[Sustain] [SFGP-A] (fwd) GP Alameda County endorses NO on Prop.1

[Richard Knee]

For what it's worth, here's a press release that Schwarzenegger's office 
issued today:

*Gov. Schwarzenegger Puts Taxpayer Protections into *

*High Speed Rail Bond on November Ballot*

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed AB 3034 
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery>, authored by 
Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani (D- Livingston), adding taxpayer 
protections and financial guidelines to the High-Speed Train Bond Act on 
the November 2008 ballot.

"Californians deserve the opportunity to vote on a high speed rail 
proposition that includes taxpayer protections and financial 
guidelines," said Governor Schwarzenegger.  "With these technical 
changes, voters can now be assured that if the bond is approved, high 
speed rail would be built as planned and with fiscal controls ensuring 
financial accountability."

AB 3034 will replace Proposition 1 with Proposition 1A on the November 
ballot. The measure improves the High-Speed Train Bond Act by including 
fiscal controls for taxpayer protection including the requirement of a 
peer reviewed financial plan before bond money can be spent. 
Additionally, the measure enables public-private partnership financing 
and limits the amount of bond money that can be spent on 
non-construction items.


John-Marc Chandonia wrote:
> The bulk of Alameda's argument against Prop 1 is that all the money so
> far has gone to a corrupt contractor.  However, the legislation does
> not require that contractor to actually build it; we could still
> approve the bond and then try to get our state reps to raise concerns
> about the contractor.  Besides, if we blocked every government project
> built by corrupt contractors, we'd be living on sand dunes.
>
> I also agree that the promotional case for rail is overblown in terms
> of ridership, but we should look towards how many people will want to
> ride the rail after the effects of peak oil become more apparent, and
> the cost of driving or flying to LA becomes prohibitive.  The power
> for an electric train can come from a variety of sources, and don't
> necessarily have to come from coal.  It's much more likely to get
> something built if we start now, and not after gas becomes even more
> expensive (as that will raise costs for construction and materials,
> and voters who can't afford to drive to work will be even less likely
> to pass a bond).
>
> JMC
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sustainability mailing list
> Sustainability at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20080826/8470fea9/attachment.htm