Convicted OneThrough that logic, I guess it would be fair for me to decide that " any land not being actively defended is there for the taking"? Wonder how I would fare building a homestead in undefended Utah today? Probably not much better than Cliven Bundy did during his misadventures with free range diplomacy?
Well you have to at least be consistent in your logic. If the Native Americans extended and took unoccupied land as their own........why is it evil when settlers do the same thing? It's the same course of action by both sides.
Further one can look at the settler vs Native tribe settlement issue in other regions and continents. How long was the travel period before the Zulus were encountered? How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed. One can form conclusions about North America based on experiences on other continents even though some Native American tribes would rather us believe everything they say (not all but some and in my view some of it is just BS). There is the rub as well. Native American tribal history does not always match up with what other Native American tribes claim or have recorded nor does it match what anthropoligists uncover.
CMStPnP How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed.
How long was the travel period on land before the Aztecs were discovered. I think it was pretty rare for a reception party of Natives to intercept settlers right as they landed.
I think the Aztecs were inland. But, I believe the Spaniards were discovered, pretty much, right away. Kind of hard to miss, when you're lying on the beach, and all (this was commonly done before capitalists arrived).
And, even if it took a couple of days, I don't see conferring on the Spaniards a special "gotcha" exception. "Hey. You dudes were three hours late. We own all of New Spain, now. Nyah, nyah."
I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach."
Makes sense to me. Dude.
Ed
7j43kI HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach."
Wow, did you get that watching Saturday morning cartoons? Columbus never landed in North America. Your choice is the Bahamas or Haiti, in which case I am sure neither spoke Spanish.
7j43kI HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Makes sense to me. Dude.
Historically, an event that never happened in North America. Comedians make lousy historians.
CMStPnP 7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Wow, did you get that watching Saturday morning cartoons? Columbus never landed in North America. Your choice is the Bahamas or Haiti, in which case I am sure neither spoke Spanish.
7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach."
Did I say anywhere that Columbus landed in North America? Did I, in fact, specify that he landed at any particular place?
No I didn't.
And. No, I didn't "get that" from watching Saturday morning cartoons. If you had been watching, you would have known that. What were YOU doing?
CMStPnP 7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Makes sense to me. Dude. Historically, an event that never happened in North America. Comedians make lousy historians.
7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freberg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Makes sense to me. Dude.
See above.
I didn't mention Freberg as an historian. I can't imagine why you would think a comedian would be an historian.
I mentioned him because he is (was, sadly) an historical commentator. Which comedians frequently are.
You see. There are historians. Freberg was not one of those.
And there are historical commenators. Freberg was one of those.
You see the difference, of course.
Why is it that everyone else in this topic has no name?
Except, of course, Chuck.
And me.
Ed.
Ed and Chuck.
Or.
Chuck and Ed.
Don't mean to hog the spotlight.
Don't you think it's kind of weird that you all don't even have a fake name, let alone a real one?
7j43kI will be passing the CHSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it.
Based upon your most recent passage to date, how much of this is actually constructed at this time? Have any rails been laid, or are we talking dirt-n-foundation stage only?
I was saddened to see that there is no stop planned for Chowchilla. I know a couple gals attending "Valley State" that I would have loved to visit.
Convicted One 7j43k I will be passing the CHSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it. Based upon your most recent passage to date, how much of this is built? Have any rails been laid, or are we talking dirt-n-foundation stage only? I was saddened to see that there is no stop planned for Chowchilla. I know a couple gals attending "Valley State" that I would have loved to visit.
7j43k I will be passing the CHSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it.
Based upon your most recent passage to date, how much of this is built? Have any rails been laid, or are we talking dirt-n-foundation stage only?
The first two times I drove past (it's an annual thing), there was maybe a quarter mile of piers up. And hardly anyone was there, working.
The last time I went past was last June, and things were looking busy. An assortment of bridge-y and tunnel-y kinds of things. And Highway 99 was being messed with, big time--I assume CHSR related.
As I said, I'll be in the neighborhood early March; but my route isn't fully established yet. I might be bypassing the area, and using Highway 5.
