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
Ed
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?
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:
"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
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.
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:
charlie hebdo I said that I read it, not merely heard it. Rather a difference.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
"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.
But not by a simple majority, afaik.
MidlandMikeIn CA would a voter initiated law require a voter initiated repeal to change things?
No. The legislature could also repeal it.
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
MidlandMike Was Prop 1A a state constitional amendment? In any case state voters would probably have to make any changes in another proposition.
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.
In CA would a voter initiated law require a voter initiated repeal to change things?
[quote user="PNWRMNM"]
[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.
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
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
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"
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.
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.
[quote]
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.
7j43kIt's the law, and California government is bound to follow and enforce said law.
MidlandMike SD60MAC9500 CHSRA should only be connecting these cities initially: LA San Diego Bakersfield Sacramento San Jose SF Oakland via BART Fresno has a bigger population than either Sacramento (by a little) or Bakersfield (by a lot).
SD60MAC9500 CHSRA should only be connecting these cities initially: LA San Diego Bakersfield Sacramento San Jose SF Oakland via BART
Fresno has a bigger population than either Sacramento (by a little) or Bakersfield (by a lot).
Yes Mike you're correct in Fresno being larger in total metro area and density population than Bakersfield. Looking at the details Sacramento is a different story having over double the metro area of Fresno, and 88% greater population density.
Populations as of 2020:
Bakersfield
City 403,455
Metro 909,235
Density 2700/sqmi
Fresno
City 542,107
Metro 1,008,654
Density 4723/sqmi
Sacramento
City 524,903
Metro 2,397,382
Density 5,374/sqmi
So then:
Who will ride this train? What will the fare be?
These are questions that the California High Speed Rail Authority should already be considering. And by now, they should have some answers.
I do so look forward to reading them.
SD60MAC9500CHSRA should only be connecting these cities initially: LA San Diego Bakersfield Sacramento San Jose SF Oakland via BART
CMStPnP Well the solution to fix is expensive but they can fix it. Just build a HSR line direct from SFO to LA along the coast line, use it for express trains and use the dog legs into the Central Valley as feeder lines for both ends with some through trains. In which case the LA-SFO direct portion would be viable time wise.
Just build a HSR line direct from SFO to LA along the coast line, use it for express trains and use the dog legs into the Central Valley as feeder lines for both ends with some through trains. In which case the LA-SFO direct portion would be viable time wise.
HSR along the Coast would have both horizontal and vertical doglegs.
mdw This article is so agrivating. The author has had a vendetta against this project for over 12 years. He was fired from the LA Times and how he got this article to the NY Times is hard to fathom. It simply drags out all of the old tropes against the project on long settled issues. Quite simply, SNCF proposed the easiest, cheapest (but would still be costly and difficult) solution, which the CHSRA basically HAD to reject because it simply ignored the 3+million people in the Central Valley. Politically there was no option but to reject this proposal. Yes, it was politically decided but a project of this huge scope cannot avoid the entry of politics, and the CHSRA was bound by the establishing legislation to chose a route/system to connect ALL of the state, not just LA to the Bay Area. Why would cities in the Valley NOT try to lobby to be included in the system? They have the worst connectivity to the rest of the state. Why is this project so hated???
This article is so agrivating. The author has had a vendetta against this project for over 12 years. He was fired from the LA Times and how he got this article to the NY Times is hard to fathom. It simply drags out all of the old tropes against the project on long settled issues. Quite simply, SNCF proposed the easiest, cheapest (but would still be costly and difficult) solution, which the CHSRA basically HAD to reject because it simply ignored the 3+million people in the Central Valley. Politically there was no option but to reject this proposal. Yes, it was politically decided but a project of this huge scope cannot avoid the entry of politics, and the CHSRA was bound by the establishing legislation to chose a route/system to connect ALL of the state, not just LA to the Bay Area.
Why would cities in the Valley NOT try to lobby to be included in the system? They have the worst connectivity to the rest of the state.
Why is this project so hated???
A few things...
California's HSR is driven by politics. Not efficiency, not expertise, not budget constraints, and certainly not ROI.... Do, Kings/Tulare, Hanford, Modesto, Merced, etc need stops?
CHSRA should only be connecting these cities initially:
LA
San Diego
San Jose
SF
Oakland via BART
Instead they chose to drive the route through an expensive land purchasing process. When they could put the route over the Grapevine(Tejon Pass) following I-5 then up to Bakersfield. Coming back over to the west side of the CV. Running up the backside of the Transverse range. Land would have been much cheaper to acquire..
BEAUSABREmany are starting to admit it may never be finished.
Well the solution to fix is expensive but they can fix it.
BEAUSABRE 7j43k The hate part might be coming from the people who have to pay for it. Which is every ingle US taxpayer. And the estimated cost from the project (mis) managers is now $113 billion and many are starting to admit it may never be finished.
7j43k The hate part might be coming from the people who have to pay for it.
Which is every ingle US taxpayer. And the estimated cost from the project (mis) managers is now $113 billion and many are starting to admit it may never be finished.
Public works type projects are never finished.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.