New Lawauit filed against the High Speed Rail project
Original post made by Morris Brown, Menlo Park: Park Forest, on Nov 14, 2011
1001 Marshall Street, Fifth Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
KINGS COUNTY AND RESIDENTS SUE RAIL AUTHORITY TO PREVENT ACCESS TO
PROP lA MONEY
On Monday, November 14, Kings County and two of its residents (John Tos and Aaron Fukuda) filed suit in Sacramento against the Calif. High Speed Rail Authority. The suit charges that it would be illegal to allow the Authority access to the $9 billion in Prop lA bond funds and that those funds cannot be released for construction of the HSR system in the central valley.
The suit first claims that the Authority plans to spend billions constructing a NON HSR SYSTEM in the central valley--a conventional rail system that is not even electrified, and that the voters of California never intended for their money to be used for conventional
NON HSR projects. Next, the suit charges that the Authority only has 20% of the money it must have to build a HSR segment in the central valley and that Prop. lA prohibits the release of lA bond funds until all the money is in place and immediately accessible for the proposed construction. The Authority only has $6 billion, and their
own numbers show that the HSR segment they plan to build in the central valley will cost $30 billion. The suit also charges that, once the system starts operating as a HSR system, it will require an operating subsidy, which is prohibited by Prop lA. Finally,
the suit charges that the funding plan approved by the Authority at its board meeting of November 3, 2011, violates Prop. lA because all environmental work has not been completed--especially in light of a Nov 10 decision by Sacramento Superior Court Judge
Michael P. Kenny that the existing EIR has to be set aside and re-circulated. Counsel representing the plaintiffs is Michael J. Brady of Redwood City, California.
Couple’s Strife: 3 Tools for a Happier Relationship
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,121 views
The MP School District Board Should Approve the O’Connor Boundary Change.
By Stuart Soffer | 3 comments | 692 views