State law requires government bodies to notify the public of closed, or executive, sessions in advance and to specify what exception under the open meetings law – such as pending litigation or personnel  matters – allows for the closed meeting. The notice for the March 10 finance and audit committee meeting made no mention of a closed session.

“It seems quite possible that the Board violated the requirements” of state open meetings law, said Gary Patton, a lawyer and former state and county official who heads a nonprofit that opposes the rail project. “The public is permitted to be present for everything, except for very specific issues, legal issues and a few other exceptions such as personnel issues.”

The rail authority, though, says what transpired was not an executive session, but a “private discussion with a member of Authority staff” attended by four board members – less than the Authority’s five-member quorum.

“The Authority’s Chief Legal Counsel was present to assure that no Bagley-Keene (open meetings law) violations occurred,” a rail authority spokeswoman said by email. “Board members are at liberty to meet privately with staff to discuss high-speed rail matters.”

A tight squeeze

On March 10, a dozen residents of the Central Valley traveled for hours to Sacramento to attend a meeting of the agency that is planning a $68 billion rail project through their community.

Since they had made the journey, they attended the Finance and Audit Committee meeting held prior to the meeting of the full board. The subcommittee consists of Michael Rossi, a retired vice chairman of BankAmerica Corporation, and Tom Richards, CEO of a Fresno-based real estate investment company.

“The room was very small, so small that you would have to jump over someone’s briefcase to leave the room,” said Frank Oliveira, co-chair of the residents’ group, the Citizens for California High-Speed Rail Accountability, which opposes the rail project.

In fact, there were people who stood around the door leading into the meeting to listen because there was no room for them to enter. According to Oliveira and another member of the citizens’ group, Alan Scott, their presence seemed to inhibit conversation.

No exception to open meeting law

Four board members were in attendance: Rossi, who chairs the committee; Richards; Lynn Schenk, an attorney; and the authority’s newest board member, former state Sen. Lou Correa.

At the end of the meeting, Rossi asked Schenk to stay and pointed to various others in the room to stay as well, Oliveira and Scott said.

Rossi told the citizens they were now going into an “executive staff meeting,” Scott said, and provided no exception under open meetings law.

Rossi, Richards and two other board members stayed behind, rail authority spokeswoman Lisa Marie Alley said. Contacted by CalWatchdog March 27, Rossi did not respond directly to an emailed request for comment but forwarded the message to Alley.

“Legally, there is no exception to the state’s open meeting law, based on the Authority’s desire to have a private meeting,” Patton said.

You can’t legally meet in a closed session because the agency “wants to have a frank and open discussion among only members on a matter of controversy, or when sensitive financial information is at issue,” Patton said. “From all appearances, the public should have been allowed in this meeting.”

Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act

Members of the public can take government agencies to court for open meetings act violations.

According to the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act:

“Each member of a state body who attends a meeting of that body in violation of any provision of this article, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this article, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Court costs and fees may be awarded to the plaintiff if a state body is found in violation. However, no member would be personally liable; the state would pay from tax dollars.

“To the extent that a body receives information under circumstances where the public is deprived of the opportunity to monitor the information provided, and either agree with it or challenge it, the open-meeting process is deficient,” an AG handbook on open meetings law says.

Here is an updated 2015 guide to the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act

Kathy Hamilton is the Ralph Nader of high-speed rail, continually uncovering hidden aspects of the project and revealing them to the public.  She started writing in order to tell local communities how the project affects them and her reach grew statewide.  She has written more than 225 articles on high-speed rail and attended hundreds of state and local meetings. She is a board member of the Community Coalition on High-Speed Rail; has testified at government hearings; has provided public testimony and court declarations on public records act requests; has given public testimony; and has provided transcripts for the validation of court cases. 

But from a Californian’s perspective, what’s interesting in reading up on the Shinkansen is how strikingly different the approaches are of the Japanese government and California government in their vetting and decision-making processes — how one was so thorough and one was so cursory.

In the past week, I’ve read big chunks of  Cardiff University professor Christopher P. Hood’s 2006 book, “Shinkansen: From Bullet Train to Modern Japan,” as well as contemporaneous newspaper and magazine coverage on Nexis.com.

