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?