Is another NFL team joining the Rams in Los Angeles? 

Good morning. TGIF. Just because we rarely get the opportunity, today we’ll start with sports. 

The St. Louis Rams may have once again become the Los Angeles Rams, capping off the biggest suspense story in the National Football League, but the controversy over the city’s final lineup of teams has flared up yet again.

In San Diego, where the Chargers have gone down to the wire with city officials on a possible move that once looked like a done deal, the next twist depends on voters. 

Although analysts and fans have cautioned that one NFL team may be plenty for Los Angeles, especially so soon on the heels of the Rams’ return, the stadium deal holding the Chargers’ future in the balance has failed to rally popular support.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “Los Angeles may be the latest opponent of a proposed bullet train route through San Fernando Valley horse country. Councilman Paul Krekorian has filed a motion to oppose an above-ground high-speed rail route fought by residents from Lake View Terrace to Shadow Hills, who say the foothills train would destroy the environment, kill horse-related businesses and put an end to an equestrian way of life. The Los Angeles Daily News has more.

• “A national gun control group that helped write California’s Proposition 63 released a study Thursday indicating that thousands of felons disqualified from owning guns are keeping their firearms in this state and most others because of the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

• “One published media report this month said the campaign to legalize marijuana in California had raised $18 million. Within days, other major news outlets pegged the total at just one-third that amount, while a nonprofit campaign watchdog group said the figure was $11 million. Why the conflicting numbers?” The Orange County Register has more. (We can tell you part of the problem is the Secretary of State’s confusing and redundant website.)

• LA Weekly explains every ballot measure in haiku. Our favorite is for Prop. 66:

  “If you want the state
  To execute more people
  This one is for you”
• And The Weekly Standard writes that U.S. Senate candidate Loretta Sanchez’s strategy to unite Latinos and Republicans could be the playbook for future campaigns.  

Legislature:

• Gone ’til December. 

Gov. Brown:

• Will attend Native American Day celebration at the Capitol in Sacramento. Approximately 11:30 a.m.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @ethanmcbride031

Under previous plans, the route linking the Los Angeles area to the Central Valley, Silicon Valley and San Francisco would either have bisected the heavily populated parts of the San Fernando Valley, cutting through Sylmar, Pacoima, Santa Clarita and San Fernando, or gone through a more rural part of the San Fernando Valley, affecting thousands of acres of equestrian lands and estates.

Now the rail authority proposes to instead mostly tunnel under valley communities. Two of its proposed new routes would see the bullet train go underground south of Pacoima and come out north of Santa Clarita. A third, more conventional route would still go above-ground through Lakeview Terrace, Shadow Hills and Sun Valley.

The change initially drew an ecstatic response from one local official. San Fernando Mayor Joel Fajardo called the revisions “absolutely phenomenal” in an interview with the Los Angeles Daily News just after learning of the changes.

But as more information came out, others were far more skeptical. At a San Fernando Valley Council of Governments meeting on Thursday, critics offered many objections. The new route would still have what were deemed unacceptable impacts on Shadow Hills and Sun Valley. A Santa Clarita official said that while the new plan was a big improvement, his city’s position remained that the bullet train should be underground the entire 40 miles-plus from Palmdale to Burbank, not just the approximately 22 to 24 miles from north of Santa Clarita to south of Pacoima. Environmentalists also said the new routes would likely harm two endangered species in the Angeles National Forest.

Underground tunneling: $1 billion a mile?

Rail authority officials provided no detailed information on another aspect of the proposed change: how it would affect the cost of the $64 billion project. Under previous routes, there would have been the need to have about 20 miles of the bullet train go underground. The new plan would only add a few more miles underground. But since it would require going under heavily populated areas — in addition to still having to go through mountains — that would likely add to the complexity of what the Los Angeles Times has described as “the most ambitious tunneling project in the nation’s history.”

