This month, two state legislative panels blocked efforts by Central Valley Republican lawmakers to guarantee the property rights of those caught in the path of the the $68 billion transportation project. State Senator Andy Vidak of Hanford and Asm. Jim Patterson of Fresno are concerned that the California High Speed Rail Authority could use eminent domain to seize land for a project that may never be built.

“I’ve heard from dozens and dozens of property owners – many are farmers, small businesses and homeowners – that they are victims of these flash appraisals and pressure tactics,” said Sen. Vidak, who has been one of the state’s leading high-speed rail critics. “Many of these folks have land, businesses and homes that have been in the same family for several generations.”

Eminent domain requires fair-market compensation

For centuries, governments have used the power of eminent domain to compel property owners to sell their property for large public works projects. In theory, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the rights of property owners to receive just compensation for any property that is seized for public use.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property’s good and bad attributes, would pay,” Cornell University Law School explains in its Fifth Amendment primer.

However, in practice, government agencies with their unlimited resources and army of lawyers can tip the scales in favor of a lower price.

Lawmakers say “no” to independent audit

In the Central Valley, residents are concerned that the state’s high-speed rail agency, which has already blown its budget estimates, could use “flash appraisals” and other hardball tactics to take property for less than the fair market value.

To make sure that everything’s on the up-and-up, Vidak requested that the state’s independent auditor investigate the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s property acquisition process. Among the questions Vidak wanted answered:

• Has the Authority’s contractors issued any property acquisition offers that the property or business owners were not involved in for the appraisal of their property or business?
• What policies and procedures has the Authority given to its contractors in order to obtain property necessary for the completion of the High-Speed Rail project?

After hearing testimony from the High-Speed Rail Authority, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee rejected Vidak’s audit request on a party-line vote.

“There seems to be a misperception that the High-Speed Rail Authority has unique authorities or abilities with regard to right of way that are separate from other state agencies,” California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Jeff Morales told state lawmakers. “That’s just not the case.”

A flabbergasted Vidak expressed his dismay at his colleagues.

“I won’t say the result of the hearing was a ‘whitewash’ or ‘cover-up’ for the Authority, but clearly this reasonable request should have been given high priority, not rejected,” he said following the vote.

Assembly Committee rejects Patterson’s property rights proposal

In the lower house, Asm. Jim Patterson, a fellow Central Valley Republican lawmaker, didn’t fare any better with his proposal to place restrictions on when the rail authority can seize property.

Assembly Bill 1138, the Protection from Eminent Domain Act, would prohibit the rail authority from beginning the eminent domain process until all the necessary funding and environmental approvals for the project have been secured.

Central Valley property owners that have held land for multiple generations supported the measure as a way to guarantee that their historic land rights remain intact – if the project is unsuccessful. According to the Sacramento Business Journal, the state has acquired just 209 of the 1,100 parcels needed for the first construction segment from Madera to Bakersfield – with 54 eminent domain lawsuits pending against the state.

“The reality is — this project does not have the funds in line necessary, and it is a grave injustice to the people whose property is being taken,” Patterson said at a press conference earlier this month. “We join with our Central Valley neighbors who are concerned that their property will be taken by the state for a project that doesn’t have a clear funding source and could be abandoned altogether, leaving these hardworking families with nothing.”

Yet, the Assembly Transportation Committee ignored those concerns and defeated Assembly Bill 1138 on a party-line 5-10 vote, with all Republicans in favor.

With ongoing questions about ridership estimates and travel times, the project’s viability remains very much in doubt. CalWatchdog.com’s Chris Reed has pointed out that the chorus of high-speed rail critics is growing – with even liberal journalists questioning the project.

“We are rapidly exiting the realm of rose-colored glasses and entering the realm of pure fantasy here,” Kevin Drum, a writer for Mother Jones magazine, wrote last year. “If liberals keep pushing this project forward in the face of plain evidence that its official justifications are brazenly preposterous, conservatives are going to be able to pound us year after year for wasting taxpayer money while we retreat to ever more ridiculous and self-serving defenses that make us laughingstocks in the public eye.”

California legislators never have enough time, and always lack the vision, to deal appropriately with the state’s pressing budget and infrastructure problems. But they are great at self-aggrandizement and at catering to the special-interest groups that help assure their re-election.

One would think, for instance, the Assembly Transportation Committee would be deeply concerned with the predicted sky-high cost overruns for the proposed High-Speed Rail system, or with planning cost-effective ways to meet the transportation needs of a growing population. Yet the committee spends nearly a third of its time on a task that few readers would consider of vital importance: naming highways.

