SOAPBOX GUEST OPINION: By Diane L. Harkey
Are Taxpayers Being Railroaded?
A
rguing with a government-funded marketing machine is not easy unless you read between the lines of the machine’s own data. Referencing the popular “jobs” spin surrounding High Speed Rail, we have a perfect example of how a well-funded myth could railroad us into another economic catastrophe. In November 2008, voters approved by a slim margin a $9 billion bond (debt) for start-up costs associated with a statewide high-speed rail line. Total costs were estimated at $45 billion to complete the project from San Francisco to San Diego. By 2008, costs quickly skyrocketed to $43 billion for the San Francisco to Los Angeles route alone, and fares once estimated at $50 rose to $105. In addition, ridership levels were nearly cut in half, and funding sources still remain a mystery. But the taxpayer-funded California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) continues to roll down the track selling the dream. At a conference on August 25, attended by over 100 Orange County local elected officials, a study prepared by UCI’s Institute for Transportation Studies was released. The study was sponsored by the Orange County Transportation Association, Veolia Transportation (Paris based), HDR Engineering (Seattle), NRG Energy West (New Jersey) and the Center for Urban Infrastructure at Brandman (part of the Chapman University system). Examining the 25-plus mile segment, or initial phase between Los Angels and Anaheim, the study assumes High
Speed Rail would have an exclusive right of way, requiring viaducts, elevated structures and the potential condemnation of hundreds of homes and businesses. The $4.5 billion cost would provide, according to the report, $700 million in wages for the unemployed by providing 57,000 jobs for one year. This “jobs” project will spend $4.5 billion to create Diane L. Harkey 57,000 jobs for 1 year? But wait, in order to eliminate some of the initial outrage over the eminent domain of private property and blight created in existing communities, the CHSRA is considering sharing the tracks with existing Metrolink. This could save $2 billion, but that would surely reduce the one-year construction job benefit. The Governor is taking a six-day trip to China, Japan and South Korea to ride high-speed trains in all three countries. Could foreign firms and out-of-state contractors be the only true benefactors of the long-term jobs promised by CHSRA? Metrolink currently operates 10 daily commuter routes between LA and Anaheim making various stops along the route to accommodate ridership needs. The trip takes roughly 45 minutes one-way. Metrolink could “fly” matching HSR speeds if non-stop. Metrolink is built, already heavily subsidized, and available now. Why spend billions of taxpayer funds to build and subsidize another train?
Our state needs improved public transportation in and between metropolitan areas, but that is exactly what this high-speed train to nowhere could defund, or at best duplicate. Dollars to complete routes are uncertain at best, projected $19 billion federal grant funds are falling short, $12 billion private funding is uncommitted, and the $5 billion expected from cities and counties grappling with state borrowing and underfunded pensions will likely add to local burdens. Exactly who will pay, how much, and for what needs to be known before we send this new flashy, old-school train-tech down the track. What dollar amount is expected to be coughed up from cities and counties represented by your local elected officials at the UCI event? An Investment Grade Financial analysis would provide all that information and more. It would also verify the reality of ridership numbers that the Authority cannot justify. The people of California were promised a full credit analysis of the project prior to construction—we need facts now before we are railroaded off another financial cliff. Assemblywoman Diane Harkey represents the cities of Oceanside, San Clemente, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, and Aliso Viejo. PLEASE NOTE: The opinions offered here are solely those of the guest columnist and may or may not be shared by the San Clemente Times staff. We appreciate, however, their willingness to share their views, and we invite responses to be sent to letters@sanclementetimes.com.
Letters to the Editor (cont.) better resourced, and better maintained. She’ll just stand at her stroller, bounce expectantly, and say “Linda Lane? Linda Lane?” She can’t yet write letters to the editor, so I’ve written this letter on her behalf. For her sake, I hope that our Mayor and Council members will answer these questions: When can we expect to have new play structures installed at Linda Lane? Why was there no public notice of intent to remove the structures, and why has no plan been made (or made public) to replace them? And this to the author of that “parts are on order” sign: Please just tell us the truth.
