 |
Re: I would challenge the technical requiirement as inconsistent with the fiscal intent, and have that proviision declared unconstitutional...
Author: Joe Cullum
Date: 07-31-2019 - 09:47
Hi Bob,
If CAHSR is defunded, can the monies be given to LOSSAN, Caltrans Division of Rail or something similar?
Joe Cullum in Exeter ca
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These arbitrary and deliberately costly
> performance requirements have already been pushed
> back in one ruling, already, modifying this
> "narrow" view of the "sanctity" of the voter
> initiative that approved the bonds for this
> fiasco.
>
> I suspect that given the state's responsibility
> for fiscal impacts, it would outweigh these
> contradictory and entirely "arbitrary and
> capricious" speed requirements, rather than scrap
> the legal requirements to protect the state's
> finances and those of stakeholders (like say
> taxpayers and/or bondholders), and they'd have a
> pretty good case.
>
> Now, with nonsense like this kind of minute
> "technical" specification written into a bond
> measure, do you understand how these folks abused
> the public trust, with this bond measure?
>
> Meanwhile, since everything they've pissed away so
> far is useless, yes it would be a great, tragedy,
> if these angry cheated voters were to have a
> re-vote it down, and not "salvage" something from
> the taxpayer monies pissed away thus far?
>
> Have we ever asked voters to correct a stupid
> mistake where they were lied to, conned, and
> ripped off on this scale? Maybe, we should try
> it? Since so many of our politicians don't seem
> to have the courage to admit it when things go
> wrong, or show much "initiative" when it comes to
> making these kind of changes...
>
> We could even look at an "initiative" to force all
> GHG funded projects to compete on the most cost
> effective projects, or even tax credits back to
> taxpayers, for the most tons of CO2 actually
> reduced, instead of using it as a source of more
> "slop" to keep the CHSRA "trough" full, for a
> project with very little GHG impact on our total
> surface transportation CO2 or GHG emissions
> budget...
>
> If electrification is a "cost effective"
> investment of GHG funds, great...it may be, but it
> is expensive. So, how does that compare to say,
> funding electric vehicle chargers and/or tax
> credits (back to actual "taxpayers" for "doing the
> right thing".. what a concept?) for buying EV's,
> or upgrading AC compressors?
If CAHSR is defunded, can the monies be given to LOSSAN, Caltrans Division of Rail or something similar?
Joe Cullum in Exeter ca
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These arbitrary and deliberately costly
> performance requirements have already been pushed
> back in one ruling, already, modifying this
> "narrow" view of the "sanctity" of the voter
> initiative that approved the bonds for this
> fiasco.
>
> I suspect that given the state's responsibility
> for fiscal impacts, it would outweigh these
> contradictory and entirely "arbitrary and
> capricious" speed requirements, rather than scrap
> the legal requirements to protect the state's
> finances and those of stakeholders (like say
> taxpayers and/or bondholders), and they'd have a
> pretty good case.
>
> Now, with nonsense like this kind of minute
> "technical" specification written into a bond
> measure, do you understand how these folks abused
> the public trust, with this bond measure?
>
> Meanwhile, since everything they've pissed away so
> far is useless, yes it would be a great, tragedy,
> if these angry cheated voters were to have a
> re-vote it down, and not "salvage" something from
> the taxpayer monies pissed away thus far?
>
> Have we ever asked voters to correct a stupid
> mistake where they were lied to, conned, and
> ripped off on this scale? Maybe, we should try
> it? Since so many of our politicians don't seem
> to have the courage to admit it when things go
> wrong, or show much "initiative" when it comes to
> making these kind of changes...
>
> We could even look at an "initiative" to force all
> GHG funded projects to compete on the most cost
> effective projects, or even tax credits back to
> taxpayers, for the most tons of CO2 actually
> reduced, instead of using it as a source of more
> "slop" to keep the CHSRA "trough" full, for a
> project with very little GHG impact on our total
> surface transportation CO2 or GHG emissions
> budget...
>
> If electrification is a "cost effective"
> investment of GHG funds, great...it may be, but it
> is expensive. So, how does that compare to say,
> funding electric vehicle chargers and/or tax
> credits (back to actual "taxpayers" for "doing the
> right thing".. what a concept?) for buying EV's,
> or upgrading AC compressors?