The big three differences:

1. The quality of planning. The Japanese government’s leaders and analysts saw what the U.S. had done with the interstate highway system in the 1950s and were aware that rail was considered passe in some First World nations. But because of densely crowded urban conditions around Tokyo, the extreme cost of land and, well, Japanese conformism, they didn’t believe a U.S.-style car culture would emerge — but that a fast train network would have huge appeal. Key point the rest of the world doesn’t know: Japanese companies pay employee commuting costs. Think what a gigantic distortion that would have on how a government would approach the bullet-train debate and transportation in general were that the CA norm.

California’s planning was horrible. It was based on such insane claims as this: The California bullet train would eventually carry 4.5 times as many passengers a year (117 million) as Amtrak (26 million), which operates in 46 U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. In the run-up to the 2008 Proposition 1A vote authorizing $9.95 billion in state bond funds as seed money for the project, state leaders made up stuff as they went along about ridership, ticket cost and job-creation effects. They may have even believed what they were saying.

2. Honesty about who would pay. It wasn’t even debated in Japan — everyone accepted that a huge infrastructure project would require massive government subsidies. In California, from day one, we’ve been encouraged to pretend that there would be vast interest from private-sector investors despite a law that bans revenue or ridership guarantees that are de facto promises of subsidies. Such guarantees are the only way there would actually be private-sector investment interest.

Here’s another interesting angle about government ethics and the Shinkansen. As Japan has expanded the project far from its original Osaka-Tokyo configuration, it’s made conscious decisions to add distant cities that wouldn’t have heavy enough ridership to break even on operating costs. Why? To make it seem like a national system, not one limited to privileged areas.

There’s not a single area of the bullet train project in California where officials have been remotely as honest about how they made tough but potentially unpopular decisions. Instead, we see Jerry Brown’s pathetic drivel in which he mocks all skeptics as “declinists.”

3. Government competence. Japan by and large avoided Big Dig-like construction debacles while building a system so good at moving people around central Japan that much of the country feels like a Tokyo bedroom community. It carries 300 million passengers a year and some segments make big operating profits.

The blended plan epitomizes CA incompetence

In California, there is scarcely any evidence of comparable government competence. There are 10,000 examples, but one tells the whole story.

The main reason to have a bullet train is to swiftly and conveniently move a person from Point A to Point B.

But in the Golden State — under a plan that Jerry billed as saving the project from a public backlash by cutting its cost from $98 billion to $68 billion — a traveler on the bullet train network going from San Francisco to Los Angeles wouldn’t have such a straightforward journey. She would have to go from Point A to Point B to Point C to Point D.

Part one: Going on regular rail from San Francisco to Fresno.

Part two: Going on an actual bullet train from Fresno to the northern edge of the Los Angeles County exurbs.

Part three: Going on regular rail from north L.A. County to Union Station in L.A.

So the first hour and the last hour of the San Francisco-L.A. trip wouldn’t even be a bullet train experience.

Brilliant, Jerry, just brilliant.

So am I saying if the  shrewd Japanese government of the 1950s and 1960s had overseen Cali’s project, we’d be seeing much more defensible and reasonable results?

Not in the slightest.

Japanese leaders would have realized how stupid it is to push for a bullet train network in a spread-out state that symbolizes sprawl to the world. Not our numbskulls.

Those rules were formally published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2009. As I wrote in 2012, the regulations …

… require that applications for stimulus funds to build high-speed rail projects would be approved only after “rigorous analysis,” factoring in a careful examination of the proposed project’s “financial plan (capital and operating),” “reasonableness of financial estimates,” and “quality of planning process.” Grant recipients would make regular progress reports, corroborated by Federal Railroad Administration audits. Even the most cursory analysis shows that the California bullet train falls far short of compliance with the rules.

Nothing has changed since then, but the Federal Railroad Administration continues to depict the project as meeting all rules — even though the rail authority’s “financial plan” amounts to praying for vast new congressional funding and for vast new private investment, which will never be forthcoming without revenue guarantees, which are illegal under state law.

Now the Sac Bee reports another federal agency is abdicating on its responsibilities.

The federal Surface Transportation Board signed off construction of a 114-mile link for the state bullet train over the dissent of a board member who said “the majority’s primary focus seems to have been getting out of the Authority’s way.”

