High Cost Rail – Part 22 Which Governor?

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

High Cost Rail – Part 22 Which Governor?

July 11, 2010

The Daily Post and the Mercury Times both have front page headlines about an e-mail thread that is circulating the County describing Jerry Brown vs Meg Whitman on High Cost Rail. The Daily Post's Diana Diamond writes:

Republican guvernatorial candidate and Atherton resident Meg Whitman has come out against a proposed $43 billion California high-speed rail system, while Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown says he's all for building the rail.

The Times article notes

"For the voter that looks at both candidates and fails to discern much of a difference between them, this could be a tiebreaker," said Larry Gerston, a San Jose State political science professor. "It will also stand out as a symbolic issue."

Gerston said Whitman could be seen as someone supporting the will of the Peninsula people and governments opposed to the idea while trying to control spending; however, voters could view Brown as someone pushing for jobs and new transportation options while protecting the environment.

And the companion piece on the front page of the Post reads "Resident: 83 PA (Palo Alto) homes could be taken by state" and goes on to note that an additional 42 homes could be "affected" in PA. Which is a good reminder about an event here in B'game Wednesday night, July 14th at 7pm in the Lane Room at the library. A couple of lawyers will discuss the eminent domain takings. The event is hosted by CC-HSR and you can read more at www.dontrailroadus.com.

Posted in High Speed Rail

9 responses to “High Cost Rail – Part 22 Which Governor?”

tim

July 11, 2010

this is a no brainer. Even without the rail issue, Brown has shown us how bad he can hurt the state. I remember his first time and how hard it was on us all.
Janice

July 17, 2010

I’m voting for Whitman. This cannot happen to our town. The state is a mess and I don’t know why anyone would want to be governor but at least I can hope that she won’t ruin our town.
Johnson

July 19, 2010

The voters voted for high speed rail.
Most voters are not one-issue voters when it comes to a governor or a president and will look at the candidates on more issues than high speed rail, which of course the voters voted for.
Jennifer

July 19, 2010

The voters approved a High Speed Rail CONCEPT that was supposed to be green, reasonably priced and viable alternative to airline travel. Moreover, it was implied that the system would not need to be subsidized.
Pie in the sky? Yes– Details on business plan didn’t even exist at the time, and are only now coming to light. One could argue that people should have known better on this one, but they didn’t. It’s something to remember the next time something too good to be true winds up on the ballot.
Since this project has a fair chance of being the biggest boondoggle in decades, I’d say people are completely justified in voting for a governor based on one issue only. This one issue stands a good chance of being completely detrimental to the Peninsula, to the economy of this State, and to any prospects for better vetted projects in our future, as well.
Johnson

July 19, 2010

Many voters believe in high speed rail when they voted and in the present.
Clifford

July 19, 2010

Can you quantify “many”? I have yet to talk to a live, thinking individual who believes in this project. Even if you do believe in High Speed Rail, and voted for Prop 1A, it is clear that the public was duped on this one. We are all entitled to our opinion but I tend to agree with the Legislative Accounting Office, the State Auditor, our State Treasurer and UC Berkeley Transportation Institute. These folks are experts and have nothing to gain and more to lose by taking a position on this boondoggle. Thankfully, there are still people who are willing to be honest, non-political, do their job and speak the truth about this project rather than be motivated by “what’s in it for me.”
Johnson

July 20, 2010

You are right, Clifford, Koch said it best – you can look at this “personal” or in a “civic” manner. A politer way than saying “nimbyism”
ie. “what’s in it for me” and “whats in it for the greater good”
Not with my tax dollars

July 20, 2010

Since when is taking on too much debt for a useless transit system the greater good? State’s broke and so is this lousy plan.
Clifford

July 21, 2010

Ah, yes, so easy to degenerate into name calling rather than look at the complexities of this issue. I am not sure I am following your logic, Johnson, when my post was specifically about the many oversight agencies that are panning this project. Oh, I get it…the State Auditor and UC Berkeley Transportation experts are Nimbys? If you would actually like to learn something about this, I have included links to the four references made in my original post.
Legislative Accounting Office Report:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/handouts/transportation/2010/2009_High_Speed_Rail_01_12_10.pdf
State Auditor’s Report:
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary/2009-106
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer’s Insights:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/14/u-t-editorial-lockyers-straight-talk/
Berkeley Transportation Institute HSR Ridership Model analysis:
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2010/RR/UCB-ITS-RR-2010-1.pdf

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board. Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.