 |
Re: Novatans musn’t eavesdrop on suit
Author: Mitsy, ESQ
Date: 05-02-2008 - 10:31
Your misinformed on the CEQA process. The judge has ruled they
must cover the "whole of the project." We can debate what is meant
by whole, but in this case it means both track repair and operations
and includes providing freight service all the way to Eureka.
You might argue that Eureka is speculative. The problem is the
state documents and the legislation are all about providing rail
service to Eureka. Implicitly, the state has said for a long
time, they are subsidizing the repair for economically viable
service to Eureka.
Could it have been otherwise. Sure. If the NCRA has consistently
said that their only plan was for service to Willits; had submitted
plans that showed such service was economically viable; had never
made comments at public meetings promising to restart freight service
to Eureka by 2011; had not signed an MOU with the Humboldt Bay
Harbor District in 2006 pledging to restart freight service to
Eureka or simply had converted the row in Eel River Canyon to
public use...THEN they might have a legal basis for their claim.
But, they didn't do any of these things. They did the opposite.
Hence, under the law they have to do a full EIR.
must cover the "whole of the project." We can debate what is meant
by whole, but in this case it means both track repair and operations
and includes providing freight service all the way to Eureka.
You might argue that Eureka is speculative. The problem is the
state documents and the legislation are all about providing rail
service to Eureka. Implicitly, the state has said for a long
time, they are subsidizing the repair for economically viable
service to Eureka.
Could it have been otherwise. Sure. If the NCRA has consistently
said that their only plan was for service to Willits; had submitted
plans that showed such service was economically viable; had never
made comments at public meetings promising to restart freight service
to Eureka by 2011; had not signed an MOU with the Humboldt Bay
Harbor District in 2006 pledging to restart freight service to
Eureka or simply had converted the row in Eel River Canyon to
public use...THEN they might have a legal basis for their claim.
But, they didn't do any of these things. They did the opposite.
Hence, under the law they have to do a full EIR.