By some accounts, underground systems cost about nine times as much as above-ground rail per mile. Details matter with individual projects — cost of land, difficulty of engineering, how many changes must be made to limit effects on the public, etc. A 2013 survey found underground railroad construction costs ranged from $357 million per mile in Sao Paulo, Brazil, to $960 million per mile in Singapore.

The Southern California tunnel seems likely to have a price tag on the high end. If it were to match the price in Singapore, that means at least $21 billion would have to be spent to go from north of Santa Clarita to south of Pacoima — about a third of the tab for the entire project. If the entire Palmdale-to-Burbank route were underground, that would mean at least $38 billion would be needed.

The rail authority is now preparing for construction of the first segment of the bullet train from the Central Valley to Silicon Valley. Plans for the first link to go from the Central Valley to San Fernando Valley were dropped by the state in February, mostly because the new plan is cheaper and would likely face less local criticism.

The state is still struggling to identify how it will come up with funds to build a statewide project; private investors want revenue guarantees that are illegal under state law. Lawsuits also question the project’s legality. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office also recently weighed in with a report saying it was difficult to gauge bullet-train progress because the rail authority keeps making major changes in its plans.

Rail authority board chairman Dan Richard described the change in plans as being driven by practicality: Having the first segment go from Kern County to San Jose instead of Fresno to Burbank allows the authority more certainty in being able to complete an initial segment. The old plan was for a difficult, partly mountainous 300-mile route costing $31 billion. The new plan is for a flat 250-mile route costing about $20 billion.

This allows for “a transition from planning and initial construction to being able to stand up and say we have federal funding, bond money, cap-and-trade revenue, and that those funds are sufficient for us to build, open and operate the first real high-speed rail leg in California,” Richard said at the news conference announcing the changes.

L.A.-area route risked mass political defections

But there is also evidence that the rail authority feared that if it continued with the original plan, it would face a political Waterloo. The state project had already lost the crucial support of some Los Angeles-area politicians and risked losing far more — starting with state Senate President Kevin de Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.

In 2014 and 2015, throughout the San Fernando Valley, grass-roots opposition to the state’s planned route built steadily. Some Latino activists said the bullet train’s effects would be so harsh on working-class minority communities that it should be a civil rights issue because the train and its 20-foot-high sound wall would bisect the San Fernando Valley in a way that would disrupt traffic, business patterns, schools, transit and everyday life.

At a May 2015 town-hall meeting, rail authority officials heard impassioned pleas to take their project elsewhere.

“Our community’s history has been riddled with displacement. My family has all its roots here. I want my grandchildren to grow up here, understanding how great a place it is. We like where we live,” testified San Fernando resident Genaro Ayala, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

But at that meeting, Richard downplayed the impacts to the crowd. Lou Correa, a veteran Democratic politician from Orange County appointed to the rail authority board in March 2015, said he detected “NIMBYism” in the complaints. That sparked a furious response from local residents, who said that rich communities used similar tactics to block projects they didn’t like, and that it was outrageous for anyone to suggest opposition was reflexive instead of driven by concern about impacts on their neighborhoods.

This public anger has translated into political support. As CalWatchdog reported last year, many public officials have been sharply critical of much or all of the project. The most prominent initial opponents included Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, and Rep. Judy Chu, D-El Monte, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents much of the affected part of the county, and San Fernando Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Ballin and Councilman Jaime Soto. Now the list also includes elected leaders from Sylmar, Santa Clarita, Shadow Hills, Lakeview Terrace and other Valley communities. In December, Assemblywoman Patty Lopez, D-San Fernando, dropped her official support.

Did Rep. Schiff pressure Obama administration?

Schiff is the heavy hitter of the crowd because of his willingness to use his good relationship with the Obama administration to pressure the federal government, the state government’s de facto partner in the high-speed rail project because of $3 billion-plus provided in federal funds and because of the many federal regulatory approvals still needed.

