Essentially, the Fresno establishment bought the idea of the project as economic salvation for a struggling region — even as evidence emerged that undercut the happy talk.

But now — even as the project allegedly gains momentum because of new state funding from cap-and-trade fees — the Fresno consensus has vanished.

On Tuesday, county supervisors voted 3-2 to drop their support for the project and to file legal briefs supporting  pending lawsuits vs. the project. This is from the Bee:

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday switched tracks in its position on California’s proposed high-speed rail project, voting 3-2 to oppose it.

Supervisors Andreas Borgeas, Debbie Poochigian and Phil Larson supported Poochigian’s resolution to oppose California’s bullet-train plans. Supervisors Judy Case McNairy and Henry R. Perea voted against the motion.

The action rescinds earlier county votes dating to at least 2009 to support high-speed rail, and asks that the state Legislature place the issue back on the ballot. California voters originally approved Proposition 1A, a $9.9 billion high-speed rail bond measure, in 2008.

The Bee editorial board will not be happy

You can expect a Fresno Bee editorial criticizing Fresno County supervisors before long. On July 14, the Bee’s editorial board ripped supervisors for even considering ending support for the bullet train:

The supervisors have supported high-speed rail for seven years. Now the board majority is teetering. Shame on them if they lack the backbone to remain united so that Fresno County finally can break free from the shackles of double-digit unemployment and overreliance on bountiful rains to power its agriculture-based economy.

We agree with critics that the California High-Speed Rail Authority has made mistakes. But to those who contend that current plans aren’t what originally was passed by voters, we answer: Some of the changes, such as blending high-speed rail with commuter trains, came in response to critics’ concerns about escalating costs. Moreover, all major infrastructure projects change during planning and construction. Ideas are refined and adjustments are made in response to real-world challenges. …

Should the majority of supervisors bend in the wind and oppose high-speed rail, they should be called out for what they are — job-killing politicians.

Silicon Valley, Central CA both off the bandwagon

But this hectoring won’t change the political realities for Gov. Jerry Brown and the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

Local governments in Silicon Valley don’t like the bullet train no matter what its configuration and haven’t for years — and they have deep pockets for NIMBY lawsuits tying up construction for decades. Now another region — Central California — is unifying behind the idea that it’s time for the project to go away, as the Bee notes:

The vote aligns Fresno County with other San Joaquin Valley counties that have taken formal positions opposing the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s plans. Madera, Merced, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties are on record with opposition resolutions, and Kings and Kern are going to court with the rail authority.

The Bee coverage includes no comment from top bullet train officials, including Dan Richard, the board chair who’s been on a media blitz of late.

On Monday, he responded in Fox & Hounds to a Cal Watchdog story that F&H picked up ridiculing the idea floated by the rail authority that potential multinational contractors on the project are tantamount to potential investors.

On Saturday, he responded to a U-T San Diego editorial questioning whether the rail authority was meeting its legal obligations with an unusual rebuttal that focused much of its criticism on former state Sen. Quentin Kopp.

He’s also wrote a piece for James Fallows of The Atlantic earlier this month rebutting a CalWatchdog post knocking Fallows for his glossing over of bullet-train problems.

It’s the latest development in a bitter fight between the city and taxpayers. Last August, the city approved a controversial plan by Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin to double water rates in order to fund a $410 million upgrade to the city’s water system. But when a group of taxpayers led by former Fresno County Supervisor Doug Vagim objected to the plan, the city took the taxpayers to court in order to stop a referendum campaign.

Earlier this month, a state appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that ordered the city to fulfill its ministerial duties and issue a petition title and summary. Now the taxpayers say that the title and summary, as prepared by City Attorney Doug Sloan, are biased in favor of the water tax hike.

“Frankly, I don’t believe this Title and Summary filed by the Fresno City Attorney can be considered to represent an impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure,”  Vagim said  “This text belongs in the con-argument side of the ballot’s voter guide for Measure W.”