Board encourages disruptions it’s supposed to minimize

I read the entire ruling. In her dissent, member Ann D. Begeman — an Obama appointee — documents how federal regulators are rushing through the state’s requests for exemptions despite the sort of serious complaints that normally lead to further reviews and evidence-gathering.

The Surface Transportation Board is supposed to use its powers to minimize disruptions to existing transportation operations. As Begeman notes, the board’s actions make disruptions much more likely. Granting the exemption just …

… six weeks after the FRA issued its Record of Decision, could have very serious consequences and needlessly impose service disruptions on a key segment of our nation’s freight rail network and its shippers.

Significant portions of the freight rail network have been enduring service challenges since last winter. Addressing existing service problems, and preventing the occurrence of additional operational disruptions, should be foremost on the Board’s agenda. Instead, the majority largely ignores the concerns raised by the BNSF Railway Company, which operates a partially double-tracked freight rail line between Fresno and Bakersfield used by more than 40 trains per day. According to BNSF, “[t]he implications of locating the CHSRA line close to BNSF’s line are considerable and take a variety of forms, including impacts to BNSF’s ability to maintain and use all of its current right-of-way to support freight rail service; its ability to construct spurs to serve current and new industries; electromagnetic interference risks with signals and Positive Train Control Systems (PTC); and height clearance issues[.]”

The Authority and the carrier must reach an agreement to ensure freight service is not jeopardized as a result of this project. Yet, despite discussions between the parties since 2009, “BNSF’s questions have not been answered, leaving many uncertainties about construction and operational impacts of the proposed high speed line to BNSF and its customers.” The Board should have required the Authority to resolve its issues with BNSF before granting its approval. ….

Hospital: Promises made by rail authority not kept

Begeman also brings up the complaints from a well-known Bakersfield hospital:

Among the many other important matters raised by interested parties, the concerns expressed on behalf of Mercy Hospital, which remain largely unaddressed here, warrant attention. The proposed high-speed rail line would be located only 191 feet from the hospital … .

Mercy Hospital representatives argue that “[t]rains moving past the hospital at over 100 miles per hour will create noise, vibrations and disruptions to surgical procedures,” but “[t]he Rail Authority has not conducted the noise and vibration studies they promised to do, nor have they developed any mitigation plans for the impact of the trains on the hospital.” According to Dignity Health, which owns and operates Mercy Hospital, “[i]t appears obvious that the Authority believes it does not need to honor its promises to its stakeholders.”

Join the club, Mercy Hospital of Bakersfield. The California High-Speed Rail Authority doesn’t believe it needs to honor any of its promises to anyone.

I wrote about this for the U-T San Diego:

The decision of a state appeals court vacating a November ruling by a lower court that enjoined the California High-Speed Rail Authority from spending billions in already-approved bonds was immediately hailed as a huge victory for Gov. Jerry Brown and other advocates of the state’s bullet-train project.

But in the very first paragraph of the 49-page decision, the three judges on the appeals court declared that the “scope of our decision is quite narrow.” Their ruling said Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny had acted prematurely in invoking the protections included in Proposition 1A — the 2008 initiative providing $9.95 billion in bond seed money for the bullet train project — because his ruling was based on a preliminary business plan from the rail authority, not a finalized plan that can only take effect with the approval of the Legislature and other parties. …

Court affirms legal flaws of state’s plan

And what’s absolutely crucial about the appellate ruling is that it affirmed Kenny’s key findings.

The decision did not say Kenny was wrong to declare the rail authority had a financing plan that was deficient because it had failed to identify the $26 billion in funding it needed to complete the project’s 300-mile initial operating segment, as required by Proposition 1A. Instead, the judges agreed that voters ordered a “financial straitjacket” be put on the state to ensure the project’s “financial viability.” …

Nor did the decision say Kenny was wrong to declare the rail authority had inadequate environmental reviews for the 300-mile initial operating segment. Instead, it affirmed that the state must have “all the requisite environmental clearances before construction begins.” Once again, it only held that Kerry had acted prematurely by enjoining bond spending based on this requirement at this stage of the project.