A year ago, for example, he made headlines in the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys when he ripped the National Parks Service for delays in completing promised studies involving the Angeles National Forest. That led the Save Angeles Forest for Everyone group, known as SAFE, to urge Schiff to pressure federal officials to seek changes in the bullet-train route, starting with plans for a mountain tunnel.

It’s not known what, if anything, the veteran Democrat did. But the California High Speed Rail Blog, home to the project’s most ardent defenders, expressed deep concern in January 2015 that Schiff’s opposition to the state’s plans “is going to make it very difficult for such a tunnel to be built. Other Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation will likely defer to Schiff on this, leaving the CHSRA with even fewer allies for a tunnel in the unlikely event they chose that alternative.”

However it came to pass, Schiff got his way, and, for now, his district is safe from disruption.

That’s why Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents much of the affected region, has long pushed rail officials to build a 15-mile-long tunnel under the San Gabriel Mountains for the Palmdale-Burbank link. Rail officials have agreed to consider the request, but no one familiar with the project’s finances considers that feasible because of the extreme cost. Underground rail lines built in recent years around the world cost from $400 million to $600 million per kilometer — or about $650 million to $975 million a mile. And that’s for projects that are far less daunting than tunneling through a mountain in an area of frequent seismic activity. Such a tunnel would balloon the project’s present $68 billion estimated cost.

But local opposition grew even stronger a year ago this month when state officials pushed up construction plans for the Burbank-Palmdale link. This was hailed by former Assemblyman Richard Katz, a Los Angeles Democrat, as a “game changer” that would build support for the project: “The visibility will make it real and people can see where their tax dollars are being spent.”

Elected officials lead furious protest

The decision may indeed have been a “game changer” — but not in the way Katz expected. At a raucous community hearing last week in the city of San Fernando, rail authority officials were overwhelmed by the vehemence of community opposition. This is from the Los Angeles Times:

Protestors … took over an open house meeting held by the California High-Speed Rail Authority. They demanded that state officials answer questions about the project’s impact on their community.

 

But unlike typical protests, this one was led by elected officials. Seventy people, headed by the city’s mayor pro tem and other current and former city officials, marched into a city auditorium and set up their own public address system.

 

With their Police Department on hand, they confronted state officials with anger that has not been seen even in the virulent opposition to the project in Northern California or the Central Valley.

 

“The bottom line is you are not really welcome,” Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Ballin told state officials, whose plans call for bisecting the small working-class city with high sound walls that the city fears will become an eyesore and magnet for graffiti.

 

“We will lose in the city $1.3 million annually as a result of your brilliant planning,” she said, referring to projected losses of tax revenue when businesses shut down. “We are here to tell you we will not accept it quietly, not one bit.” …

Protesters rip refusal to answer questions

San Fernando Valley residents’ objections went far beyond the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s plans.

Stunned state officials stood stone-faced at the protest, refusing to answer questions that Ballin and other city officials and residents asked.

 

“The route would destroy this community, splitting it north to south,” City Manager Brian Saeki said in an interview. …

 

Protesters said they would not accept the state’s way of conducting meetings on the project, which includes refusing to allow residents to ask questions during an open forum.

 

“We say no,” San Fernando Councilman Jaime Soto told state officials from his microphone. “This is not your regular meeting. You are a guest here.”

‘You are not going to displace our families’

The intensity of the opposition isn’t the only factor that Gov. Jerry Brown, the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the trade unions backing the project have to fear. It’s the likelihood that this fight will be framed as David vs. Goliath — specifically Latino David vs. white, establishment Goliath. The cities of San Fernando and Pacoima have been hotbeds of the most intense opposition to the project. San Fernando is nearly 90 percent Latino; Pacoima is 86 percent Latino. Activists like Xanaro Ayala characterize the fight as being a continuation of the indignities Latinos have faced: “We have seen this before when they’ve built the freeways and divided up our community. We are saying, “[No to the state government], you are not going to displace our families,” he said at the rail authority open house.

