5 ms·

And this in a single-party rule state, even. You'd think this could work in California if it could work anywhere in the US.

gamblor956 7y ago
It's now a single-party rule state. For most of the history of the HSR, it was a dual-party state where the minority Republicans exercised veto power over various attempts to speed up the HSR, make fundamental changes, etc. It's crazy, but the HSR is actually in better shape now than when the Republicans were vetoing everything just to make sure it failed. Also, the HSR as planned goes through 90% Republican territory, and it has been the local Republicans and their former counterparts in the CA legislature that fucked things up.
- briandear 7y ago
  We (Republicans) are often opposed to this stuff not because we are against infrastructure, but $200 billion being spent on a 500 mile train. If it were cost efficient and managed correctly, more of us would be on board. We watch as massive infrastructure projects such as the Second Avenue subway and other similar projects turn into boondoggles. If a private company can build rockets and go to space, why can’t a private company build trains? XpressWest and Virgin have been interested in an LA-Vegas line. We in California were told that this train would be profitable: if that’s the case, then why the need for hundreds of billions in taxpayer money? My California taxes are high enough and they can’t even fix potholes in the freeways, and they expect us to trust them with an ultra-expensive train? My dad just visited and was amazed at how bad the freeways were compared to Texas. What does California spend all those tax dollars on? California had total Democrat control of the government from 1999-2003 and from 2011 until now. So in the last 8 years of Democrat control, the train problems are somehow Republican? That’s nonsense. The rail project wasn’t even approved by voters until 2008 and construction didn’t begin until 2015 — years after Republicans had any say in state government. The project has been in an almost continual “environmental review” — certainly not at the behest of the Republicans. The rail debacle isn’t Republican: they haven’t had any power since 2011. And Gavin Newsome was the one that postponed everything except the Merced-Bakersfield line. If Republicans ran the state, taxpayers would be billions richer and we have exactly the same amount of train we have now.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > California had total Democrat control of the government from 1999-2003 and from 2011 until now. No, it didn't, by any reasonable definition: Democrats, without Republican votes, couldn't pass the required annual budget, so they did not have complete control, from 1999-2003. > And Gavin Newsome was the one that postponed everything except the Merced-Bakersfield line Newsome didn't postpone a thing; he restated the status quo that the things for which funding had not been secured for construction would not be constructed until funding was secured as if it were a new development. > If Republicans ran the state, taxpayers would be billions richer No, they wouldn't, since the construction spending was largely federal and bond funding (so money not from current taxpayers), and much of it has gone to people who happen to be state taxpayers. Taxpayers would be poorer, not richer.
  - DrScump 7y ago
    California had total Democrat control of the government from 1999-2003 Technically, Republicans controlled the Assembly for parts of 1995-6. Willie Brown bought off three different Assembly members to try to keep control, but each was recalled by his/her district.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    CA doesn't have a Second Avenue Subway...that's an entirely different state... The LA-Vegas line has never been built because the private companies that would build it modeled their financials on the assumption of getting billions of dollars of free land or easements so they could build it and tax breaks on their first few decades of operation. Without the free government incentives worth billions...incidentally, roughly the same value as it would cost the government to build an HSR to Vegas...the private companies have gotten nowhere. Texas' freeways are just as bad as California's freeways. The difference is that our freeways are used about 10x-100x as much, so there's a reason that our freeways have potholes for a few days. What's Texas' excuse? They ran out of budget to fix their basic infrastructure again? CA has not had total Democratic control during the time periods listed. The Republicans maintained enough seats in the Legislature to block tax and spending bills, effectively a legislative veto. They only lost those seats in the most recent elections. If Republicans ran the state, then CA would be deeply in the red like it was the last time a Republican governor ran the state...namely, Pete Wilson, who did such a bad job that he effectively turned CA from a a red-leaning state into one of the bluest states in the nation. (Schwarzenegger was governor during the recession so that won't be held against him, but notably CA was also in the red during most of his tenure, including the time when Republicans actually had enough Legislative seats to enact legislation and not just veto Democratic bills.)
- DrScump 7y ago
  "For most of the history of the HSR, it was a dual-party state where the minority Republicans" Republicans were almost always in the minority in both houses (often, Democrat supermajorities), and you call that a "dual-party" state?
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    CA has a 2/3rd threshold for passing many bills, especially bills affecting taxes, and until recently Republicans had just enough seats to block such bills. They only fell below that threshold within the past few years. So yes, until recently CA was a dual-party state in the way that actually matters.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Not much works in California though. Politically, that is.
- dev_dull 7y ago
  But don’t worry these bureaucrats will definitely take care of us if we put our healthcare in their hands.