If the state’s media hasn’t figured this out, it appears the rail authority has. It hardly went on a victory lap, contrary to authority board chair Dan Richard’s normal tendency to bluster and bully.

Associated Press: Two huge basic errors

I remain absolutely baffled by how the Associated Press’ Juliet Williams could get such basic facts wrong in her account.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A state appellate court on Thursday overturned two lower court rulings that had stalled funding for California’s $68 billion bullet train, handing a big win to the project and allowing the state to resume selling bonds to pay for it.

The court overturned rulings by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny last year in which he said the high-speed rail project no longer complies with the promises made to voters when they approved selling nearly $10 billion in bonds for it in 2008.

The ruling didn’t say the state could “resume selling bonds” at all. Instead, the opinion said …

“… bond funds cannot be committed and spent until the second and final funding plan is approved by the authority and submitted to the director of the Department of Finance and the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and an independent financial consultant prepares a report. This latter report is particularly significant in that the independent consultant must certify that construction can be completed as proposed and is suitable for high-speed rail [and that] the planned passenger train service will not require an operating subsidy.”

Nor did the appeals court say Kenny was wrong to hold the “project no longer complies with the promises made to voters.”

As noted above, the appeals court didn’t challenge his finding of deficiencies at all.

These aren’t trivial errors. AP owes its readers and clients a correction. Or corrections.

This is from the San Francisco Business Times of Feb. 28, 2013:

“This is an important ruling and is testament to the fact that the authority is committed to delivering the high-speed rail project in accordance with the law and in partnership with the public,” Jeff Morales, the authority’s CEO, said in a prepared statement. 

This is from Associated Press via the SJMN on Thursday:

“Today’s court ruling reaffirms our successful compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,” Lisa Marie Alley, a spokeswoman for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said in a written statement.

This praise for a lower-court judge is not the norm for the rail authority.

It’s been sharply — even comically — critical of Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny for his November ruling that the state had inadequate funding and environmental approvals to begin construction of the project’s initial $31 bilion, 300-mile segment. Kenny cited strict rules in Proposition 1A, the 2008 measure that provided $9.95 billion in seed money for the bullet train network.

Ruling could block ‘access’ to financial markets

Lawyers for the rail authority say Kenny doesn’t understand state law and is making judgments on the soundness of the project’s finances and its compliance with state law that should be left to the Legislature. They also said the fact that the court fight could severely delay the project was somehow a legal argument against it:

Forcing the authority to litigate the validity of the trial court’s ruling in separate appellate proceedings … could be disastrous both for the high-speed rail project and others like it.

And this is pretty incredible: State lawyers warn that putting tight legal safeguards on a really controversial infrastructure project could make it more difficult for California to borrow money! The decision …

... would effect a substantial change to a public finance system that has been allowing the state to access financial markets for decades, without providing any real alternative.

But there’s a problem. Kenny is also the guy who issued the February 2013 ruling that state officials like.

He’s a genius when he agrees with the rail authority. He’s a bozo when he doesn’t.

What really matters? What CA high court thinks

The same appellate court that upheld Kenny’s February 2013 ruling has until Aug. 24 or so to decide on the state’s appeals of his November 2013 rulings. At a May hearing, the appeals panel appeared sympathetic to the rail agency’s arguments.

If that is how it rules, that sets up a potentially huge appeal to the California Supreme Court.

The Brown administration’s position on Proposition 1A is pretty radical. It holds the courts can’t get in the way of big state projects because they’re … big — and really important!

It goes against the long history in California of propositions being battled over, and sometimes thrown out or reshaped, by the courts.

Paging Rose Bird, paging Rose Bird

Why should the execution of a transportation project established by state law be governed by the governor’s and the Legislature’s interpretation of state law, not the courts? Where’s the precedent for the judiciary being shunted aside on questions about the legality of a very high-profile public project?

If we are talking about the intent of the drafters of Prop. 1A, starting with Quentin Kopp, it is obvious they wanted the measure’s protections to really be protections — not meaningless campaign rhetoric.

If the California Supreme Court upholds an appellate ruling that says courts should butt out of big infrastructure projects, that is mind-boggling. I bet it would become a national topic.

Rose Bird the Sequel?

