BEAUSABRE 7j43k It's the law, and California government is bound to follow and enforce said law. Oh, man, you still believe stuff like that? Having to follow the law has never stopped them before. They'll find a judge who will declare that the payments to HSR are not a subsidy (perhaps a "grant" or a "loan" that somehow never gets paid back) - the same way the Supreme Court decided that making private individuals buy health insurance is a "tax"
7j43k It's the law, and California government is bound to follow and enforce said law.
Oh, man, you still believe stuff like that? Having to follow the law has never stopped them before. They'll find a judge who will declare that the payments to HSR are not a subsidy (perhaps a "grant" or a "loan" that somehow never gets paid back) - the same way the Supreme Court decided that making private individuals buy health insurance is a "tax"
I didn't say they WOULD follow the law.
Operating costs are whatever it takes to operate a system. Simply put, you subtract the capital costs, and the long-term storage costs for equipment from the total expenses. That's what it costs to operate the stuff you just built and bought.
A steel bridge needs painting, on occasion. This would not be an operating cost, as it would need it whether or not there was operation.
Steel wheels need turning or replacement. This IS an operating expense, since the equipment would not need it if it was in storage.
Mostly pretty straightforward, for people of integrity.
Ed
[quote user="7j43k"]
From Proposition 1A, authorizing this project, 2704.08(2)(J):
"The planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state, or federal operating subsidy."
From this we can see that use of high speed rail between Merced and Fresno shall not be subsidized after construction is complete. If you care to take the train, you will pay FULL FARE.
It's the law, and California government is bound to follow and enforce said law.
[quote]
Is it really the law or just a campaign promise?
The actual fares will be set by the market. The combination of fares and volume either will or will not cover the operating costs, a statement true when Prop 1A passed and now. Of course, no one knew then or knows now what any of these numbers will be.
If the above is really the law, it is easy enough to repeal it. Supermajorities can fix anything!
Mac
This was too hot a potato to be stated by this revelation: No one was willing to state what SNCF revealed. SNCF will not suffer the blow back onto it that entities in CA might suffer.
PNWRMNM Is it really the law or just a campaign promise?
It is really the law.
Quite true. Prohibition is the classic example.
Perhaps the electorate and/or the legislature will reconsider the matter later.
But for now, it's the law.
It undoubtably will be reconsidered. As Marcus Tullius Cicero put it over two millenia ago, "Qui bono?" ("Who benefits") The average people of the state - how much do they travel between the cities? Or the upper middle class, white collar crowd? The NEC is instructive, it is and has always been primarily for business travel. OK, so the upper middle class benefits (not the rich, they have their own private aircraft). Who wields inordinate political power? Bye bye, "it must pay for itself and have no subsidies"
[quote user="PNWRMNM"]
Is it really the law or just a campaign promise? The actual fares will be set by the market. The combination of fares and volume either will or will not cover the operating costs, a statement true when Prop 1A passed and now. Of course, no one knew then or knows now what any of these numbers will be. If the above is really the law, it is easy enough to repeal it. Supermajorities can fix anything! Mac
Was Prop 1A a state constitional amendment? In any case state voters would probably have to make any changes in another proposition.
MidlandMike Was Prop 1A a state constitional amendment? In any case state voters would probably have to make any changes in another proposition.
Not a constitutional amendment. Just a law.
7j43k MidlandMike Was Prop 1A a state constitional amendment? In any case state voters would probably have to make any changes in another proposition. Not a constitutional amendment. Just a law. Ed
In CA would a voter initiated law require a voter initiated repeal to change things?
MidlandMikeIn CA would a voter initiated law require a voter initiated repeal to change things?
No. The legislature could also repeal it.
But not by a simple majority, afaik.
"Repeal" only by another 'Proposition'. IIRC. Any restrictions away from 'majority vote' would have to be recognized in that Proposition, but I believe the standard voting on Propositions would apply to any that 'repeal' prior provisions.
Proposition 1A is now a part of "...Chapter 20 of Division 3 of the California Streets and Highways Code".
It is a law, not a constitutional amendment.
The legislature can pass laws. That's what they do (aside from meeting with lobbyists and etc.). Those laws aren't required to deal only with new things. They can also change old things. Thus I believe the legislature could enact a law voiding the self-support of operations on this line.
If you think differently, please supply specifics. Note that they don't have to repeal 1A. They are only modifying a teeny little few words, that no one should be concerned about and please go about your business. Elsewhere. Nothing to see here.
What Ed is talking about, I believe, is "amendment" rather than "repeal". Just as he says, the quiet change (or excision) of a few "inconvenient" words.
But, I suspect, words that might be a political third rail when it transpires that the hundred billion dollars has bought a toy for the rich, who are the only ones that can afford it 'unsubsidized'.
I'm cynical, so I think the amendment would be a stalking horse for getting government to fund some or all of the operating cost 'after all'. Times will have changed. Inflation will have hit. And all that money has been spent... what's a few more billion to keep it open?
