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.