gamblor956 7y ago

It's now a single-party rule state. For most of the history of the HSR, it was a dual-party state where the minority Republicans exercised veto power over various attempts to speed up the HSR, make fundamental changes, etc. It's crazy, but the HSR is actually in better shape now than when the Republicans were vetoing everything just to make sure it failed. Also, the HSR as planned goes through 90% Republican territory, and it has been the local Republicans and their former counterparts in the CA legislature that fucked things up.

briandear 7y ago
We (Republicans) are often opposed to this stuff not because we are against infrastructure, but $200 billion being spent on a 500 mile train. If it were cost efficient and managed correctly, more of us would be on board. We watch as massive infrastructure projects such as the Second Avenue subway and other similar projects turn into boondoggles. If a private company can build rockets and go to space, why can’t a private company build trains? XpressWest and Virgin have been interested in an LA-Vegas line. We in California were told that this train would be profitable: if that’s the case, then why the need for hundreds of billions in taxpayer money? My California taxes are high enough and they can’t even fix potholes in the freeways, and they expect us to trust them with an ultra-expensive train? My dad just visited and was amazed at how bad the freeways were compared to Texas. What does California spend all those tax dollars on? California had total Democrat control of the government from 1999-2003 and from 2011 until now. So in the last 8 years of Democrat control, the train problems are somehow Republican? That’s nonsense. The rail project wasn’t even approved by voters until 2008 and construction didn’t begin until 2015 — years after Republicans had any say in state government. The project has been in an almost continual “environmental review” — certainly not at the behest of the Republicans. The rail debacle isn’t Republican: they haven’t had any power since 2011. And Gavin Newsome was the one that postponed everything except the Merced-Bakersfield line. If Republicans ran the state, taxpayers would be billions richer and we have exactly the same amount of train we have now.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > California had total Democrat control of the government from 1999-2003 and from 2011 until now. No, it didn't, by any reasonable definition: Democrats, without Republican votes, couldn't pass the required annual budget, so they did not have complete control, from 1999-2003. > And Gavin Newsome was the one that postponed everything except the Merced-Bakersfield line Newsome didn't postpone a thing; he restated the status quo that the things for which funding had not been secured for construction would not be constructed until funding was secured as if it were a new development. > If Republicans ran the state, taxpayers would be billions richer No, they wouldn't, since the construction spending was largely federal and bond funding (so money not from current taxpayers), and much of it has gone to people who happen to be state taxpayers. Taxpayers would be poorer, not richer.
- DrScump 7y ago
  California had total Democrat control of the government from 1999-2003 Technically, Republicans controlled the Assembly for parts of 1995-6. Willie Brown bought off three different Assembly members to try to keep control, but each was recalled by his/her district.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  CA doesn't have a Second Avenue Subway...that's an entirely different state... The LA-Vegas line has never been built because the private companies that would build it modeled their financials on the assumption of getting billions of dollars of free land or easements so they could build it and tax breaks on their first few decades of operation. Without the free government incentives worth billions...incidentally, roughly the same value as it would cost the government to build an HSR to Vegas...the private companies have gotten nowhere. Texas' freeways are just as bad as California's freeways. The difference is that our freeways are used about 10x-100x as much, so there's a reason that our freeways have potholes for a few days. What's Texas' excuse? They ran out of budget to fix their basic infrastructure again? CA has not had total Democratic control during the time periods listed. The Republicans maintained enough seats in the Legislature to block tax and spending bills, effectively a legislative veto. They only lost those seats in the most recent elections. If Republicans ran the state, then CA would be deeply in the red like it was the last time a Republican governor ran the state...namely, Pete Wilson, who did such a bad job that he effectively turned CA from a a red-leaning state into one of the bluest states in the nation. (Schwarzenegger was governor during the recession so that won't be held against him, but notably CA was also in the red during most of his tenure, including the time when Republicans actually had enough Legislative seats to enact legislation and not just veto Democratic bills.)
DrScump 7y ago
"For most of the history of the HSR, it was a dual-party state where the minority Republicans" Republicans were almost always in the minority in both houses (often, Democrat supermajorities), and you call that a "dual-party" state?
- gamblor956 7y ago
  CA has a 2/3rd threshold for passing many bills, especially bills affecting taxes, and until recently Republicans had just enough seats to block such bills. They only fell below that threshold within the past few years. So yes, until recently CA was a dual-party state in the way that actually matters.

BurningFrog 7y ago

Not much works in California though. Politically, that is.

dev_dull 7y ago
But don’t worry these bureaucrats will definitely take care of us if we put our healthcare in their hands.