IN RESPONSE TO PETE ESPINOSA Craig Alexander, Dana Point
Once again Mr. Espinosa, the spokesperson for the current recall of Capistrano Unified School District Trustees Mike Winsten and Ken Lopez-Maddox, plays fast and loose with the facts in his accusations against Mr. Winsten. In a recent letter to the editor, he states that Mr. Winsten’s prior letter is full of “hubris, arrogance and incompetence” and that Mr. Winsten is a liar, deceitful and deceptive. But rather than state facts to prove these allegations, Mr. Espinosa resorts to name-calling, character assassination and misstating recent events. I have personally attended some of the CUSD Board of Trustee meetings over the last two years and seen Mr. Espinosa make these same types of statements directly to the Board, which he is allowed to make under the Brown Act during what is known as “open comments.” With these types of tactics and statements, is it any wonder that relations between the Board and the Union and those Mr. Espinosa claims to represent are distrustful at best? Regarding the “out-of-court settlements” issue: Contrary to Mr. Espinosa’s spin on the facts of this matter, the settlement did not cost the District any money. All of the settlement monies came from the insurance pool of the District not the District’s general fund. The lawsuit was brought by parents whose children and themselves had been placed on disgraced former Superintendent James Fleming’s “enemies list” under the prior Board of Trustees. The attorney for the District advised the Board that if the case went to trial a judgment against the District in the millions of dollars was likely. Further, that if the District did not accept the settlement reached in mediation, the insurance pool would not pay for any judgment the parents obtained and it would come right out of the District’s general fund—and out of the classrooms of CUSD. By law a public entity must pass a resolution by a majority vote to enter into a settlement and settle a case (and stop the attorneys’ fees for having to defend the lawsuit). Therefore by law at least a majority of the Board had to vote Page 12 • San Clemente Times • September 16–22, 2010
on the settlement proposal and Mr. Winsten voted as was his obligation to do so as an elected member of the Board of Trustees. Under Mr. Espinosa’s twisted logic, each and every member of the Board would not be allowed to vote on the settlement—and the lawsuit would still be going on today or a judgment against the District for far more money would be entered against CUSD. But all of this is public record since the District waived the attorney client privilege so that this information would come out to the general public—but Mr. Espinosa, not wanting to let a good spin get away, fails to mention these facts in his diatribe against Mr. Winsten. The teachers’ strike was not the plan or intent of the Board of Trustees and Mr. Espinoza can not prove otherwise. When they came into office, the Reform Trustees were handed from the State of California and the economy the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Many members of our South Orange County community have faced the loss of jobs, cutbacks on income, the loss of homes, etc. In the face of these challenges the Board is required under the Education Code to balance its budget. Prior to the fact finder’s report, the Teachers Union demanded that the Board balance the budget by letting go younger teachers and increasing class size. Later, after the fact finder’s report in the first quarter of this year, the Union stated it would accept part of the fact finder’s report but made demands to restore salaries to pre-budget crisis levels the Board could not agree to. Finally, having to meet their requirements under the Education Code, the Board passed a contract that provided for the least reduction in salary and benefits it could to balance the budget. The Teachers Union called a strike anyway—using the negative publicity to get signatures for a recall election against Mr. Winsten and Mr. LopezMaddox. Keep in mind to that at least 85 percent of the District’s total budget is for salary and benefits to CUSD’s employees—so there is little left over for the maintenance of facilities and direct classroom expenditures. The Reform Trustees (the currently elected ones) never promised the support a By Trustee Area method of electing trustees but did vote to place the issue before the voters this November. The Board did not spend $100,000 to keep Measure H from the voters. The Board hired an attorney to fight being forced to have Measure H on the recent June 2010 ballot at a cost to the District of approximately $500,000 of District funds. The government entity (which was not the Board of Trustees) that ordered the election in June backed down and allowed the vote to take place this November at a cost of only approximately
$8,500. In fact, Mr. Espinosa and his friends tried to pressure the Board to ask the State of California for a waiver to not even allow the voters to vote on Measure H. They wanted to have the change in the method of voting for Trustees in CUSD by State Government fiat. Thankfully the Board of Trustees said no to these pressure tactics so that the CUSD residents can make this important decision. For more information about these and other issues facing CUSD go to www.cusdfacts.com. For full disclosure, I am a resident of Dana Point, an attorney and a member of the Board of Directors of the Education Alliance—a group that supports conservatives to be elected to school boards. For more information about Education Alliance to go www.education-alliance.org. With so much hyperbole going on during this election about the CUSD Board of Trustees, I encourage voters to hear both sides of the issue before making up your minds on the direction of our school district.
MY VOTE’S GOING TO HEDRICK Timothy Johnson, San Clemente
I am writing in regard to our 16-year incumbent congressman, Ken Calvert. Named one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress by a nonpartisan watchdog organization, Rep. Calvert has also made a name for himself by becoming one of the most notorious supporters of earmarks. Over his long career in Congress, he passed earmarks that increased the value of his land property and he also pushed for 13 earmarks alone for a lobbying firm that totaled $91 million. (He is now under investigation by the FBI.) In the same regard, Rep. Calvert has spent thousands of our tax dollars ($352,000 in 2009 alone) sending out vapid mailers and “breaking news updates” to his constituents, reminding us of how great of a Congressman he is. Recently, he was profiled in the OCRegister as exploiting an election law that prohibits such “mail blasts” within three months of an election. Calvert, naturally, found a way to game the system, sending out batches of “different” mailers to 499 residents at a time (one less than the 500 mailers the law prohibits). These are the reasons why I am voting for challenger Bill Hedrick, an honest family man, a lifelong teacher and a father whose children have served our country in Iraq. If we really want to clean up Washington, let’s sweep Ken Calvert out and send them Bill. To submit a letter to the editor for possible inclusion in the paper, email us at letters@sanclementetimes.com or send it to 34932 Calle del Sol, Suite B, Capistrano Beach, CA 92624. San Clemente Times reserves the right to edit reader-submitted letters for length and is not responsible for the claims made or the information written by the writers.
www.sanclementetimes.com