# What a Turn Around for CAHSR



## leemell (Jan 23, 2013)

This is major change for the Bakersfield Californian and they missed the joint Amtrak and CAHSR RFI for rolling stock.

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/warning.php?forum_id=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bakersfieldcalifornian.com%2Fopinion%2Four-view%2Fx1055276560%2FSuddenly-HSR-seems-to-be-solidly-on-track


----------



## Blackwolf (Jan 29, 2013)

In more related news, the City of Chowchilla today dropped their lawsuit against the California High-Speed Rail Authority which they had filed several years back. The city was alleging the EIR had not adequately taken into consideration the impact such a project would have on their (largely agricultural) municipality. It is another sign that the project is moving forward, and hopefully an indication that some of the more dangerous hurdles to construction are finally being dealt with.

Official CHSRA press release to this end: City of Chowchilla Settles Lawsuit against CHSRA.


----------



## Daniel (Feb 2, 2013)

What are the other lawsuits that are still pending, and what are the chances of stopping the project entirely? As I recall, the deadline to start construction set by the FRA ARRA funds was September 30, 2012, yet they didn't pull back the funds...so what is the purpose of the deadline?


----------



## Blackwolf (Feb 22, 2013)

And one more lawsuit "Bites the Dust" against the CSHSRA.

California High-Speed Rail Authority Reaches Second Settlement Agreement on Litigation (Downloadable PDF)



> The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) has reached another agreement to settle a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit. The four Central Valley businesses which brought litigation, Timeless Investments, Inc., Millennium Acquisitions, Inc., Horizon Enterprises and G.P,. Everspring Alliance, L.P. have filed a dismissal of their suit which challenged the Authority’s Environmental Impact Report for the Merced to Fresno portion of the high-speed rail project.



There is just one remaining lawsuit left.


----------



## mfastx (Feb 25, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> And one more lawsuit "Bites the Dust" against the CSHSRA.
> California High-Speed Rail Authority Reaches Second Settlement Agreement on Litigation (Downloadable PDF)
> 
> 
> ...


Don't worry, I'm sure more will pop up.


----------



## Blackwolf (Mar 1, 2013)

mfastx said:


> Don't worry, I'm sure more will pop up.


Well, maybe so. But in the meantime...

The last remaining CEQA lawsuit against the California High Speed Rail Authority has been won in favor of the train.



> The Sacramento County Superior Court has rejected the Town of Atherton’s lawsuit, finding that the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) has complied with the environmental review requirements in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).



Additionally,



> The court also said that the Authority did an adequate job of engaging the public in the environmental review process. “Respondent adequately disclosed to the public how the Project would be implemented, and described in adequate detail what the environmental consequences of such implementation would be,” the Court said.



PDF article can be found HERE.


----------



## jis (Mar 1, 2013)

Here is another article from Progressive Rail on the dismissal of the last CEQA challenge to CAHSR.

I guess City of Athreton's $10K of taxpayer money goes down the drain.


----------



## Blackwolf (Mar 1, 2013)

jis said:


> I guess *City of Athreton*'s $10K of taxpayer money goes down the drain.


Believe me, while taxpayer money _is taxpayer money_, the City of Atherton spending $10K is like you or me spending $0.75 on a pack of gum from the supermarket checkout stand. To call that little enclave a well-to-do municipality is to understate the obvious by egregious levels.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Mar 3, 2013)

Blackwolf said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I guess *City of Athreton*'s $10K of taxpayer money goes down the drain.
> ...


Today I learnt that a place with a population of mere 6,900 people is called a *city* in the United States 

"City" of Atherton is so full of people too rich to ride the trains that it has a Caltrain station complete with station building, platforms, parking lot but no trains during the week stop there anymore! Only weekend services still continue to stop for some reason.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 3, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> Blackwolf said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


"City" is a legal definition for an incorporated municipality. The population minimums and other requirements necessary for a location to incorporate as a city can vary from state to state. Likewise, the authority that a city can have to make laws, levy taxes, and set up operations such as police, fire, utilities, etc., can vary from state to state. For some states it is city or nothing. Others have "towns" which can be smaller and may have less authority and obligations than a city. For some the town to city transition is automatic with growth of population. For other states, it is not.

The minimum population to be classified as a city for legal purposes can be as low as 1,000 people in some states, maybe even less. I don't really know what the various state legal minimums are.

When you hear of some of the other things coming out of Atherton, you clearly understand that having sense and intelligence is not a necessary requiment to enable you to have lots of money.

The Caltrain trains stop on weekends so that people can take their little kids out for the experience of a choo-choo ride. Also, since you can carry a bicycle on Caltrain, the Atherton bicyclists can get out and experience some other parts of the world.


----------



## leemell (Mar 21, 2013)

"The California High Speed Rail Authority board met today and took action on two rather significant items.

First, the board voted to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrain that allows the “blended plan” to move forward. Approval had been delayed earlier this month when Lynn Schenk voiced her concern that the “blended plan” wasn’t workable and fell short of the Prop 1A guidelines. Other longtime HSR supporters welcomed the MOU and the “blended plan”.

Today the Authority board also voted to approve the sale of $8.6 billion in bonds."

From the CAHSR blog.


----------



## jmx53 (Mar 27, 2013)

Another Lawsuit...with a twist!

"California's High-Speed Rail Authority sues everybody, invites you to argue case in court

The lawsuit, titled "High-Speed Rail Authority v. All Persons Interested," is meant as a pre-emptive strike so the state can confirm that it's definitely legal to issue some of the bonds needed to begin bullet train construction this summer. By citing a somewhat obscure California civil code, the state can use the "sue now or forever hold your peace" strategy to prevent a string of future lawsuits and, instead, deal with the legal issues in one fell swoop."

http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_22885008/california-high-speed-rail-sues-everybody-invites-people


----------



## Anderson (Mar 27, 2013)

I actually like that piece of code...really, though it need not be absolute or inviolable, I _do_ like the idea of something that lets an issue go to court sooner rather than having to wait and have it pop up later.


----------



## leemell (Mar 28, 2013)

Anderson said:


> I actually like that piece of code...really, though it need not be absolute or inviolable, I _do_ like the idea of something that lets an issue go to court sooner rather than having to wait and have it pop up later.


An die slowly with a thousand cuts.


----------



## Anderson (Mar 29, 2013)

leemell said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > I actually like that piece of code...really, though it need not be absolute or inviolable, I _do_ like the idea of something that lets an issue go to court sooner rather than having to wait and have it pop up later.
> ...


Bingo. Pardon my French, but it's like Cateyano's crap out in Honolulu of following one derailing tactic with another (i.e. fight a referendum, lose...so shift to a legal challenge...lose...fight an election...you get the idea). This isn't the only place we've seen it, but it's one of the more glaring cases.

If nothing else, I'd like to see some principle of timeliness/"rotted on the vine" ripeness applied that says, in so many words, "You can't string objections out continually and keep coming up with new ones to a project, and you can't go to the courts only _after_ spending several years fighting election campaigns on an issue. Put up all your objections to begin with and be done with it."


----------

