6 ms·

Take a look at the voting data for Prop 1A. It is very likely HSR would not have been approved in the first place if the central valley had been excluded. http

Take a look at the voting data for Prop 1A. It is very likely HSR would not have been approved in the first place if the central valley had been excluded. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_1A https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_...

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> likely HSR would not have been approved in the first place if the central valley had been excluded Then don't build it. That money would have been far better spent improving urban metro and regional rail. (And airports and roads and charging stations, et cetera.)
- jimt1234 1y ago
  > Then don't build it. That money would have been far better spent... ...only literally anything else!
- saagarjha 1y ago
  That money did literally improve urban metro and regional rail–Caltrain electrification came out of it.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > That money would have been far better spent improving urban metro and regional rail. CA HSR was the political lever to get funding to improve urban metro and regional rail, so, in a sense, the money was spent doing that.
Eridrus 1y ago
Did it have to be funded by a proposition? Could the CA legislature not have passed a law?
- SllX 1y ago
  Tax increases and bond measures have to go through the voters. The alternative is to get enough of the legislature, including probably some in Central Valley, to agree to cut a bunch of other more popular programs in order to fund it out of the general fund.
  - pests 1y ago
    What does California do with all its income?
    - SllX 1y ago
      Same shit. Different State. Maybe a little extra compared to a Red State or a smaller State, and on a larger scale. You can dig into it here: https://ebudget.ca.gov/ https://ebudget.ca.gov/
    - inferiorhuman 1y ago
      Props 13 and 8. Highly recommend Paradise Lost by Peter Schrag. Raising revenue requires supermajority voter approval in most cases. A huge chunk of the budget is already allocated by voter mandates and the legislature fights over the scraps.
  - Eridrus 1y ago
    I dug into this a bit since these comments were just confusing, but apparently Prop 13 required tax increases to get a 2/3 majority of the legislature. So it seems like Prop 13 just fucked California.
    - SllX 1y ago
      Correct. What is the point of having a representative government with a legislature if you just forcibly remove the lynchpin of power for that type of government?
      - inferiorhuman 1y ago
        That's the point. Props 13 and 8 were part of the republican anti-government movement often memorialized by Norquist's remark about making government small enough to drown.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Did it have to be funded by a proposition? Yes. > Could the CA legislature not have passed a law? To fund a long-term capital project? No, for a number of reasons. First, at that time, the CA legislature couldn't practically fund anything reliably (budget process is Constitutionally mandated to be annual, and at that time required a 2/3 supermajority to pass, which caused regular budget crises.) Second, and more importantly, structurally, to fund major capital projects, debt financing is required, and California cannot, Constitutionally, issue bonds without voter approval. Prop 1A was a legislative initiative amendment -- that is, the legislature had to pass a bill to put it on the ballot -- to secure that approval.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> likely HSR would not have been approved in the first place if the central valley had been excluded Then don't build it. That money would have been far better spent improving urban metro and regional rail. (And airports and roads and charging stations, et cetera.)

jimt1234 1y ago
> Then don't build it. That money would have been far better spent... ...only literally anything else!
saagarjha 1y ago
That money did literally improve urban metro and regional rail–Caltrain electrification came out of it.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> That money would have been far better spent improving urban metro and regional rail. CA HSR was the political lever to get funding to improve urban metro and regional rail, so, in a sense, the money was spent doing that.

Eridrus 1y ago

Did it have to be funded by a proposition? Could the CA legislature not have passed a law?

SllX 1y ago
Tax increases and bond measures have to go through the voters. The alternative is to get enough of the legislature, including probably some in Central Valley, to agree to cut a bunch of other more popular programs in order to fund it out of the general fund.
- pests 1y ago
  What does California do with all its income?
  - SllX 1y ago
    Same shit. Different State. Maybe a little extra compared to a Red State or a smaller State, and on a larger scale. You can dig into it here: https://ebudget.ca.gov/ https://ebudget.ca.gov/
  - inferiorhuman 1y ago
    Props 13 and 8. Highly recommend Paradise Lost by Peter Schrag. Raising revenue requires supermajority voter approval in most cases. A huge chunk of the budget is already allocated by voter mandates and the legislature fights over the scraps.
- Eridrus 1y ago
  I dug into this a bit since these comments were just confusing, but apparently Prop 13 required tax increases to get a 2/3 majority of the legislature. So it seems like Prop 13 just fucked California.
  - SllX 1y ago
    Correct. What is the point of having a representative government with a legislature if you just forcibly remove the lynchpin of power for that type of government?
    - inferiorhuman 1y ago
      That's the point. Props 13 and 8 were part of the republican anti-government movement often memorialized by Norquist's remark about making government small enough to drown.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Did it have to be funded by a proposition? Yes. > Could the CA legislature not have passed a law? To fund a long-term capital project? No, for a number of reasons. First, at that time, the CA legislature couldn't practically fund anything reliably (budget process is Constitutionally mandated to be annual, and at that time required a 2/3 supermajority to pass, which caused regular budget crises.) Second, and more importantly, structurally, to fund major capital projects, debt financing is required, and California cannot, Constitutionally, issue bonds without voter approval. Prop 1A was a legislative initiative amendment -- that is, the legislature had to pass a bill to put it on the ballot -- to secure that approval.