This is the full text:

“Title: Initiative Measure To Repeal City of Fresno’s Four-Year Water Rate Plan And Related Water Fees”

“Summary: A ‘yes’ vote on this measure would repeal water rates to be charged over four years that the Fresno City Council adopted on August 15, 2013, and cause the rates to return to what the Council adopted in 2008. The City Council adopted the 2013 water rates to pay for increased costs to provide adequate water that is safe to drink. The increased costs are caused by changes in state and federal drinking water standards, depletion of ground water, costs of maintenance and repairs to old water pipes and other parts of the water system, and the necessity to build a surface water treatment plant. If the current rates are repealed, the City Council could impose higher rates again. However, it would delay the City’s work to repair and improve the water system.”

Factual errors: Last water rate hike in 2010, not 2008

Vagim points to state law, which requires the city attorney to issue an impartial analysis. The Election Code states:

“In providing the ballot title, the city attorney shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.”

In the complaint letter submitted to the city attorney on Thursday, Vagim’s group cited factual errors in the title and summary, including the last time the city raised water rates. The petition summary references a water rate hike in 2008, when the last such increase passed the council in 2010.

“The prejudicial nature of this misstatement falsely informs voters that water rates have not been raised since 2008, when in fact rates were last increased in 2010,” the letter objecting to the petition summary states.

After five months of delays, the taxpayers say they’ll circulate the biased petition rather than wait for another title and summary. 

“Moreover, the City’s intentional, unreasonable and unlawful delay over the course of the last five (5) months has deprived my client of time to challenge the petition title and summary for petition circulating,” the complaint states.

If they can gather enough signatures, they’ll be looking for a revised title and summary before the election and could recoup legal fees and court costs in the process.

Fresno City Attorney: ‘Title is fair, complete and complies with the law’

The city attorney maintains that the title complies with the law. “We believe the title is fair, complete, and complies with the law,” said Sloan, Fresno’s City Attorney.

But the state’s leading taxpayer advocacy group contended otherwise. “The language is most certainly slanted,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “But we have not yet determined whether it crosses the line from the perspective of potential litigation.”

Earlier this month, CalWatchdog.com reported the story of the bully tactics by the City of Fresno in defense of Mayor Swearengin’s water rate increases. Under Swearengin’s plan, the average water bill would be doubled to fund a $410 million upgrade to the city’s water system.

In September, a group of taxpayers, led by former Fresno County Supervisor Doug Vagim, organized a campaign to overturn the rate hikes. But the taxpayers were denied a title and summary for their petition. Without a title and summary, the group couldn’t collect the necessary signatures to get a referendum on the ballot.

City of Fresno sues taxpayers

Then the city sued the taxpayers in an effort to stall the petition from reaching the 2014 ballot. In late November, a Superior Court sided with taxpayers and ordered the city attorney to issue the title and summary. Instead of compiling with the court order, the city filed a notice of appeal, which stayed the court’s order, as part of a strategy to run out the clock on the initiative.

The city of Fresno is facing major financial problems after years of fiscal mismanagement and irresponsible spending. It owes $3.4 million per year in annual construction bond payments for a city-owned minor league baseball stadium. The bond payments were supposed to be covered by a $1-per-ticket fee collected by the team. However, City Manager Renena Smith told the Fresno Bee in November that the team is two years in arrears. To solve its cash flow problems, the city had to borrow $14 million from the water department to balance its books.

Fresno Bee: Thumbs down to Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin

Even supporters of the water rate hike have become disgusted with the city’s hardball tactics. Shortly after the first ruling, the Fresno Bee editorial board, which backs the water rate increases, chastised Swearengin.

“We support the water-rate increases; they are vital to the city’s future,” the paper wrote. “But with these stalling and blocking tactics, Swearengin sends a message that she doesn’t trust Fresno voters to do what’s best for the city.”

