Cal_Fan2;525779 said:

---

I wish they would do something about the Initiative/proposition system in Calif...it provides no flexibility whatsoever...

---

Yes, more than anything else I think this is the real issue behind California's budget problems. That's not to say that the state's legislators are doing a great job, but even the best legislators would find it hard to pass a balanced budget with all of the ridiculous mandates we've gotten through the initiative system. It's a mess and needs to go.

As for the high-speed rail system, I think it's a great idea in theory and would actually serve the purpose of reducing environmental waste (trains are cleaner than cars and planes). I also think we probably can't afford to do it right now.

NVBear78;525787 said:

---

... environmental regulations that are completely out of order from a cost/benefit standpoint (drive business out of our state and do no measurable or meaningful good such as AB 32).

---

my guess is that the citizens you talk to don't always understand the actual benefit of those environmental regulations.

sycasey;525788 said:

---

As for the high-speed rail system, I think it's a great idea in theory and would actually serve the purpose of reducing environmental waste (trains are cleaner than cars and planes). I also think we probably can't afford to do it right now.

---

I absolutely agree with you on your prior point, but the point of high speed rail is not reducing environmental waste. It's to spur inner California development by increasing access to the urban job hubs of the Bay Area and Southern California with areas that are slightly outside of the hubs. With high speed rail, daily commuters can now live in areas with less than half the cost of living of the Bay (i.e., Gilroy) and still find jobs in places like San Francisco. In addition, high speed rail brings in billions of federal dollars for new jobs in manufacturing, engineering, project management, etc.

Historically, look at the most successful initiatives to bring an economy out of depression. FDR's New Deal used infrastructure not just as a means of stimulus spending, but as a way to invest in the long term future of the US. Frankly I think high speed rail is about as sacred as higher education, and a no brainer, kill two birds with one stone solution. Drive down the recession with immediate stimulus spending (all of which will be financed through issuing bonds, federal stimulus dollars, and future transit revenues) and plan for California's future long term economic stability to ensure the high cost of living in California does not deter future economic recoveries. It's just unfortunate that the far right of the Republican Party has made high speed rail their scapegoat for federal waste when we need it the most.

BearEatsTacos;525831 said:

---

It's just unfortunate that the far right of the Republican Party has made high speed rail their scapegoat for federal waste when we need it the most.

---

I agree with you on the national level, but self-interest is more powerful that politics.

Fresno, which I am sure you agree is on the conservative side, loves the high-speed rail, because it promises jobs and an alternative way to quickly get to the Bay Area and Southern California.

The Peninsula? Not many Republicans get elected between San Jose and San Francisco. So one would think San Mateo, Menlo Park, Palo Alto would love high-speed rail. Sorry but NIMBY rules.

rumraisin;525837 said:

---

I agree with you on the national level, but self-interest is more powerful that politics.

Fresno, which I am sure you agree is on the conservative side, loves the high-speed rail, because it promises jobs and an alternative way to quickly get to the Bay Area and Southern California.

The Peninsula? Not many Republicans get elected between San Jose and San Francisco. So one would think San Mateo, Menlo Park, Palo Alto would love high-speed rail. Sorry but NIMBY rules.

---

My sense is that there is a lot of opposition to the rail in the Valley among the agricultural community. And as far as the Peninsula, wait until the Yuppies start complaining about rail dust contaminating their heirloom tomatoes. I doubt this boondoggle will be done in my lifetime.

Cal_Fan2;525779 said:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't usually chat about this stuff but didn't Prop. 98 mandate that Calif spend a minimum of 40% of the general fund on education......and if this quote it true, it is closer to 50%...that seems like a ton of money for declining stats... Seems like so much of our money is mandated to go here or there...I wish they would do something about the Initiative/proposition system in Calif...it provides no flexibility whatsoever...

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Mandatory_Education_Spending,_Proposition_98_%281988%29

---

Yes, but the minimum has become a maximum, when it was not suspended. The "stats" are misleading as they are based on test scores that do not accurately depict what is being taught/learned; nevertheless, the stats are improving due to an unfortunate but predictable trend in "teaching to the test" rather that focusing on higher order critical thinking skills.

sycasey;525788 said:

---

...As for the high-speed rail system, I think it's a great idea in theory and would actually serve the purpose of reducing environmental waste (trains are cleaner than cars and planes). I also think we probably can't afford to do it right now.

