IIRC the proposition was for "general obligation" bonds that get paid out of ordinary taxes. That was common at the time; everybody thought it was "free money" which of course it is if the payments don't start until your term of office is over.

My main concern there is that several other bond issues in that general timeframe were "general obligation" bonds for (mostly) road improvements. JB (or did it start with Arnold?) turned them into transportation tax bonds - debt service comes out of gas taxes so there's less money for current work - making it easier to balance the General Fund. While probably legal (the bonds in question were for things that otherwise would have qualified for highway money had it been available), it does cause cash-flow issues. So what pot will be raided for HSR bond payoff when JB or some future governor decides that "general taxes" would be better spent on something with more immediate political payoff?

I've been warming, slowly, to the design CAHSR has now from a transportation system standpoint. I agree that they will have a hard time meeting the SF-LA express timing "promised" in the bond issue materials - they'll come close for a through/no-stops express, but probably won't actually make it - even if the whole thing is someday finished as designed (with separate track in the urban areas). But then even the European lines didn't build out at first - they started with what was easy to build (in the country) with their seed money, then added more later. CAHSR's seed money and the Federal help can buy real miles on the ground in the Valley, but can't even cover 1/2 of what a Bakersfield-LA or SJV-San Jose line would cost. Also, the intermediate stops will be vital to make HSR a useful part of the transportation network. I'd be a little happier if somebody other than the CAHSR we know and love (??), with real HSR experience, was running the show; given their record so far I don't quite trust them.

Did nobody, seriously, read the proposition materials? No way was there any promise of building the whole thing for $10B. It was seed money with a rake-off for some transit work, pure and simple. Did you vote against it at the time? If not, you don't have a dog in this hunt, other than lobbying to have the money spent well and honestly. And those of us commenting here have no influence anyway - it's (virtual) lips flapping at each other in a vacuum.