Maybe. Such a decision would make direct democracy seem like a sham. Never forget that the Legislature’s handling of the ballot language for Prop. 1A was so outrageous that it was emasculated by the courts and banned from any future direct writing of ballot language:

Now some appellate judges apparently think the same lame Legislature should interpret what 1A means, not the courts.

Really?

Remember, until January, Brown and rail authority board chairman Dan Richard had been dismissive of the huge court losses suffered by the state in August and November in Sacramento Superior Court.

In those decisions from Judge Michael Kenny — the first a tentative finding pending a state response, the second definitive — he held that the project would break state law if it used state funds on construction because it didn’t have enough money in hand to finish the 300-mile initial operating segment and because it had not completed adequate environmental reviews. Both requirements were laid out in the ballot language of the 2008 measure providing $9.95 billion in state bond money for the project.

CalWatchdog readers may have heard my theory that Brown has wanted to surreptitiously pull the plug on the troubled, almost-certainly doomed project since late last summer — just without getting any of the blame. Of late, the dean of the Sacramento press corps is offering up my theory, though typically without giving credit.

My theory tidily explains the bizarre actions of the rail authority’s legal team. Kenny’s August ruling identified the funding and enviro deficiencies with the state business plan, but in the state’s “remedies” brief, no remedies were offered to these deficiencies. This means the state didn’t challenge the fundamental finding of Kenny in August — that the state had an illegal business plan.

Without any challenge to his core findings, Kenny reaffirmed them in his November final decision. As noted above, Jerry pretended this was no big deal.

But then in January, the governor did his U-turn, demanding quick resolution to the project’s legal battles. The legal brief the AG’s office filed on behalf of the governor and the rail authority was strange, even insulting — essentially arguing that the courts had no standing to block a big state project.

Accelerating the legal ‘dominoes’

So why would Brown do this instead of just letting the doomed project play out — the course set in motion in the fall when the “remedies” brief offered by the state contained no remedies?

Here’s a theory that makes lots of sense: It wouldn’t hurt the gov’s strategy of trying to kill the project stealthily. But it would stymie a mini-revolt of Democratic elected officials who either have lost patience with the headache-riddled project or who perceived it as a political risk to keep backing the boondoggle.

“I heard … that there was about to be a revolt; but then the Gov. directed this writ to be filed and told everyone to shut up,” an insider told me in an email.

This didn’t stop Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom from bailing on the project on Feb. 15. But it apparently held off the mini-revolt by showing the governor wanted a decisive resolution of the issue.

Checkers vs. chess vs. barking dogs

The people covering Sacramento who are playing checkers buy the nominal narrative that this isn’t strategery, it’s just a legal fight playing out with no hidden motives.

The people covering Sacramento who are playing chess absolutely can see that asking for a swift resolution of legal challenges was driven by the motive of protecting at-risk Dem electeds from having to defend an insane project.

But my god, I have to hope that the people covering Sacramento who pay attention to the dogs that didn’t bark will eventually look at October’s smoking gun.

In August, Judge Kenny said the state’s business plan (Jerry Brown’s business plan) for the bullet train broke the law. In October, the state (Jerry Brown) responded essentially by saying, “OK, you make a good point, we’ll just use federal money for now.”

Yet three months later, the state (Jerry Brown) said the judge was nuts.

Hellllllllooooooo!

Hellllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

Sacramento media: Isn’t this, yunno, news?

Sheesh.

Dumb DE dumb dumb. Dumb de dumb dumb DUMB!

But he didn’t ask the question that blows a gaping hole in the side of the Good Ship Baloney that blustery Dan is piloting to depict a project still on track and facing minor challenges.

So here goes: This is the email I have sent to him.

Dec. 14, 2013

Dear Dan:

In Saturday’s Los Angeles Times, reporter Ralph Vartabedian wrote about Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny’s recent finding that the California High-Speed Rail Authority could not legally spend its state bond funds on construction of the bullet-train’s initial link because it didn’t have a legal business plan or sufficient environmental reviews. Vartabedian also wrote about a federal agency’s refusal to expedite a permit sought by the rail authority. I would like to ask you about this part of the story:

“Dan Richard, chairman of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, countered that the recent setbacks to the bullet train — connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco with 220 mph trains — represent normal challenges encountered by giant, visionary public works projects.