California highways already have real names. We know that the 55, also known as the Costa Mesa Freeway, goes from the Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach to the intersection of the 91, or Riverside Freeway, in Anaheim. It’s clear that 99 — central and Northern Californians don’t use “the” before referring to their freeways — cuts through the urbanized regions of the Central Valley.

But you can’t drive far on any freeway in California without seeing signs referring to, for example, the “Joe Colla Interchange” or the “Eric W. Rood Memorial Expressway.” Such freeway namings, which only confuse drivers because the routes aren’t really referred to by those names in atlases and GPS systems, have become so profligate that I’ve seen memorial-highway signage with multiple names on each sign.

The signs are paid for with private donations, but the Assembly estimates that it costs $15,000 to $30,000 in Caltrans staff time for every member highway resolution that is approved.

Moratorium

“It’s gone crazy,” said Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, who introduced Assembly Bill 595, which would have placed a two-year moratorium “on any naming of highways or posting signs by act of the Legislature.” Local governments would still be free to name roadways.

“I don’t think it’s the best way to honor any Californian,” Norby said in an interview. “No one knows who it is.”

I did some Internet searching and learned that Eric W. Rood was a Nevada County supervisor. I learned from a Facebook site that former San Jose Councilman Joe Colla in 1976 “hoisted a car to the top of [an] incomplete [interchange] ramp to symbolize the folly of it all. … He then had a helicopter drop him on top to take a picture … which was flashed around the country and brought attention to California’s budget problems and unfinished freeways.”

That actually seems like one of the more appropriate road namings, given that Colla helped get that interchange funded. In most cases, however, roads are named after living and deceased politicians and police officers killed in the line of duty, which is why a police lobbyist opposed Norby’s proposed moratorium.

But, as Norby said, this is no way to honor people. One doesn’t drive onto a freeway to observe a memorial. It shouldn’t take an Internet search to learn something about these honorees. In his home city, private citizens created an actual memorial for one officer killed years ago, which is a more meaningful honor.

NOW Objects

Almost all of the namings are for men, which prompted the National Organization for Women to testify in favor of Norby’s bill. It’s odd that the naming honors go overwhelmingly to government officials, almost as if no other Californians are worthy of honor. This is just a way for legislators to curry favor. It’s a cheap way — for the politician, although not for the taxpayer — to score points. It’s a great excuse to give a speech. Until this proposed bill, there was nary a peep of opposition from anyone. Who isn’t going to vote “yes” to create the “Greatest Generation Memorial Highway,” although it’s hard to understand how that does any justice to any member of that generation.

Practically speaking, the plethora of signs creates a distraction. The Sacramento Bee reported that there are 246 pages on the Caltrans website listing named infrastructure projects. There are more than 1,000 such signs, and the number keeps doubling every 10 years. It’s basically a meaningless gesture, and one that takes legitimate time away from more important business.

Caltrans Policy

Furthermore, the way naming honors are bestowed now violates a clear Caltrans policy established in 1963. According to Caltrans, freeway naming should be done solely by the Highway Commission and “naming should be provided on the basis of motorists’ needs.” That’s a crucial point, but how often are the needs of taxpayers or mere citizens the basis for doing anything in the Legislature? If anything, this process works against the clear driving needs of California drivers.

Caltrans also suggests the use of historical or geographic names, the use of a single name for an entire span of freeway and argues that “memorial names should be avoided.” But Caltrans notes accurately: “Of course, the Legislature being the Legislature ignored the recommendation.” And it will continue to ignore the recommendation.

The moratorium bill needed eight votes to move it out of committee but could only get five. This isn’t a big deal, I suppose. In the scheme of things, the costs imposed mean nothing in comparison to, say, the amount of money California squanders on its duplicative commissions, excessive pensions and massive welfare programs. But sometimes the little things offer deep insight into bigger problems.

The bigger problem is that the Legislature continues to conduct business as usual, nearly oblivious to the looming budget, regulatory and economic problems that grow each day. The bigger issue is that the Legislature is so beholden to interest groups that it cannot even approve the most modest reforms of its behavior. The bigger deal is that there is no hope that any of this — or any of the Legislature’s far more significant dysfunctional behavior — will ever change.

Maybe we should just rename I-5, the Road to Fiscal Ruin and be done with it.

— Steven Greenhut