---

I suggest, for reasons stated by BearEatsTacos, below, that we can't afford not to do it right now. The high speed rail is an opportunity to create jobs, both immediate (construction) and future (operation). WPA for the 21st Century.

BearEatsTacos;525831 said:

---

I absolutely agree with you on your prior point, but the point of high speed rail is not reducing environmental waste. It's to spur inner California development by increasing access to the urban job hubs of the Bay Area and Southern California with areas that are slightly outside of the hubs. With high speed rail, daily commuters can now live in areas with less than half the cost of living of the Bay (i.e., Gilroy) and still find jobs in places like San Francisco. In addition, high speed rail brings in billions of federal dollars for new jobs in manufacturing, engineering, project management, etc.

Historically, look at the most successful initiatives to bring an economy out of depression. FDR's New Deal used infrastructure not just as a means of stimulus spending, but as a way to invest in the long term future of the US. Frankly I think high speed rail is about as sacred as higher education, and a no brainer, kill two birds with one stone solution. Drive down the recession with immediate stimulus spending (all of which will be financed through issuing bonds, federal stimulus dollars, and future transit revenues) and plan for California's future long term economic stability to ensure the high cost of living in California does not deter future economic recoveries. It's just unfortunate that the far right of the Republican Party has made high speed rail their scapegoat for federal waste when we need it the most.

---

GB54;525841 said:

---

My sense is that there is a lot of opposition to the rail in the Valley among the agricultural community.

---

Yes, there is opposition, but again it has more to do with farmers that are discovering that their land will be cut in half by a railroad track. Along highway 152 there is already a cotton wagon with an anti-high-speed rail sign. It replaced a large NRA poster.

I always thought the fastest and cheapest way to go between LA and SF was along interstate 5. You would only have to deal with a few corporate farmers and they can always be bought off with a bit of $$$.

rumraisin;525846 said:

---

Yes, there is opposition, but again it has more to do with farmers that are discovering that their land will be cut in half by a railroad track. Along highway 152 there is already a cotton wagon with an anti-high-speed rail sign. It replaced a large NRA poster.

I always thought the fastest and cheapest way to go between LA and SF was along interstate 5. You would only have to deal with a few corporate farmers and they can always be bought off with a bit of $$$.

---

Agreed, the guys with the "government is stealing my water" signs would only be too happy to sell. Or put it on top of one of the canals

rumraisin;525837 said:

---

I agree with you on the national level, but self-interest is more powerful that politics.

Fresno, which I am sure you agree is on the conservative side, loves the high-speed rail, because it promises jobs and an alternative way to quickly get to the Bay Area and Southern California.

The Peninsula? Not many Republicans get elected between San Jose and San Francisco. So one would think San Mateo, Menlo Park, Palo Alto would love high-speed rail. Sorry but NIMBY rules.

---

That theoretically makes sense, but the Alcheco Pass route has already been approved by California HSR, and San Mateo, Menlo Park, and Palo Alto have yet to lodge sufficient complaints against HSR to force HSR to change the route back to Altamont. In the words, the supposed NIMBY self interest has yet to materialize.

GB54;525841 said:

---

My sense is that there is a lot of opposition to the rail in the Valley among the agricultural community. And as far as the Peninsula, wait until the Yuppies start complaining about rail dust contaminating their heirloom tomatoes. I doubt this boondoggle will be done in my lifetime.

---

I only have two words: eminent domain. If HSR clears California state level politics, you're going to see HSR in your lifetime.

drunkoski;524179 said:

---

completely agree

---

I also agree. Amazon has gotten a free ride at the expense of California businesses long enough. The issue now is whether the people of California, or corporate America, determine our laws. I don't have much use for the Legislature and consider myself rather conservative politically, but this time the Legislature did the right thing, and I hope the Governor will, also.

Cal88;525591 said:

---

It seems like Houston/TX and the Bay Area are both extreme in their urban planning and regulation. Houston is too lax, while the Bay is far too restrictive on growth, which artificially keeps home prices too high.

---

I guarantee you that if we allowed development west of I-280 on the Peninsula (as an example), prices would indeed go down. But not just because of better supply. Overdevelopment and lack of water resources would also do the trick.