“In a recent debate on public radio, he characterized the legal problems as largely procedural and suggested that ‘crossing the Ts and dotting the I’s’ would resolve the issues.

“Claims of a ‘major setback are wildly overstated,’ he said.”

My question is this: If the obstacles presented by Kenny’s ruling are “largely procedural,” then why was the rail authority unable to address and resolve them after Kenny’s initial Aug. 16 ruling that the project didn’t have adequate financing or complete environmental reviews for the $31 billion, 300-mile initial operating segment? From Aug. 16 to Kenny’s release of his final ruling on Nov. 25, the rail authority had 101 days to take care of the judge’s objections. It never did.

Now you describe these objections as “largely procedural.”

I look forward to your explanation as to why these obstacles are all but trivial, yet the rail authority was unable to take care of them over the 14 weeks and three days from Kenny’s initial ruling to his final ruling.

Sincerely,

Chris Reed

cc: Ralph Vartabedian; Mike Rosenberg

“Prop 1A’s flaws include the ban on operating subsidies and the requirement that all funding be identified before construction on a segment begins, as well as the smaller size of the overall bond authorization.”

Cruickshank never acknowledges that it is only because of these taxpayer protections that the project narrowly passed. Meanwhile, in the comment sections, posters angrily trash Judge Kenny’s ruling, ignoring the fact that at the November “remedies” hearing, the state Attorney General’s Office didn’t dispute his conclusion that the project didn’t have close to adequate financing or environmental reviews to begin construction.

But it seems to be sinking in with Cruickshank that the federal spigot has been turned off and that Congress won’t be coming to the rescue with the massive cash infusion the project needs. So how does he want to revive his beloved bullet train? With $29 billion in new taxes and a grab of $13 billion in cap-and-trade fees as AB 32 gears up. Among the money grabs he envisions:

“• An increase in the gas tax of 6 cents per gallon for 20 years

“• Road tolls of $4 per vehicle on six highways that parallel high-speed rail as it enters the Bay Area and Southern California

“• An $8.50 increase in the annual vehicle license fee (VLF) for 20 years”

Cruickshank completely ignores the fact that polls show Californians have turned on the bullet train. Oh, yeah, they’re going to love paying $29 billion in new taxes for a poorly managed, deceit-ridden project that won’t even go from Los Angeles to San Francisco — just from San Jose to northern L.A. County.

What is about rail — from light rail to bullet trains — that brings out such delusional and cultlike behavior? I think at least part of it is the greens’ hate of automobiles (or other folks’ automobiles). But I don’t think that’s all of it.

“SACRAMENTO — Critics and many political observers might see California’s bullet train project as nearly dead, but state officials made clear Thursday that the train is still heading down the rails at full speed.

“Under siege following court rulings, Dan Richard, the chairman of the state’s High-Speed Rail Authority, said the state still plans to break ground as early as next month on the largest public works project in California history.

“Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny decided last week that nearly $8.6 billion in bond money California needs to construct the first section of the rail line are off limits until the state proves it can pay for the $68.4 billion project. The only other cash the state has to finance the project is $3.3 billion in federal funds that are also at risk because of the rulings.

“But Richards insisted to reporters Thursday that ‘nothing in those rulings changes our ability to move forward. We’re ready to build this project.'”

Authority had three months to fix financing plan, but couldn’t

While the Merc-News’ coverage was easily the best among state media outlets, it left out a key point. This is from what I wrote last week about the Sacramento Bee’s editorial that anticipated (pre-echoed?) the rail authority’s talking points:

Then why didn’t they do so the first time the judge asked? They had 12 weeks.

Because the state is $25 billion shy of the $31 billion it needs to have a legal business plan — one in which solid financing is in place to build the first 300 miles of the project, as is required by state law.

And $25 billion is a big number that can’t be finessed. Dan Richard’s and Jeff Morales’ spin is laughable in more than one sense of the word. It’s funny as evidence of the extremes of their denial, and it’s funny for its sheer stinking dishonesty.

Thanks, Dan, thanks, Jeff. You’re good for something.