It looks like the approach is to build the big things first, as it takes longer. So it's kind of tough to say how much is built, because people (I for one) generally view that as how many miles out of total mileage.
I think no rails have been laid, at all. Yes, it is still dirt and foundation. A lot of dirt. A lot of foundation. Laying track is far easier and faster, I think. And they DO need a train to run on it, which I don't think they are anywhere near getting.
You can go here:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov
and get a sense of what's happening. But keep in mind that they're filling out their own report card. But they can't photograph what doesn't exist yet.
I remember the smell of the onion fields driving down highway 99 late in the summer.
Doesn't even appear that the State has yet awarded any contract to enter Bakersfield proper. Truly a train to nowhere!
7j43k CMStPnP 7j43k I HAVE to remind you of Stan Freburg's piece, where Columbus lands on the beach, and he tells the Indians he has discovered them. An Indian disagrees. He says: "No. We discover YOU. Here on beach." Wow, did you get that watching Saturday morning cartoons? Columbus never landed in North America. Your choice is the Bahamas or Haiti, in which case I am sure neither spoke Spanish. Did I say anywhere that Columbus landed in North America? Did I, in fact, specify that he landed at any particular place? No I didn't. Ed
Some people just love to argue.
Anyway, whatever actually happened and where is irrelevant. Columbus could not have claimed any land because when he wanted to cash a check to buy land, the Indians told him he was out of luck. The banks were all closed for Columbus day.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Yup. Another Freberg line. Just after:
Columbus (to Indian): "I discovered you."
Indian: "No. We discover YOU, here on beach."
Columbus: "Oh. I guess it's all in how you look at it."
And then there's:
"Perfuit of happinef? All your s's look like f's."
"Turkey? We had our mouths set on roast eagle, with all the trimmings."
"You sold Manhattan for $26 worth of junk jewelry?" "Whole island parking lot. Nothing grow there except in little square in center."
"I'm gonna name it Popeye."
Etc.
Stan WAS da man!
^^^ OK then.......I accept the plea of senility.
7j43k I am looking forward to reading the reactions to this event from the citizens of Merced and Bakersfield. Where is the New York Times on this matter? Oh. They don't know where Merced or Bakersfield IS. I do. I will be passing the C(not)HSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it. Oh. I know you're wondering. Oh, c'mon. SURE you are. Why'd I add (not) in the above paragraph? That's because they're going to go from San Jose to San Francisco on a surface route. And 200 mph just MIGHT be a bit fast for all those folks who like to go around the gates. (Oh, come ON! You know who you are: a big chance to make the local news. Once.) So. Ya gotta wonder (or not): 200 mph thru San Mateo? Absolutely!! (I'm talking TRAINS, people. NOT Lamborghinis. By the way.) 200 mph Lamborghini. 200 mph Train. Tough call. Love 'em both!! Oh, yeah. I completely blew this, back before I discovered I cared. But. How come they didn't use the right-of-way of Highway 5? See. I told you. Me: asleep at the wheel. (Notice that it's a longer route following Highway 99 than Highway 5. Gets a person wondering.) (You know, that graft* that was mentioned earlier.) (By people who disapprove of such things.) *Bribes? Graft? Who can keep it straight? Ed
I am looking forward to reading the reactions to this event from the citizens of Merced and Bakersfield. Where is the New York Times on this matter?
Oh. They don't know where Merced or Bakersfield IS.
I do. I will be passing the C(not)HSR edifice when I go to Bakersfield on March 7th. Looking forward to my semi-annual viewing of the progress of, well, it.
Oh. I know you're wondering. Oh, c'mon. SURE you are. Why'd I add (not) in the above paragraph? That's because they're going to go from San Jose to San Francisco on a surface route. And 200 mph just MIGHT be a bit fast for all those folks who like to go around the gates.
(Oh, come ON! You know who you are: a big chance to make the local news. Once.)
So. Ya gotta wonder (or not): 200 mph thru San Mateo? Absolutely!!
(I'm talking TRAINS, people. NOT Lamborghinis. By the way.)
200 mph Lamborghini. 200 mph Train. Tough call. Love 'em both!!
