HSR Property Acquisition

Another HSR related story in the Fresno Bee 12/26/12.  The story talks about how eminent domain will be handled for the CA HSRA with a $34million contract to four law firms.  One located in the state of Virginia, one from Pismo Beach, one from Sacramento and the other in Oklahoma.

With an award of $34million the law firms should have enough motivation to obfuscate property owners in a similar manner that the EIR intimidates onlookers with its extraneous information.

California's HSR project has two distinct mindsets.  The dominating attitude of the State is revealed in the article: " Rail authority representatives believe they will be able to successfully negotiate with most of the affected property owners in the Valley and anticipate that relatively few will carry a contest all the way through to an eminent domain trial.

Attorneys say that is the norm nowadays when agencies seek to buy private land for public projects." 

The proposed HSR project is far from being a normal public project.  By hiring out of the area attorneys, is this a move by the HSRA to provides insight to the peculiar needs of the Valley's land owners?  With the strength of uniting, such as the Madera County Farm Bureau's claim to have a joined effort to be unwilling sellers, does this conflict with the remarks from the HSRA representatives that there will be no court litigation?  With additional court litigation, the State will have to pick up extra costs for unexpected court fees and first class air tickets back and forth to Virginia and Oklahoma.  As normal bureaucratic procedure goes, this will tally up to millions of unanticipated dollars beyond the $34million contract.  

There are so many unanswered questions regarding the HSR project's business plan, one has to ask how the project can move forward.  The litigation is growing and yet, so far, the HSRA has bounced back from all the  set backs that should have knocked this thing off the tracks.

Misinformed

There is much concern in the Valley from farmers about the loss of their farms.  In a written statement, the Farm Bureau said that the rail line will displace "hundreds of farms."

In the December 13 Fresno Bee article, there are two opposing quotes.  The first quote from the Madera County Farm Bureau saying that all but one property owner is an unwilling seller:

"These farmers are the ones whose property is being threatened," said Anja Raudabaugh, executive director of the Madera County Farm Bureau. Raudabaugh said farmers in Madera County are unified in fighting the loss of land to the rail authority. Rather than sell all or part of their affected parcels, the farmers are prepared to force the state to use eminent domain -- to go to court and ask a judge to order the property be sold to the rail authority.

"It's taken six months, but I've finally contacted every single property owner along the route from Avenue 17 south to the San Joaquin River," she added. "Except for one, everyone else is getting ready to be unwilling sellers."

On the other side is Jeffrey Morales, the rail authority's CEO, who is quoted in the article:

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/12/12/3099779_p2/landowners-air-high-speed-rail.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/12/12/3099779/landowners-air-high-speed-rail.html#storylink=cpy

"We think eminent domain will be a minority of the parcels," he said."

The Bee sought out the one property owner who is excited to work with the HSRA and interviewed him: "Instead, he's excited about a planned Road 27 overpass over both the high-speed line and the BNSF tracks. "Once they put in that overpass, the freight trains won't have to honk their horns," he said. "That's noisy, and it drives the dogs nuts."  

"Unlike other landowners who vow to force the rail agency to go to court for their land, "I'm going to work with them," Ureña said, "but I want to make sure I'm fairly compensated."

Apparently Juan Urena is unaware of the high pitch 95 decibel screech the proposed train squeels each time it passes.  According to the CA HSRA's own data: (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/198/1efc92bd-1ce9-4514-bb8c-be51d1320488.pdf ) the sound at 100 feet is equivalent to a lawn mower or an un-muffled diesel truck.  For Juan's benefit, a train horn blast at 100 feet ranges from 97 to 107 decibels. 

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/12/12/3099779_p2/landowners-air-high-speed-rail.html#storylink=cpy 

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/12/12/3099779_p2/landowners-air-high-speed-rail.html#storylink=cpy

Fiscal Responsibility

The CA HSR is a political Juggernaut   The momentum of political favoritism is astounding when looking behind the scenes.  In an opinion piece published 12/10/12 in the Orange County Registrar author Wendell Cox has some interesting facts to his opposition of the HSR.

Quality Workmanship

To further display the useless blunder of frivolous government spending gone awry the December 6, 2012 Fresno Bee article explains how inept workers will be required to work on the proposed CA HSR project.  30% of the workforce will be required to know nothing about the work they will be hired to do.  The lack of wisdom from the California's HSRA Board shows with the unanimous vote to hire inept worker; further proof that the project is an irrational waste.  

