He said under the current act of the anti donation clause the reason it was created for situations like this. But there is a loophole the original makers left....the state can give money if it benefits the states economy and or citizens!
Unfortunately, nope -- the loophole is *far* more specific than that. It only allows donations under very specific circumstances:
"creating new job opportunities by providing land, buildings or infrastructure for facilities to support new or expanding businesses if this assistance is granted pursuant to general implementing legislation that is approved by a majority vote of those elected to each house of the legislature. "
This clause, designed for "economic development agencies" and similar things, DOES NOT APPLY. First of all, any Raton Pass funding would be special-purpose legislation, not general implementing legislation. Second, BNSF in the Raton region is neither a new business nor an expanding business; and neither is Amtrak!
Mr. Waskey summarized his findings right at the beginning of his presentation by saying that he found nothing in the anti-donation clause that would prevent the state from financially supporting the Chief. The clause prohibits donations to private enterprise and the cost of railroad construction. Waskey emphasized that Amtrak is a federally charted corporation, funded by the government and under Congressional control -- essentially an agency of the US government and therefore not a private enterprise. Supporting the Chief is not a donation: in this case Amtrak would have "an obligation" back to the state to provide a service.
If the line's owned by BNSF, it's a donation to BNSF, which IS a private enterprise. So the entire discussion is irrelevant.
His opinion is deliberately avoiding the key Constitutional point, which is that while the Raton Pass line is owned by BNSF, funding to upgrade the Raton Pass line is a donation to *BNSF*.
The court history of the anti-donation clause is one of *extremely strict construction*.
If NM *BUYS THE LINE*, the anti-donation clause problems go away immediately, of course. There's no problem in contributing operating funding to Amtrak; there's no problem in contributing capital funding to a line owned by Amtrak; there's no problem whatsoever in contributing capital funding to a line owned by the state. There's a problem in contributing capital funding to a line owned by BNSF.
This would be so much simpler if Martinez had consummated the contract to purchase the line.
While the resolution of the anti-donation clause is very positive,
It is NOT resolved. The New Mexico government folks are talking absolute nonsense and will be smacked down HARD by the state courts. There is no loophole available for donations to BNSF for railroad construction! T
This is the *exact situation* which the anti-donation clause was written to deal with. The state has one way out: buy the line, *then* spend money.
we are rapidly approaching the 2015 New Mexico legislative session without a clear definition of Amtrak and BNSF's needs. Church's opinion that Amtrak should commit to the route before the state commits funds for operations and maintenance is very concerning.
This is basically a statement that New Mexico (Governor's office and NMDOT) have no interest in funding the line whatsoever. Since state officials are dissembling regarding the anti-donation clause, and since NMDOT and the government have carefully avoided any discussion of purchasing the line (which would resolve the constitutional problem immediately), there's only one way to interpret this: the state has no intention of spending one red cent, but is trying to avoid saying so.
Amtrak, please don't fall for this. Maybe it's expensive to move to the Transcon, but you're not getting one red cent out of New Mexico.
Lang also emphasized that moving the Chief to the Southern Transcon will be a very expensive proposition -- much more expensive than retaining the train on the current route
Sure, but Amtrak can perhaps get funding for moving the train to the Transcon -- from Texas, Kansas, Wichita, and Amarillo. (Very little work is needed in New Mexico, and the City of Albuquerque might pay for it.) Amtrak's getting no funding, zero, none from New Mexico, they've made it 100% clear. Even if they pass a funding bill, they've carefully arranged to pass an *unconstitutional* funding bill which will be struck down by the courts! Amtrak should want nothing to do with this!
I would like to talk to Ray Lang and get his head straightened out. Martinez and Church are playing him for a fool; their goal seems to be to spend no money whatsoever, but to string Amtrak along so long that Amtrak can't make alternate plans. This is a recipe for cancelling the SW Chief *entirely*.
----
Lang and Boardman need to put this in very blunt terms to Church and Martinez. They need to say: if NM purchases the Raton Pass line from BNSF, Amtrak will stay on the line. If NM does not purchase it, Amtrak will not.
A purchase would make it constitutional for NM to spend more money on the line, and more importantly, would be a show of good faith on the part of a state government which has shown no good faith.
