High-Cost Rail Part 86 $5K Well-spent

February 20, 2013

Last night the B'game City Council voted to contribute $5,000 to a lawsuit that seeks to ensure that the High-cost Rail Authority does what it is supposed to do regarding spending Our Money. Unfortunately, said lawsuit is necessary since the dolts at the Authority cannot comprehend or comply with the simple written English provisions of Prop 1A. Voting for the donation: Mayor Ann Keighran, Vice Mayor Michael Brownrigg and Councilwoman Cathy Baylock. Voting against: Councilmembers Jerry Deal and Terry Nagel.

You would think this would be a slam-dunk 5-0 vote with the only discussion being whether to up the donation, but it wasn't. Terry Nagel has been a massive disappointment on the whole High-cost Rail issue for quite awhile so this confused "no" vote is just par for the course. But Jerry Deal appears to be swaying away from what is best for B'game and the question around town is "Why?" I'll be seeing him this weekend and plan to ask him directly. I'll let you know if I get anything but handwaving about Caltrain electrification being so damn important.

Posted in City Council, City Finances, High Speed Rail, SamTrans-Caltrain

One response to “High-Cost Rail Part 86 $5K Well-spent”

Joe

February 26, 2013

I had a chance to catch up with Jerry Deal over the weekend and he was prepared for my questions about the lawsuit funding since he had read this blog post. From what I heard, Jerry’s main issues are a basic distrust of lawsuits to resolve these kinds of issues, a view that this is an issue for the Central Valley since that is where the suit originates and a view that HSR is the best way to fund the electrification of Caltrain.
We had a spirited discussion which is one of the things I like about Jerry in general. His response to my question about the validity of lawsuits and whether or not he viewed the High-speed Rail Authority as being in compliance with Proposition 1A was “I don’t know”. My response was “That is what the lawsuit is about and is the only way to find out”. My response about the Central Valley point was that a good cause should be funded regardless of where it originates when the overall project will do as much damage as this would do to Burlingame. Jerry seems to think that a solid two-track limit is sufficient protection for B’game.
And we went back and forth on whether committing the state (i.e. the taxpayers) to a $100 billion expense to fund what would really “only” cost $1.5 billion is a wise move? I think the answer is pretty clearly “no”, but like the first two points, Jerry and I must agree to disagree. I hope I captured a good 20 minute conversation accurately, but Jerry is free to correct me if he chooses.

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.