The “stalling and blocking tactics” stopped the referendum from reaching the June 2014 ballot. To qualify their proposed initiative for the regularly scheduled November 2014 election, taxpayers would need to submit 4,846 valid signatures to the City Clerk by May 8.

The battle began last August, when the city of Fresno approved a controversial plan pushed by Mayor Ashley Swearengin to raise the city's water rates. The additional revenue would go towards a $410 million upgrade to the city's aging water system.

Under Swearengin's plan, most water users, which include city residents and some unincorporated parts of Fresno County, would see their average monthly bills rise to $48, double what they were last year. That didn't sit well with a group of taxpayers, led by former Fresno County Supervisor Doug Vagim, who mobilized a grassroots effort to overturn the rate hikes.

But when the taxpayers tried to circulate a petition to overturn the mayor's plan, the city took the extraordinary step of refusing to grant the petition a title and summary. Without a title and summary, the group couldn't collect the necessary signatures to get a referendum on the ballot.

The move appears to be a direct violation of the California Constitution. Section 3 of Article 13C states that “the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge.”

Pre-emptive strike: City sues taxpayers

Not content to block the initiative, the city went a step further: It sued the taxpayers.

“The City anticipates Initiative Proponents will continue to advocate for the Initiative and its submission to the voters,” its lawsuit states. “By seeking pre-election relief, the City hopes to avoid the cost and expense of submitting an illegal and invalid Initiative to voters.”

Attorneys for Fresno made the remarkable argument that the city's lawsuit would restore the public's trust in government that had been eroded by the courts.

“The voters already fear that everything they vote on ultimately gets invalidated by the courts anyway, and we don't want to feed that fear by letting plainly invalid measures get presented to the voters,” the city's attorney, Michael Colantuono, argued in Fresno County Superior Court.

Taxpayers said that the city was using the legal system to undermine their constitutional rights.

“Our constitutional rights are being infringed on on a daily basis as we're denied the ability to go to the voters to seek their approval,” Chuck Bell, one of the state's preeminent election attorneys, argued on behalf of the taxpayers. “Frankly, we still have the hurdle once a title and summary is issued to retain the requisite signatures of a sufficient number of voters to qualify the measure for the ballot.”

In late November, a Superior Court agreed, and ordered the city attorney to issue the title and summary. Instead of compiling with the court order, the city filed a notice of appeal, which stayed the court’s order, as part of a strategy to run out the clock on the initiative.
cheap software downloads

'Core public service not subject to referendum'

Swearengin's office did not respond to an email request for comment on the issue. However, at a press conference last month, the Republican mayor said that the city's interests in managing the water business trumped citizens' rights to petition their government.

“The city of Fresno believes there is ample case law that indicates that a core public service is not subject to a referendum,” she said. “I recognize the short-term pain of raising water rates in the city of Fresno. However, I believe this short-term pain will result in long-term gain for the people of Fresno.”

Much of the city's financial problems stem from years of fiscal mismanagement and irresponsible spending. In a November speech to the Rotary Club of Fresno, City Manager Bruce Rudd acknowledged that “the reality is this organization has always ran close to the edge.”

Among the city's money-pits: a costly city-owned baseball stadium for the town's minor league team, the Fresno Grizzlies. The city owes $3.4 million per year in payments toward the stadium's construction bonds. The bond payments were supposed to be covered by a $1-per-ticket fee collected by the team. However, City Manager Renena Smith told the Fresno Bee in November that the team was two years in arrears.

Which all comes back to the city's water problems. To make up for the cash it wasn't getting from the baseball team, the city had to borrow $14 million from the water department to balance its books.

Fresno Bee turns on mayor over her hardball

Even supporters of the water rate hikes have become disgusted with the city's hardball tactics. Shortly after the first Superior Court ruling, the Fresno Bee editorial board, which backs the water rate increases, chastised Swearengin.