This framing and rhetoric touches on an open wound in Los Angeles’ civic history: What happened in the 1950s some 20 miles southeast of San Fernando in the then-semi-rural Chavez Ravine community, a scenic area of rolling hills just south of Elysian Park. Beginning in 1950, the city started using eminent domain to clear out the 1,000 mostly Latino families in the community to allow construction of a federal public housing project, with promises that they would have the first chance to move into the new units when they were built.

But in 1958, the Dodgers moved from Brooklyn to Los Angeles, and team owner Walter O’Malley thought Chavez Ravine was an ideal site for a new baseball stadium. This led L.A. officials to renege on their promise of a public housing project with homes for displaced Latino families, clearing the way for the construction and then the 1962 opening of Dodgers Stadium — prompting years of bitter protests and creating what is widely seen as one of the darkest chapters in L.A. history.

This history is likely to be invoked regularly by residents of San Fernando, Pacoima and other mostly Latino communities in fighting a state project that they believe would destroy their way of life.

By Chris Reed

So let’s get this framed correctly: California is the leader in a form of home entertainment that is immensely popular around America and the world, for better or worse. If California adopts rules that wipe this industry out, it is 100 percent certain to move to other other states and continue flourishing — and with the same seemingly minor health downsides that led the Golden State to push the industry away. So moral posturing by California leaders will achieve nothing but destroying jobs and driving an unsavory but legal and very profitable state industry to other states and nations.

Stupid, right?

But this is California. Stupid moralistic posturing is what we do best.

So first Los Angeles County voters declared war on this industry. And now, according to the Contra Costa Times, a lawmaker thinks that it is the state Legislature’s turn.

“Assemblyman Isadore Hall III, D-Los Angeles, announced he’s holding a news conference … to introduce a bill requiring condom use in all adult films produced in California.

“Hall will be joined by Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Darren James, a former adult film actor who contracted HIV while working in the porn industry. The assemblyman’s news release said his bill would ‘provide statewide uniformity needed to ensure that the thousands of actors employed in this multi-billion dollar industry are given reasonable workplace safety protections needed to reduce exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.’

“About 57 percent of Los Angeles County voters in November approved Measure B, requiring the use of condoms in all adult films produced within the county.

“The Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation conducts regular screenings of porn performers, which has minimized the spread of HIV and other diseases. But James was believed to have contracted the virus during a film shoot in Brazil, and transmitted it to several actresses here in California before he tested positive a few weeks later in 2004.”

Notice the economic ignorance on display in Hall’s legislation, specifically the presumption that “this multi-billion dollar industry” will stay in California once it faces regulations that are unusual in its niche field and that won’t be the norm elswhere.

Posturing vs. facts vs. unexpected consequences

But Sacramento is so mindbogglingly stupid that recent governors and a majority of legislators believe higher energy costs are good for the economy, so who knows? Maybe they think smut will bloom once it is micromanaged by state bureaucrats.

Here’s what the rational people sound like — namely, the First Amendment defender, the Libertarian Party official, the businessmen and the physicians who wrote the ballot statement against Los Angeles County’s condom measure:

“Every single actor is tested at least monthly. In 8 years, not one has contracted HIV on a set anywhere in the U.S. In fact, by driving film productions underground where there is no testing and no industry regulations, actors would be less safe, not more.”

No real health issues? Possible unexpected consequences? Who cares! Let’s regulate.

As a libertarian, I feel like this is a no-brainer. I honestly would be surprised if any rational person of any ideology who detaches the factual details (exaggerated problem, ease of industry exit, legality of conduct) from the moral preening (it’s porn!) thinks a Los Angeles County or state ban makes sense. I know they might not say this in public because it’s easily smearable and easily mocked. But in their heart of hearts, or their brain of brains, smart people have to know it’s true.

Jobs are good. Losing jobs? Bad.

Duh.