If California wants to solve their money woes, the way to do it is to create a climate that will attact and keep private business, or expand existing business and thereby create more private jobs. Private business try to look at its future prospects of making a profit. Governments do not.

One of the first things a business wants to know is the rules that states like California have in place. If you can't see your business making a go of it in a state that always changes rules for mostly polital reasons, and has no long-term outlook for attracting and/or keeping businesses, the private sector is going to look elsewhere for the best deal. Maybe they won't do anything at all. Maybe they'll relocate to another state (or country).

Even now buisness can still make a go of it in California, but how do you fare against a competitor located elsewhere that pays lower property taxes, pays lower wages, etc? I used to work for a grocery chain based in California. This chain also had stores in Arizona, New Mexico & Utah, but the employees in those three states were non-union and were paid less. However, each year the company made more profit from their stores in northern California where the union employees were paid the second highest wages and benefits for retail clerks in the country. The main reason was a much lower turnover rate because employees felt they were rewarded for their experience. They made careers with that company. Is paying higher union or non-union wages the answer? It's only part of the equation. Part of the answer lies with goverment agencies having a spending problem.

As much as I'd like to see the Santa Cruz Branch survive (I lived in Santa Cruz between 1983 and until I retired in 1994), I can't see government agencies doing a better job of operating railroads than private companies. If private companies feel operating the Santa Cruz Branch is a money pit without government aid, they won't buy into it. Attract business and jobs, and the situation reverses itself.