The first ruling was predictable, unless you were one of those who wondered whether Kenny “had the [deleted]” to make the logical follow-through on his Aug. 16 ruling that the project’s business plan was illegal. The second ruling was a jaw-dropper, in that the government “bond validation” process is usually so pro forma. Sharp insider types I heard from Monday said they literally could not remember any government bond anywhere in the U.S. being thwarted this way.

But even though the Associated Press account of Kenny’s decisions made it seem possible that the project could be back on track with “months,” it’s just not so.

The completion of environmental reviews is hugely daunting. As pointed out by Michael J. Brady, the attorney for Kings County and other plaintiffs, “It’s taken [the state five years to get environmental clearance for] 28 miles, so how long will it take them to do 300 miles?”

Unfortunately, there could be shenanigans that cleared the way for the approvals, such as state and federal exemptions.

The money can’t be funny: $25 billion shortfall not finessable

But the funding shortfall can’t be finessed. The state began with a $9.95 billion in bond seed money from 2008’s Proposition 1A. Then it got $3.4 billion in federal funds from the Obama administration. Since then, it’s either spent or committed to spend about $7 billion of those funds. The $6 billion or so left is $25 billion short of what the state estimates the first segment will cost to build.

Judge Kenny ruled Aug. 16 that state law required the state to have solid financing in place before construction could begin. He reaffirmed that view Monday. And in between, in a peculiar state filing, Attorney General Kamala Harris didn’t disagree, offering a “remedies” brief that offered no remedies for the project’s financial deficiencies.

So as a practical matter, we have a project that doesn’t have a legal funding plan, and it’s not just a rogue judge who thinks so, it’s the state’s top law-enforcement official — someone who backs the bullet train and has for years.

But can it have a legal funding plan?

Theoretically, sure. But realistically, I don’t see how, and I don’t just say that as a project hater. Consider the possibilities:

— The congressional spigot has been turned off. In the sequester era, domestic discretionary funding is squeezed to the max. And another point that is rarely made is that it’s not just House Republicans who want federal funds for California’s bullet train eliminated. It’s also Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., who has fought to end this Golden State pork for years.

— The state doesn’t have the money for the project. Cheerful Mac Taylor may choose to simply ignore the state’s pension and retiree health-care obligations in evaluating the state’s finances, but not everyone is that obtuse.

— Private investors aren’t forthcoming. As the very first business plan for the project noted, they expected the state government to share their investment risk. But that’s not legal under Prop. 1A, because it amounts to a guarantee of a subsidy if revenue falls short.

So who could come to rescue? Maybe the real Big Red

So how could the initial operating segment be built? I don’t see anything that’s got even a 0.5 percent chance — except for The Beijing Scenario.

Three years ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger acted as if it were a realistic possibility that China might want to help pay for California’s bullet-train project, and this Bloomberg News article went along with his premise. In discussions with a New York Times reporter, Chinese authorities seemed to encourage Arnold.

It never came to pass. But the buzz as to why Beijing might want to play sugar daddy to a cute U.S. chick was entertaining and faintly plausible.

Having the United States’ economic archenemy help build a huge, futuristic project in the richest, most populous and most famous U.S. state could be a gigantic image and public-relations windfall for China. It could make China look potent and high-tech and the U.S. impotent and pathetic.

But it didn’t happen in 2010 and I struggle to see any way it could happen now. For all the obvious reasons: $25 billion is a huge gift for anyone, even an economic superpower; it wouldn’t play well domestically in China, where a rising middle class would prefer the money be spent to reduce pollution and gridlock; it could backfire on PR grounds if critics portrayed it as a wealthy nation being played for a fool by an even-wealthier nation.

But there’s also this: After all the insanity of the past five years from the California High-Speed Rail Authority — the lies, the deceit, the self-delusion, the braying and bluster of authority board chair Dan Richard — who on Earth would want to be the authority’s partner?

Beijing is not dumb. Or at least not dumb enough to want to subsidize a project as ridiculously flawed as the California bullet train.

So join me in a toast to the demise of the dreaded state high-speed rail system. Yum. That Vanilla Coke Zero really hits the spot.

I’ll always remember where I was on Nov. 25, 2013, when I first heard that the bullet train died.