The "Jobs" Project Rolls

Advancing environmentally clean transportation took a tragic turn today to embrace antiquated technology when trains were electric in the 1800's.  It is also a bold government move to thwart objections and complaints against procedural process and removing individual's property rights

The biggest misconception about CA's HSR is that it has nothing to do with transportation.  The proposed project is marketed as a train but, lobbied as a "jobs" project.  An actual functioning transportation project designed to vastly reduce commute times, increase regional productivity and improve the deflating economy would cost far less with modern transportation technology.  CA's HSR project is a political process designed to serve the politically elite with the gravy train of favoritism.  Those few, most specifically the one: in control; his power to persuade is remarkable.

An aggravating day of defeatism in the world of the caring and morally sane.

Waiting for Today's Judicial Ruling

Prior to receiving notice from the Sacramento judge's announcement regarding a possible injunction in support of the impending lawsuits against the proposed project, the HSRA makes a bold move of confidence with the security of own political muscle.  In a Fresno Bee article dated November 15, 2012 the HSRA declares that the federal September 2017 deadline for its first segment completion isn't really a deadline that is necessary to meet; as previously stated.

Also, the HSRA has postponed its bid process deadlines until Mid-January for the first proposed segment.

November 2012

With the elections over, the CA HSR has retained the much needed political support it was hoping for.  Will political favor push the assigned judge to rule in favor of the people of California or the Juggernaut of bureaucratic procedure?  We wait to find out.

More on the Nov 16th hearing

Another article came out in the Fresno Bee Sunday, October 7 2012.  The story has an interesting closing line quote from rail authority CEO Jeffrey Morales: "Everything about this project is going to be aggressive," he said, "but we believe it's do-able."

Oh really?  The HSR project began in the early 90s and the time line has been shoved back so many times and the Authority (a different agency than the origination entity) has changed the intent of why the project was proposed.  It was originally proposed as a high speed train to serve the public but, the project has become just another tool in the political process to benefit a few politically connected individuals who are receiving tremendous personal profit.  This is merely a statement of the way things are; unintended as a negative attack.

The point of this post is to question the statement made by the HSRA CEO.  What does the definition of the word:  'aggressive' equate to?  The proposed project has been completely changed since its inception but, what does aggressive mean: over complicated?  Dysfunctional?  What does aggressive say?  That there is a demand for it to begin because there is no funding available to complete the proposal within the faulty business plan?  Does it mean the proposed project needs to be aggressive to figure out where the funding will come from?  Does it mean that the proposed project should have rights-of-ways as to where it is proposed to be located?  Perhaps aggressive is defined as suggesting that no one is smarter than the government workers who act as instructed to take what they want and do as they please: damn to the voters who are too stupid to know what they want.  Some might even go as far as interpreting this 'aggressive' stance as abusive.  Others could claim this aggressive stance is ignorance.  

In civil cases the law finds little justification to force one's own desire upon others.  Clearly, the HSRA CEO did not intend the term aggressive to be synonymous of abusive but, look at the available synonyms of the word 'aggressive': violent, hostile, destructive, belligerent, antagonistic, forceful and insistent.

So then, who can question the stance of the HSRA regarding this proposed project?

Hearing date in November

It doesn't require a prophet to forecast the inevitable demise of California's incredible waste of taxpayer dollars for its proposed HSR.  On the first part of July in this blog, a post told about the legislature passing approval which allows the 1A bond money to be spent in a manner that clearly was unintended by the voters for the proposed CA HSR project.  That post ended with a prediction that new lawsuits would begin.

In today's Fresno Bee (September 26, 2012) is the latest update to the ongoing saga called California's proposed high speed rail.  A judge will consider a motion for a preliminary injunction regarding the case with the hearing on November 16th.  

There has been no train horn ordered yet for California's proposed HSR.  

Fancy new name change

With the government paying as much attention to what they do; and would put as much effort into the work they are supposed to be doing as they do coming up with cleaver names for their projects, there could be some worthwhile things being accomplished by the overlords of bureaucracy.  In the September 20, 2012 Fresno Bee article, the current Washington administration has found a snappy title to call its political push for California's technologically antiquated heavy-rail train project: "We Can't Wait".  There is truth to that statement; it should have been built 100 years ago instead of today.  There have been many advances in transportation technology over the past 100 years.  How is it that the overlords haven't discovered less expensive technology that is much more efficient both in speed and cost?  

Today's society has to have a new form of transportation to meet its economic and social demands.  Building a train with 150 year old technology is extremely foolish and irresponsible.

