 |
Re: White House Revokes $929 Million From California For High Speed Rail
Author: BOB2
Date: 05-16-2019 - 18:24
While many are cheering and many of you have their knickers in a twist, this is just another political announcement...
FRA can't "revoke" money Congress appropriated, unless, CA has violated its "full funding agreement" with the FRA, or Congress rescinds the funding (it hasn't), or CA has not spent its required share, in which case FRA can "refuse" to reimburse CA for the failure to properly match the funds.
Has CA failed to carry out the FRA "full funding agreement" terms and conditions building the "MOS 1" segment that they committed to in the Valley? I doubt it, because as far as I am concerned they never imposed in the funding agreements, the conditions we would normally find in an FTA or FHWA full funding agreement, and have been abiding by the fairly "squishy" conditions under which these funds were authorized in CA.
Has CA failed to properly match and use the funds in a timely fashion? Probably, if there were or had been any real and enforceable provisions that FRA had established regarding that. But, that probably won't matter to a Court, if they are in compliance with the terms and conditions of the full funding agreement with the FRA, and didn't include provisions that could be enforced on the State. Which, given the loosey goosey, "squishy" political nature of FRA's history of oversight on this program, I doubt they may have done adequately.
Has CA not done the work for which it is seeking "reimbursement" for, for work completed and properly matched with local funds? I would suspect that, even with all of the incompetence and mismanagement of many aspects of this ill begotten fiascos, that this is probably the only thing they've done "right", since it involves getting all of the "outsourced" management of this fiasco paid, too.
DOT and FRA will see CA in Court, whatever the grandstanding political pronouncements. one hears from the Great Leader... And my bet, is that CA will likely win. Not because, this isn't a giant clusterf#ck and enormous taxpayer financed fiasco, but because CA is very likely in "full" compliance with what may well be a very piss poor full funding agreement FRA imposed on this project.
The CHSRA project, in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of many of you, has been and still is a complete bloated largely useless boondoggle, that fails to meet any real CA travel needs or deficiencies. It has been an example of the best "gubmint" that "money can buy", and a project designed "of, by, and for" the contractors, as a giant political "gravy train". But, it is the law and the facts that will determine if CA gets "reimbursed" for the Federal share, that are contained in the "full funding agreement" with the FRA under which CA has been working, in a Federal Court. And, not the latest Tweet, or proclamation from the Great Leader....
If you have the facts, argue the facts.... If you have the law argue the law.... If you have neither, just argue.... Now, it's time to "troll away".....!
FRA can't "revoke" money Congress appropriated, unless, CA has violated its "full funding agreement" with the FRA, or Congress rescinds the funding (it hasn't), or CA has not spent its required share, in which case FRA can "refuse" to reimburse CA for the failure to properly match the funds.
Has CA failed to carry out the FRA "full funding agreement" terms and conditions building the "MOS 1" segment that they committed to in the Valley? I doubt it, because as far as I am concerned they never imposed in the funding agreements, the conditions we would normally find in an FTA or FHWA full funding agreement, and have been abiding by the fairly "squishy" conditions under which these funds were authorized in CA.
Has CA failed to properly match and use the funds in a timely fashion? Probably, if there were or had been any real and enforceable provisions that FRA had established regarding that. But, that probably won't matter to a Court, if they are in compliance with the terms and conditions of the full funding agreement with the FRA, and didn't include provisions that could be enforced on the State. Which, given the loosey goosey, "squishy" political nature of FRA's history of oversight on this program, I doubt they may have done adequately.
Has CA not done the work for which it is seeking "reimbursement" for, for work completed and properly matched with local funds? I would suspect that, even with all of the incompetence and mismanagement of many aspects of this ill begotten fiascos, that this is probably the only thing they've done "right", since it involves getting all of the "outsourced" management of this fiasco paid, too.
DOT and FRA will see CA in Court, whatever the grandstanding political pronouncements. one hears from the Great Leader... And my bet, is that CA will likely win. Not because, this isn't a giant clusterf#ck and enormous taxpayer financed fiasco, but because CA is very likely in "full" compliance with what may well be a very piss poor full funding agreement FRA imposed on this project.
The CHSRA project, in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of many of you, has been and still is a complete bloated largely useless boondoggle, that fails to meet any real CA travel needs or deficiencies. It has been an example of the best "gubmint" that "money can buy", and a project designed "of, by, and for" the contractors, as a giant political "gravy train". But, it is the law and the facts that will determine if CA gets "reimbursed" for the Federal share, that are contained in the "full funding agreement" with the FRA under which CA has been working, in a Federal Court. And, not the latest Tweet, or proclamation from the Great Leader....
If you have the facts, argue the facts.... If you have the law argue the law.... If you have neither, just argue.... Now, it's time to "troll away".....!
