up was the same as their geography. In the Peninsula, they are composed of Democrats and Independents. Even in Senator Joe Simitian's district, 61% stated they would vote to end the project if construction costs and funding were uncertain-- one would assume they are primarily Democrats. Those in the Central Valley were mostly Republican members which echo the party alignment of that region.
Strange alliances indeed: farmers, dairymen, religious leaders, artists, writers, professors, financial and economic experts and a ton of business, advertising and marketing executives, venture capitalists and attorneys all working together without pay and without corporate sponsorship.
Frankly, it’s a situation of smart people joining forces to examine the project, regardless of their party affiliation. This reflects the August 2011 Probolsky Poll which found the more people knew about the project, the more likely they wanted to ditch it. http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-francisco/newest-high-speed-rail-poll-vs-the-authority-s-poll
In the last year, critical data came forward that deserved more than a passing glance and yet no tipping point, no line in the sand, no watershed moment has occurred to push the legislature to deliver the consequences they keep hinting about.
The newly published report by the Independent Peer Review Group was to be the true watershed moment. After all, they are required by law to give their expert opinion about the state of the project. But no, this critical report had no effect on the Governor and several key legislators around the state. See transportation expert Kenneth Orksi’s article which questions why there has been no effect. http://www.newgeography.com/content/002612-a-devastating-verdict-california-hsr
- The Independent Peer Review Group concluded, “We cannot over-emphasize the fact that moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the State, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the State of California.” http://www.cahsrprg.com/files/CommentsonCHSRA2010FundingPlan.pdf
- Every single independent agency has major problems with the Authority’s plan. See the first 90 seconds of this YouTube video of Senator Simitian where he lists every independent agency (5 of them at the time) which has issues the project: http://www.youtube.com/user/derailhsr#p/u/144/UzxfY28uZlQ
In a world of sanity, one without politics, with major issues being stated by every state agency including the LAO and the Peer Review Group objects, the legislature would have by now stopped the project in its tracks. The bottom line: the public—whether a democrat, independent or republican -- agrees after looking at the facts and come to the same conclusion as the peer group and others review bodies: the project should be stopped. The legislature is the only group that can de-fund the project today. The project isn’t what the voters voted for. What are they waiting for? Perhaps they will they take the easy way out and send it back to the voters but that would be shifting their responsibilities back at the voters. The public is weary and and are beginning to register their displeasure on http://revoterail.com/. It was created to re-call of the project:
There’s has been a valiant effort on the minority side of the state Legislature. Assembly Member Diane Harkey (R) introduced legislation that would pull funding for the project. She studied the project in depth particularly from a financial view (since that is her background). She faces an uphill battle on her bill although a majority of the bi-partisan public would be behind her. Local peninsula politicians weigh in as described in this article. http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=226318&title=Bill%20will%20kill%20high-speed%20rail
Senator LaMalfa’s (R) bill SB 22, which would have stopped the rest of the bonds from being sold, failed to get out of the Senate Transportation Committee this week. Most people would agree he had his facts right. Notably only unions -- not individual taxpayers -- objected to the Senator's bill. They talked about needing jobs, apparently ignoring that the Authority’s job numbers have been proven to be grossly exaggerated. http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_19596026
Even more conservative figures were provided by Independent Peer Review group member Lou Thompson. With more than 40 years of experience in transportation and international consulting, he has studied this issue for a long time. Thompson points out that the Authority quotes job years, not jobs, in the newest draft business plan.
“The basic rule of thumb being used might be 4000 people (jobs) total working on the project per five years. Of these about 1/3 might be directly involved 1/3 might be indirect (suppliers etc) and about 1/3 could be anything, and they could be anywhere. But frankly any investment creates jobs, so building schools would do the same as railways.”
So the initial operating segment might see 4000 jobs, maybe 16 to 20,000 project wide. Not 100,000 jobs for the first segment, not a million jobs for the project life. That’s a big difference.
Perhaps as suggested during the LaMalfa hearing, other infrastructure projects would be a better bet. Senator LaMalfa is not against job creation. He wants to continue to talk about the project but not against a deadline with funds continuing to be spent while it’s being figured out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw61wVQAfeU
In the end it was voted down, it followed strict party lines, 3 -6. This means it won’t go to the floor for a vote.
The public may be apolitical in their opinions on the subject, but for the most part the state legislature follows party lines. The Republicans are leading the charge to create bills to stop the project. It happens to fit their ideology but they are not burdened by the party pressure put on the Democrats. That could be the reason you don’t see Democrats writing bills to remedy the situation - - fear of political repercussions. The party demands allegiance. If you don’t follow the herd, the heads of the party in California will not treat you well. I hear from an unnamed source in Sacramento, if you don’t follow the party line, you probably will get no visible committee assignments, no help in campaign contributions and if you are still around, perhaps only an office in a broom closet. Another reason for the lack of vigor by the Democrats could be political campaign contributions? (More on this later.)
It could be our legislators and our governor is waiting for someone else to pull the plug, like the federal government so they don’t have to land the fatal blow.
But perhaps it is something else, the hesitancy might be the need to keep union support and keep the campaign contributions flowing. Perhaps it’s what’s called “independent expenditures” (IEs) that are dramatically influencing the outcome of this important issue and many others. It is well known by the Fair Political Practices Commission. (FPPC) http://www.fppc.ca.gov/ie/IEReport2.pdf “This practice is undermining California’s campaign finance laws and doubtlessly influencing the outcome of numerous statewide and legislative elections,” says June 2008 FPPC report. It’s a long report, but the first few pages will tell the story. This practice begs the question: are we creating a crop of politicians who are so dependent on this flow of money that even crystal clear logic cannot move them to do the right thing for their constituents and the state?
Here’s how it works: twenty-five IE committees funded by all types of unions and individuals, contributed $66 million to campaigns between 2001 and 2006. One contribution to such a committee from a land developer was more than $8.6 million. Sometimes these contributions are given to open seats to promote new candidates and make or break a campaign as demonstrated in the report. The contributions continue as the candidate grows in power and is appointed to important committees, then ever so subtly-- or not-- the pay back begins.
Other states have banned these. Who is going to submit a bill to disallow this kind of contribution and put an end to the pressure of these large contributions? It seems again the people have to do it. (See the initiative that will be on the November ballot to restrain the flow of money through direct deposit from union members. http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ccrov/pdf/2011/may/11040km.pdf)
As the investigative advice goes: “follow the money”. It’s hard to imagine what may be blinding the governor and the legislature from the hard facts THIS project is simply not the right way to “run a railroad”; and needs to be stopped. IE contributions aside, our elected officials should remember, without constituents they may never get elected again.
If he governor won’t plainly look at the facts then it’s up to the legislature to do the right thing.
Comments