CA State Judge Rules Against CAHSR

[beautifulplanet]

One of the many current legal disputes was decided in favor of the California High-Speed Rail Authority - it can start carrying out soil work now:

High speed rail wins Kings County court case
By John Lindt
2:29 p.m. PDT May 23, 2014

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/local/2014/05/23/high-speed-rail-wins-kings-county-court-case/9507667/

 

[Blackwolf]

*BREAKING NEWS*

"California High-Speed Rail Prevails in Third Appellate District Court of Appeals"

Substantial legal questions loom in the trial court as to whether the high-speed rail project the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) seeks to build is the project approved by the voters in 2008. Substantial financial and environmental questions remain to be answered by the Authority in the final funding plan the voters required for each corridor or usable segment of the project. (Sts. & Hy. Code, § 2704.08, subd. (d).)1

But those questions are not before us in these validation and mandamus proceedings.

The scope of our decision is quite narrow. Applying time-honored principles of statutory construction, separation of powers, and the availability of extraordinary writ relief, we conclude:

1. Contrary to the trial court’s determination, the High-Speed Passenger Train Finance Committee properly found that issuance of bonds for the project was necessary or desirable.

2. The preliminary section 2704.08, subdivision © funding plan was intended to provide guidance to the Legislature in acting on the Authority’s appropriation request. Because the Legislature appropriated bond proceeds following receipt of the preliminary funding plan approved by the Authority, the preliminary funding plan has served its purpose. A writ of mandamus will not lie to compel the idle act of rescinding and redoing it.

We therefore will issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to enter judgment validating the authorization of the bond issuance for purposes of the 2008 voter approved Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act. (Bond Act)

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C075668.PDF

 

[afigg]

San Jose Mercury News article on the court decision: California high-speed rail project wins big in appellate court ruling. Lawsuits from opponents of the CA HSR project will continue, but it does not appear that they will be able to block the sale of $8.6 billion in bonds to fund the early stages of the HSR project. Unlikely IMO that the state Supreme Court would overturn the appellate court. Excerpt:

SACRAMENTO -- In a huge victory for Gov. Jerry Brown, a panel of appellate court judges Thursday gave its blessing to the state's bullet train funding plan, paving the way for California to sell $8.6 billion in bonds it needs to construct the controversial San Francisco-to-Los Angeles rail line.

Opponents of the train had argued that the state needed to show how it would pay for the $68 billion project before it begins construction -- and with only a fraction of that funding in hand, doing so would have been impossible.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge late last year shocked high-speed rail officials when he ruled in favor of Kings County farmers and residents who had filed suit against the state to stop the bullet train. But in a unanimous decision issued late Thursday afternoon, the 3rd District Court of Appeal's three-judge panel ordered Judge Michael Kinney to vacate his decision.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

It'll pay for it via taxes and bonds. What were they hoping for, a money tree?

 

[Paulus]

It'll pay for it via taxes and bonds. What were they hoping for, a money tree?

Having outside funds and a somewhat realistic funding plan was a legal requirement of the bond measure in order for them to be sold.

 

[CHamilton]

The California HSR Blog's take on the above ruling.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They have outside funds from the Feds. A realistic funding plan in this country for long term projects involves kicking the can down the road. Hoping for sustained funding dedicated from ANYWHERE is unrealistic. We don't have a realistic financial system- realistic funding over $10b for anything useful (not, for instance, Ford class aircraft carriers or Littoral Combat Ships) just doesn't exist.

The time honored model for building useful infrastructure was created by Robert Moses. You get the shovel in the ground and start digging with whatever money you can find. You use the very mechanism that requires this (no business sense in the government) to exploit the fact that politicians don't understand the fallacy of sunk cost to keep the project going under its own bloated weight.

It's an awful and overpriced way to do it. But if you want the project built, it's the only 'realistic' way to do it.