Oh, yeah. I completely blew this, back before I discovered I cared. But. How come they didn't use the right-of-way of Highway 5? See. I told you. Me: asleep at the wheel. (Notice that it's a longer route following Highway 99 than Highway 5. Gets a person wondering.) (You know, that graft* that was mentioned earlier.) (By people who disapprove of such things.)
*Bribes? Graft? Who can keep it straight?
Reason for not using the I5 corridor...population, or lack there of. There is not one significant city along the I5 corridor. There are however a few along the CA99 corridor including Bakersfield and Fresno, and I know of people that live in both cities that work in the S.F Bay Area. Yes, there are insane people that drive from Bakersfield and Fresno to the Bay Area to work...because they can't afford housing anywhere else.
Since it appears no one paid attention the first time. There was one proposal to have the entire line built without any Federal assistance...except that it would have required the state to give up any potential revenue for 30 years after completion(at which time the property would then have been turned over to CA). Whom you might ask was willing to design/build/operate the system...who else but the Chinese, only we(read: Gov. Brown) didn't like the idea of China keeping all of the revenue for the first 30 years of operation.
As for the 200 mph trains through San Mateo, that's easy when you have grade separations and no level street crossing...which is what the CalTrain electrification calls for. Now whether or not you trust a raised right of with 200 mph trains is a different story. If you want an idea of what it would look like, just check out the section around the San Carlos and Belmont stations, that will give you an idea...yes, cities cut in half, but they're essentially that way now.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRYes, there are insane people that drive from Bakersfield -->snip<-- to the Bay Area to work...because they can't afford housing anywhere else.
That's 4 hours and at least 12 gallons of gas each way. Twice a day! I hope they are working full time.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Reason for not using the I5 corridor...population, or lack there of. There is not one significant city along the I5 corridor. There are however a few along the CA99 corridor including Bakersfield and Fresno, and I know of people that live in both cities that work in the S.F Bay Area. Yes, there are insane people that drive from Bakersfield and Fresno to the Bay Area to work...because they can't afford housing anywhere else.
Interesting. The reason to turn down a free right of way is so that Bakersfield and Fresno can be bedroom communities instead of being stand-alone cities. And CHSR will be a commuter railroad.
Makes sense.
Whether it was or was not a good deal, the political fallout would be enormous. It would look like we were just another 3rd world country that couldn't pull it off ourselves. Instead of a 1st world country that couldn't. See recent announcement.
I did not realize that the trackage would be raised, also. Those tracks will still carry SFO commuters. Along with the long distance trains. With their Bakersfield commuters. Shouldn't be a problem. Are they planning 4 tracks: local and express?
I see the San Carlos tracks are only 8 feet above the street. Not much of a challenge for your average teenager who wants to explore the right of way. My guess is the tracks will be "Bart height". Much more of a challenge. Then there can actually be MORE streets crossing (under) the tracks.
I do hope they don't also recreate the locally famous Bart-train-screech.
BaltACD If it were 150 years ago - who would have voted to build the trans-con? At what price?
If it were 150 years ago - who would have voted to build the trans-con? At what price?
If the environmental movement had occurred 150 years ago, we may not have had any transportation system at all. Even the pollution of horse *** would be suspect. We'd be left with nothing but the shoe leather express.
BLS53If the environmental movement had occurred 150 years ago, we may not have had any transportation system at all. Even the pollution of horse *** would be suspect. We'd be left with nothing but the shoe leather express.
And we would still be faced with climate change today after spending quad-trillions of taxpayer money to influence the global climate.
As expected ..
Trump seeks to recoup 'wasted' California high-speed rail funds
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47310215
rdamonAs expected .. Trump seeks to recoup 'wasted' California high-speed rail funds https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47310215
Considering that California is one of those (most often Blue) states that each year gives more money to the federal government than it gets back, I'd be inclined to drop the matter and let them keep the money.
However, the hate-California crowd, in the White House, here, and elsewhere, will protest the "injustice" of it all and demand fiscal rectitude, even as Red state voters turn a blind eye to a useless trillion dollar tax cut and an unneeded and unwanted Wall.