7j43kIf you think differently, please supply specifics. Note that they don't have to repeal 1A. They are only modifying a teeny little few words, that no one should be concerned about and please go about your business. Elsewhere. Nothing to see here.
I don't know and I'm not going to provide specifics. Yet you state your opinion as fact without any evidence. However, I believe once read that enacted propositions are not subject to the identical legislative modification processes as other laws passed by legislature by normal means.
charlie hebdo 7j43k If you think differently, please supply specifics. Note that they don't have to repeal 1A. They are only modifying a teeny little few words, that no one should be concerned about and please go about your business. Elsewhere. Nothing to see here. I don't know and I'm not going to provide specifics. Yet you state your opinion as fact without any evidence. However, I believe once read that enacted propositions are not subject to the identical legislative modification processes as other laws passed by legislature by normal means.
7j43k If you think differently, please supply specifics. Note that they don't have to repeal 1A. They are only modifying a teeny little few words, that no one should be concerned about and please go about your business. Elsewhere. Nothing to see here.
OK. You don't know. I'll take your word for that.
If anyone actually has a reason to believe the contrary besides thinking they heard it once somewhere from someone who appeared to know something, please state it.
I DID spend a few minutes looking, and found nothing to support a view contrary to my stated one.
On this matter, I would prefer to be wrong. That would then mean that the law would stand, and the fares would HAVE to cover operating expenses:
electricity
rolling stock maintenance
operating employees
non-operating employees that work in support of operating employees (accounting, etc.)
all costs for replacement rolling stock (if the originals had never been operated, they would not need replacing--therefore an operating cost)
pro-rated costs for right-of-way maintenance and building maintenance
and etc.
Anyone care to speculate what fare would be acceptable for users of the system? How many riders between Merced and Fresno? It's about 60 miles between the two, so fuel costs for a car would be about $15. It would take about an hour to drive. If you take the high speed rail, you save about half an hour, but you don't have a car at the other end--could be a problem for some/many.
Anyone care to speculate on the size of the operating costs?
I said that I read it, not merely heard it. Rather a difference.
charlie hebdo I said that I read it, not merely heard it. Rather a difference.
I was speaking in the general case, not one specific to you. You might not believe this, but there are a lot of people who DO "hear" something somewhere from some guy who was at a bar somewhere......
And then post it as a fact. I tend to be suspicious of statements of fact that don't cite any to back them up. This, of course, does NOT mean that every one of those are wrong. Unfortunately, many ARE.
So if someone can cite facts supporting the idea that the California legislature CANNOT pass a law dismissing the concept under discussion, I look forward to reading it.
It's hard to believe that after citizens go to the time and considerable expense to get a ballot proposal approved, that the legislature can simply repeal it the next day. I don't think of the ballot proposal as a suggestion. The following seems to indicate that the legislature must get another vote of the people to change a voter approved proposition:
"With a majority vote, the Legislature can also place on the ballot measures to change state laws previously added or amended by voter initiative."
https://lao.ca.gov/ballotanalysis
MidlandMike It's hard to believe that after citizens go to the time and considerable expense to get a ballot proposal approved, that the legislature can simply repeal it the next day. I don't think of the ballot proposal as a suggestion.
It's hard to believe that after citizens go to the time and considerable expense to get a ballot proposal approved, that the legislature can simply repeal it the next day. I don't think of the ballot proposal as a suggestion.
It isn't. If passed, it's the law.
The following seems to indicate that the legislature must get another vote of the people to change a voter approved proposition: "With a majority vote, the Legislature can also place on the ballot measures to change state laws previously added or amended by voter initiative." https://lao.ca.gov/ballotanalysis
The following seems to indicate that the legislature must get another vote of the people to change a voter approved proposition:
Yes, they can do that.
But there is nothing in that link that RESTRICTS them from passing a law that modifies all or part of a law that was implemented as a proposition.
Sorry Ed, but it appears that it requires more than a simple majority vote in both houses to overturn a sucessful initiative. Can you cite anything that shows that you can?
charlie hebdo Sorry Ed, but it appears that it requires more than a simple majority vote in both houses to overturn a sucessful initiative.
Sorry Ed, but it appears that it requires more than a simple majority vote in both houses to overturn a sucessful initiative.
"...appears..."? Where? Who says?
Proposition 1A was not an "initiative", it was a proposition. It was approved by the electorate, and became a "law".
The Legislature does not have to "overturn" it. They perhaps want to "modify and improve" it. Or perhaps they can pass a nice new shiny law that is unrelated to high speed rail but just happens to cover certain "special and unavoidable costs".
As I said, I look forward to seeing the Merced-Fresno line run at a profit, even if only a dollar. And after that, we have SF-LA to bring in the big bucks!
Can you cite anything that shows that you can?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bil2lawx.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.