Comments on: Taxes, taxes and more taxes

By: John W.

John W. — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:21:52 +0000

Prop. 11 — Redistricting

Given the state’s financial condition, voters are likely to be in a “vote no” mood for just about anything except a few locally popular items. Justifiably so. I hope redistricting doesn’t get lost in the shuffle.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:01:35 +0000

Martin,

The “it will cost three times as much” figure you cite is derived from assuming that Caltrain upgrades cost 5 times more than they actually do. You’re parroting lies from the anti-Caltrain group that you and your Menlo Park/Atherton neighbors set up. Your figures have been totally debunked as complete fabrications – the very Caltrain project that you cite has a unit cost that is 5 times less than you claimed. Just ask your friend Morris Brown.

By: ted ford

ted ford — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:04:46 +0000

$19 billion or $100 billion, this does not seem to be California’s most pressing need.

By: Robert Cruickshank

Robert Cruickshank — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:45:57 +0000

Why frame this as “taxes, taxes, and more taxes”? Wouldn’t it be just as accurate to say “services, services, and more services”? It seems misleading to list the cost of the taxes but not tally the value to the voter of the services the taxes purchase. It’s not as if those taxes just disappear into a black hole…

By: Lisa Vorderbrueggen

Lisa Vorderbrueggen — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:52:41 +0000

No worries!

The high-speed rail is absolutely a very interesting issue and one that I know the newspaper will be watching closely.

By: Martin Engel

Martin Engel — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:41:02 +0000

And, now that we are good friends, permit me to suggest that you examine Proposition #1 more closely. As you may know, AB3034 was passed by the Legislature to “correct” all the egregious errors in the original bond language. Even as a package, there is still nowhere near enough information for voters to make an informed decision. For example, the voters will not know that the $9.95 is only a foot in the door. They don’t know that the projected costs for the SF to LA segment will cost — their number — $33 billion, or that the entire train from Sacramento to San Diego will cost — without inflation — $45 billion. We can already safely predict it will be three times that much.

There are three major population centers in the state, Sacramento, Oakland and San Diego, that may never, ever see this train. Do those voters understand that?

So, Lisa (I got it right this time), I turn to you to set this right and let your readers know the realities behind the empty rhetoric.

And, warm regards,

Martin

By: Martin Engel

Martin Engel — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:25:42 +0000

It’s Lisa, not Linda. Please forgive a stupid old man for such an ungracious error.

Martin

By: Lisa Vorderbrueggen

Lisa Vorderbrueggen — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:05:14 +0000

Martin,
To start, it’s Lisa, not Linda, which is entirely okay since I messed up.

I had a bad number in my Excel spreadsheet. I fixed it and fixed the figures above! Thanks for the save!

Lisa v.

By: Martin Engel

Martin Engel — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:58:46 +0000

Linda, where did you get the $19.4 billion figure for the high-speed train? That number contradicts the paragraph under it where you correctly state that the bond issue is for $9.95 billion. However, you are correct insofar as every dollar borrowed through bonds will cost the taxpayers two dollars of repayment in interest and principal over the life of the bond. And, what your article fails to point out is that the $9.95 billion is merely the entry fee for getting into the high speed train game.
The final costs for this boondoggle may be as much as $100 billion or more and they have no idea where that’s going to come from. Can you guess where?