NKP guyHowever, the hate-California crowd, in the White House, here, and elsewhere, will protest the "injustice" of it all and demand fiscal rectitude, even as Red state voters turn a blind eye to a useless trillion dollar tax cut and an unneeded and unwanted Wall.
The provision for changing the grant to a loan was written into the legislation that produced the grant in the first place by the Obama administration (specifically Ray LaHood). Trump has no clue about this and to portray it as a vindictive Trump action is ignoring the fact that legally California is now in default of the provisions of the money it was granted. So is Illinois but for some reason the FRA is ignoring the breach by Illinois at the moment and I suspect they gave Illinois a waiver due to the trainset issue and delayed PTC implementation issue.
I made this assertion repeatedly about this small print written into the grant when everyone was beotching about Governor Walker's rejection of the money. Nobody believed me then but like the hip hop song: "Whup, there it is". FRA is on solid legal ground to ask for the money back.
You can also bet both Michigan and Illinois are watching carefully what happens here. If FRA lets California off the hook both MI and IL are in a Financial Crises of sorts now......don't you think they will attempt delays or cancellations as well of what they have done so far? So FRA is in a quandry as the FRA wants to see at least one HSR project compete. Understood the CA Governor and the Media is portraying this as a tit for tat but seriously it is a very good bet Trump had no clue about this provision until someone from the FRA mentioned it after California went public with their cancellation.........then backtracked.
7j43k GERALD L MCFARLANE JR Reason for not using the I5 corridor...population, or lack there of. There is not one significant city along the I5 corridor. There are however a few along the CA99 corridor including Bakersfield and Fresno, and I know of people that live in both cities that work in the S.F Bay Area. Yes, there are insane people that drive from Bakersfield and Fresno to the Bay Area to work...because they can't afford housing anywhere else. Interesting. The reason to turn down a free right of way is so that Bakersfield and Fresno can be bedroom communities instead of being stand-alone cities. And CHSR will be a commuter railroad. Makes sense. Since it appears no one paid attention the first time. There was one proposal to have the entire line built without any Federal assistance...except that it would have required the state to give up any potential revenue for 30 years after completion(at which time the property would then have been turned over to CA). Whom you might ask was willing to design/build/operate the system...who else but the Chinese, only we(read: Gov. Brown) didn't like the idea of China keeping all of the revenue for the first 30 years of operation. Whether it was or was not a good deal, the political fallout would be enormous. It would look like we were just another 3rd world country that couldn't pull it off ourselves. Instead of a 1st world country that couldn't. See recent announcement. As for the 200 mph trains through San Mateo, that's easy when you have grade separations and no level street crossing...which is what the CalTrain electrification calls for. Now whether or not you trust a raised right of with 200 mph trains is a different story. If you want an idea of what it would look like, just check out the section around the San Carlos and Belmont stations, that will give you an idea...yes, cities cut in half, but they're essentially that way now. I did not realize that the trackage would be raised, also. Those tracks will still carry SFO commuters. Along with the long distance trains. With their Bakersfield commuters. Shouldn't be a problem. Are they planning 4 tracks: local and express? I see the San Carlos tracks are only 8 feet above the street. Not much of a challenge for your average teenager who wants to explore the right of way. My guess is the tracks will be "Bart height". Much more of a challenge. Then there can actually be MORE streets crossing (under) the tracks. I do hope they don't also recreate the locally famous Bart-train-screech. Ed
The San Carlos station I'm pretty sure is at least 9 feet above ground level plus the fencing, and there is a street underpass right next to the station(the street was lowered at the same time the right-of-way was raised to make the height requirement). Belmont, which is the next station up towards S.F. is also raised right-of-way, the last thing any of the bedroom communities up and down the Peninsula need is more street crossing under the tracks, there's a reason they want to limit the number of streets that go between the West side and East sides of the cities.
CMStPnP I suspect they gave Illinois a waiver...
I suspect they gave Illinois a waiver...
I SO want a waiver, too. Can I have one. Pleeease.
I know I'm not a State, and all. So I wouldn't need a very big one. A few million would do.