“We support the water-rate increases; they are vital to the city's future,” the paper wrote. “But with these stalling and blocking tactics, Swearengin sends a message that she doesn't trust Fresno voters to do what's best for the city.”

The “stalling and blocking tactics” have already proven effective at stopping the referendum from reaching the June 2014 ballot. If the 5th District Court of Appeals doesn't set aside the stay, taxpayers won’t get a title and summary until May, and the referendum would miss the November ballot. To qualify their proposed initiative for the regularly scheduled November 2014 election, taxpayers would need to submit 4,846 valid signatures to the City Clerk by May 8.

The next scheduled election would occur in 2016, by which time the city is expected to have bond funding contracts in place.

“Geologists began drilling holes and collecting soil sam- ples Tuesday in downtown Fresno in preparation for the first stages of construction on California’s proposed high-speed train project.

“The first soil borings by Earth Mechanics Inc. took place along H Street, under the Stanislaus Street overpass that spans H Street, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and G Street. It’s the first of more than two dozen locations between the northeast edge of Madera and the south end of Fresno where the company will test the subsurface soil conditions.

“The tests offer a mole’s-eye view to geologists, and the results will help engineers determine what kind of foundations will be required for new overpasses and other structures needed for the first 29-mile stretch of high-speed rail construction, said Michael Hoshiyama, a staff geologist with Orange County-based EMI.”

Where never is heard a discouraging word

But in 650 words, the Fresno Bee story never:

1) mentions the huge court setbacks that imperil the project. The reader would never know it’s in trouble just from this story.

2) quotes a project opponent about the wisdom of spending one dime on a project with an illegal business plan and an irreconcilable $25 billion shortfall.

What’s going on here?

Maybe Sheehan doesn’t want to be seen as a “naysayer” by Fresno Bee bosses. That’s the label the paper’s editorial page stuck on Central Valley congressional critics of the project back in April. Criticism isn’t valid, you see. It’s just “naysaying.”

Fresno residents deserve better.

By Chris Reed

The war of words between Gov. Jerry Brown and his Texas counterpart, Rick Perry, over California’s business climate has led to the usual snide comments about the Lone Star State from the media annex of the Democratic establishment. The Fresno Bee’s editorial page comments are typical:

“Poor Texas. With its high dropout rate, lack of health insurance coverage, and wide economic disparities, the Lone Star State appears to be desperate, or least its governor is.

“How else to explain Gov. Rick Perry’s radio ads attempting to lure businesses from California?

“‘Building a business is tough, but I hear building a business in California is next to impossible,’ Perry says in the ad. ‘This is Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and I have a message for California businesses: Come check out Texas.’

“Yes, come check out Texas. Check out a state that ranks last in the percentage of its population with high school diplomas. Come check out a state that is last in mental health expenditures and workers’ compensation coverage. Come check out a state that ranks first in the number of executions, first in the number of uninsured, first in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted and first in the amount of toxic chemicals released into water.”

But now, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story, courtesy of California lawmaker turned Texas think tanker Chuck DeVore. He destroys the idea that schools are inferior and poverty is higher in his new state:

“While California has more bureaucrats, Texas has 17 percent more teachers, with 295 education employees per 10,000 people, compared to California’s 252.

“The two states’ educational outcomes reflect this disparity. If we compare national test scores in math, science, and reading for the fourth and eighth grades among four basic ethnic and racial categories — all students, whites, Hispanics, and African-Americans — Texas beats California in every category, and by a substantial margin. In fact, Texas schools perform consistently above the national average across categories of age, race, and subject matter, while California schools perform well below the national average. …

“While California seeks more ways to tax success, it excels at subsidizing poverty. The percentage of households receiving public assistance in California was 3.7 percent in 2009, double Texas’s rate of 1.8 percent. Almost one-third of all Americans on welfare reside in California.”

Back to you, Fresno Bee. More snark! Less filling!