Supes should learn from the past
Dear Editor,
Regarding the fair and balanced reporting of Kollin Kosmicki and the photo of the serenity of San Benito County, our supervisors need to cough up the dust of the past. The remedy is the fresh air and sunshine of the future. No more sprawl.
Supervisors worry about a potential hit to property taxes. We, taxpayers, already subsidize the cattle landowners. They pay fewer taxes than us. The subsidy is called the Williamson Act. Why not allow them to pay taxes? That should bring happiness to the supervisors and change attitudes concerning price tags on open space.
We’ve already learned from the past that housing development and sprawl impacts our water, clean air, schools, and health. We the people know that developing our city’s empty spaces reduces energy used for transportation, and consumption. More dense cities reduce the cost of providing water, sewer, gas and electric services.
Have the supervisors noticed the strength of the wind funneling in from the coast to the valley near and around the airport? Why not focus on the future of wind power in the county? Please supervisors focus on the future. Learn from the past. Don’t repeat it.
Mary Zanger, Hollister
Bullet train should be halted
Dear Editor,
HSR is supposed to start construction in the Central Valley in September, 2012. The Authority’s cost estimates as of 2009 indicated that they barely had enough money to complete that part of the project, which was estimated to cost $7 billion in 2009. But, this month, the CHSRA released its own environmental impact reports for the central valley, and those contained new cost estimates, and they have SOARED.
Instead of costing $7 billion, the CV segment is now estimated to cost between $10 billion and $14 billion–a 50%-100% increase!
The problem is that the Authority only has about 50% of the money it will need to complete the CV segment, and there is little prospect that more funds will be forthcoming.
The Authority currently has only about $6 billion in combined federal and state funds (assuming that the project is eligible to receive Prop 1A bond funds, which is questionable). Given the mood of Congress, and the national debt situation, there is little likelihood of additional federal money; ditto for the state.
Why should the project be allowed to start AT ALL if they only have half the money to complete it? If you allow it to start, it will be abandoned, with no further funding, with untold damages to the valley (blight, properties cut in half, loss of value) and damage to the financial standing of the state. The feds will take no further interest in the project (highly likely), and California will be left holding the bag.
The remedy: halt the project; refuse to issue/sell Prop 1A bonds. This cuts our losses and potentially rescues the State from a $150 billion plus nightmare which will never pay for itself.
Michael J. Brady, Redwood City