Pleeeease!
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR ...the last thing any of the bedroom communities up and down the Peninsula need is more street crossing under the tracks, there's a reason they want to limit the number of streets that go between the West side and East sides of the cities.
...the last thing any of the bedroom communities up and down the Peninsula need is more street crossing under the tracks, there's a reason they want to limit the number of streets that go between the West side and East sides of the cities.
I swear there's a story in that. I just do:
"Would ya like to be my neighbor?"
I know. Two of my flippant blah-blah-blah comments in a row.
But, really.
Where are MM. Gilbert and Sullivan? Such opportunities!
Don't you just love looking at 19th century realities through 21st century lens?
charlie hebdo 7j43k A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars. Ed Citation? Or was that extracted from thin air or some other internal region?
7j43k A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars. Ed
Citation? Or was that extracted from thin air or some other internal region?
Let's see if I can help. There's a very good document issued by the AAR in 1983 ("Railroad Land Grants - a Sharp Deal for Uncle Sam"). While AAR is, of course, a rail industry organization, the document has a lot of good information on government support of the Pacific railroads. For example:
1) The value of the bonds the government purchased to support the "Pacific" railroads was $64,000,000 at the time of purchase.
2) The amount repaid by the Pacifc railroads for the bonds, including interest , was $167,000,000, giving the government a profit of over $100,000,000.
3) The land grants totalled 131,250,000 acres, having a pre railroad value of about $126 million (per J.B. Eastman, former ICC commissioner). The government actually profited from this because the government retained alternate sections of land and sold them. Before the railroads, the government was offering land for sale at $1.50 per acre and there were few takers (understandable, since there was no viable transportation available). After the railroads were built, the goverment was able to easily sell its retained land at $2.50 an acre. In other words, the government made a direct profit from the land grants. That's because the railroads made possible by the grants increased the marketablility and value of the land the government retained
4) As part of the land grants, the recipient railroads were required to haul government freight and passenger traffic at reduced rates averaging 50%. Mail was hauled at a 20% reduction. These requirements were in effect through the two world wars, until they were repealed in 1945. The value of these rate concessions was approximately $1.25 billion.
Bottom line. The government made a ton of money from the railroad bonds purchases and the land grants it made for the Pacific railroads. These weren't in any way "subsidies" - the government got it all back many times over. Does anyone seriously believe that would be the case with the billions of dollars of government money that would be spent on the California HSR project, or whatever part of it is ever completed? Too bad we aren't as sharp in the 21st century as our predecessors were in the 19th.
Probably more than you never wanted to know.
I suspect that HSR would create additional taxable land value in the vicinity of the stations it would build. Reliable transportation generates value in the communities served. Not being in Real Estate speculation I have no numbers to add in the value assessments.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Falcon481) The value of the bonds the government purchased to support the "Pacific" railroads was $64,000,000 at the time of purchase. 2) The amount repaid by the Pacifc railroads for the bonds, including interest , was $167,000,000, giving the government a profit of over $100,000,000.
Doubtful numbers, unless the rails were overpaying or there were large late payment penaties. Plugging the numbers given ($64 million @ 6% interest 30 years) into an amortization schedule gives the following: Interest paid = $74,136,441.00 + principal ($64 mil) = Total paid back $138,136,441.00. So as most folks would know, long-term loans have a large amount of interest. That's just reality.
Remember, the rails were able to use those US Treasury bonds at a lower rate than a private loan. The land grants were mutually beneficial. The point is that the UP/CP railroads would not have been built, at least not then, without appropriate government assistance. You may not like it but it is simply a historical fact. Father Abraham was quite familiar with some of Marx's writings, BTW.
Falcon48 1) The value of the bonds the government purchased to support the "Pacific" railroads was $64,000,000 at the time of purchase. 2) The amount repaid by the Pacifc railroads for the bonds, including interest , was $167,000,000, giving the government a profit of over $100,000,000.
What do the numbers look like after adjustment for inflation? Frequently, after adjusting for inflation, a seemingly significant gain melts away or is significantly reduced in real dollar terms.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.