More Articles Today About HSR

Another article from The Fresno Bee, July 11,2012, explains one of the on-going lawsuits.  It states: "The Legislature cannot approve a project that violates the law passed by the voters."  According to what voters approved, the proposed HSR project would cost $43 billion.  

After much controversy, in 2011 the HSRA reevaluated its costs to an extremely conservative amount of $98 billion.  Due to that unpopular amount, it became politically advantageous to lower the cost, so Governor Brown made a political declaration and changed the cost projection to a lower amount.

The 'blended' track has always been a contention to the proposed HSR system since the mid 90s.  The original intent of the High Speed Rail Commission was to analyze magnetic levitation technology along with steel wheel on rail.  Their conclusion was that the steel wheeled technology would cost $23 billion and the maglev technology system would cost $27 billion. 

The Commission sunsetted in the late 90s and the Authority was formed.  The political effort excluded maglev technology and began arguing about routes from LA to SF.  It has since been revealed that the realistic costs of steel wheel on rail is $70 million per mile.         

The 'blended' system utilizes existing electrified track with trains traveling a maximum of 70mph.  Many of these existing train track rights-of-ways were built in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  While Governor Brown is correct to suggest California needs a statewide train system, this blended technology has nothing to do with what the voters approved with HSR.

There is merit to the lawsuits.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/07/11/2905096/new-bullet-train-plan-mangled.html#storylink=cpy

Consequences

Less than a week after CA's Legislators voted to shift the meaning of the 1A bonds, The Fresno Bee, July 11, 2012 explains one of the first consequences of Fresno's support for the proposed project.  All the businesses being ripped out to provide rights-of-ways to the proposed HSR currently provide $2.8 million in tax revenue to the city.  In a time of tight budgets, where else is the city of Fresno going to receive nearly $3million of revenue.  A comical statement says the revenue loss is temporary; is that saying the businesses are going to be rebuilt, where: certainly not in the existing rights-of-ways pathway of the proposed HSR which is creating the losses.

WIn-win projects are beneficial for all parties.  The current version of the proposed HSR is a win for the involved consultants, engineering organizations, contractors and labor force; unfortunately everyone else looses.  

Legislative vote

CA legislature passed in the Assembly and July 6th in the State Senate with a 21 - 16 vote to approve using the 1A bond funds to be used for the proposed HSR.

Let the lawsuits begin.

An article in June 27th Fresno Bee says California's legislation has a Plan B for the proposed HSR.  In having followed the HRS project, it is clear that the legislators know nothing about the project.  There is no realistic Plan B.  At best this is a motion to tell the other legislators that the current Plan A is completely dysfunctional.  San Francisco was anticipating completion of the HSR and have already begun building their multibillion dollar transit station; they need a long distance passenger link for their station.  LA is a traffic nightmare and always will be; diverting up to 10,000 people a day (in the HRS dream figures) to ride on the proposed HSR won't put a dent into LA's traffic problems.  To put an extra $1.5 billion into redesigning LA's Union Station for hundreds of Metrolink passengers is quite a stack of bandaids but, lacks the point of addressing a cure to traffic.

The technology chosen by CA's HSRA (High Speed Rail Authority) is the problem instead of a legitimate transportation solution.  To choose an updated version of a 150 year old technology is ludicrous.  The massive weight of heavy rail is unnecessarily expensive, inefficient and intrusive.  Overall the antique causes more troubles than solutions, the train was built for society in the early 1900s; this is 2012.

The proposed Plan B only serves to identify two problems: LA and San Francisco need a modern day transportation solution.  The antiquated technology is comparable to pedaling a bicycle instead of a rocket to get to the moon.  The point being; the 18,000 mph speed needed to break Earth's gravitational pull can not be attained by pedaling a bicycle.  The concern of political process is to maintain the status quo.

The article quotes Dan Richard, chairman of the HSRA, to say the Plan B can't be done. 

"There are no legal, practical or contractual ways to move the money out of the Central Valley," he wrote. "The Authority's revised plan already makes major investments to rail across the state."

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/06/26/2888935/high-speed-rail-plan-b-would-limit.html#storylink=cpy

It's the political process in action.  The players are already in place and collecting profits.

The only question is: will the legislation vote to go ahead and fraudulently (an editorialized choice of wording) spend the 1A tax bond money within the next two weeks.  Or, will the legislators use this Plan B as rational to justify that the proposed Plan A is inadequate.  

The solution is building a modern transportation system using new transit technology instead of the political version of a train technology that became obsolete in the 1930s.

A Bold Newspaper Headline

A bold headline from the Washington Examiner June 22, 2012.  The close of the article says: "Either way, there is simply no way California will be able to break ground on the project before the federal deadline." 

The question becomes very curious as to whether California's proposed HSR can go forward.

The HSR and Blum

In a newspaper article, June 13, 2012, The Fresno Bee reports that Tutor Perini/Zachry/Parsons is the prime contractor selected for the proposed HSR project.

An unrelated article at The AVA.com from 2010 shows a bit of history from one of the strongest participants behind the scenes of California's proposed HSR.

In Conflict

In highlighting events that took place at the rail meeting in the Bay Area last week, the Examiner featured an article in its May 27, 2012 edition.  It states: "There are no agreements with Union Pacific (UP) or Burlington Northern, Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) to operate in close proximity. These agreements have to be in place before any construction can begin. This is a federal statutory requirement. Senator DeSaulnier said he wanted to know if the Authority would have these agreements finalized before the legislature had to vote on the funding. Authority Chairman Richard said it was a goal but he couldn’t be sure."

The vote by the legislature is due July 1 regarding its allocation of the $3billion start-up money.

The railroad operators are exempt from being mandated allocating their property eminent domain rights-of-ways access to any government entity. 

Active again

And yet another new plan for the proposed CA HSR is announced in Sunday's Fresno Bee (April Fool's Day). The new plan calls for the funding to come from a new business penalty fund. This leads to questions about the proposed 'cap-and-trade' taxation program; is this new penalty for doing business in California part of a marketing strategy to attract new businesses that are needed for increasing revenue to its sagging economy?

The newly revealed HSR plan does claim high ridership numbers to pay for it's operation and maintenance. BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) in the San Francisco bay area operates at a 61% subsidy (Wikipedia). For a government agency in California to propose a plan that claims profitability, reflects a politically motivated number.

One aspect of the newest HSR proposal is that it does provide a useable Amtrak connection from Bakersfield to Burbank. That cost of $31billion is a reasonable figure to build a new Amtrak line but, is a far cry from what the voters agreed on for HSR.

The HSR illusion

The Fresno County Supervisors held a vote to continue support of the HSR. The March 27, 2012 Fresno Bee article explains.

The articles the Bee run are relatively honest and impartial but, the comments are filled with non-cognitive emotion which produce irrational stupidity. Posted in a blog by Todd Litman, a leading land-use expert, at www.planetizen.com, is one of the best comments of this phenomenon: "A related issue is the Dunning-Kruger effect, which refers to the tendency of people who are unaware of how little they know about a subject to be overly confident of their abilities and judgment. Research indicates that ignorant people often rate their knowledge and ability higher than it actually is, suffering from illusory superiority, while more knowledgeable people underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority."

like a circus tight-rope act

An article in the LA Times dated March 26, 2012 claims the proponent's hyperbole may be in jeopardy. The proponents claim that the project can side-step the legislative requirements. It appears that the fate of CA's HSR is going to lay in the hands of the judicial authorities who will hear the cases.

active in the news again

According the March 8, 2012 Fresno Bee article, a new study suggests the CA HSR will create jobs. In the real world of things costing money, how many jobs will it take to generate the additional tax increase to support a $100billion state funded project? For the immediate $2billion proposed HSR segment, how many other government reliant jobs will be cut? Is there a study somewhere that asks the question to how many jobs have been eliminated in California and the US due to the enormous increase in taxation?

The study spoken of in the article also suggest that a city along the proposed HSR route with a station 'would fare better' than a city without a station. Is this study actually suggesting that a city has negative benefit with lower land values from visual damage, noise pollution and severed land use access that leads to further economic decrease for everywhere except where a station might be located?

Note to the CA HSRA: update the transit technology to a modern day system that enables every town to have a station. Trains are a relic technology developed in the early 1800s. Our society has developed extensively over the past 150 years and has to have a mobility system capable of meeting modern day transportation requirements. Where is this study?

ehhh, hun?

In an act of desperation the CA HSRA is now accepting bids for contracts they can't award. Here is the newest turn of events with the HSRA the March 2, 2012 Fresno Bee article.

roll a coaster high speed rail

Following the HSR is like watching every move of a basketball being dribbled down the court in a basketball game. While voters balk at the escalating costs, the governor demands that the old technology electric train $98billion cost projections are too high; despite a 2010 expert study that claims actual cost estimate of $212billion. As dictators go, Jerry has no cloths. The logic Jerry must be using is the standardized cost of building an at grade expense of $70million per mile times 700 miles. The disconnect is representative to the dysfunction of bureaucracy which has only produced an unfinished EIR (environmental impact report) to show for the $600million spent on the project.