Comments on: November 4 2008 General Election: Proposition 1A

By: Laura Espinoza

Laura Espinoza — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:16:23 +0000

I had already done this blog before, and I said that I support the ideas behind Prop 1A, but do not think I would vote for it because of the current economic crisis.
Well, voting already happened, Prop 1A already passed, so in rewriting my blog I would rather focus on it how it is currently. Since Prop 1A already passed, we may as well look at the positive outcomes. This train will provide an alternative to many people who travel this distance for business reasons. It will also create many jobs, which is something that we should look forward to. It will help the environment and save people time and money. It could help ease traffic. In the end, the train will have been a great investment. Plus, the money is in bonds, so it’s not like they will have to be paid back right now.

By: LaStarza Bryant

LaStarza Bryant — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:22:52 +0000

Proposition A seems to be a good prop to me. It makes since and seems like it will get what California need done. Seeing how populative California is i think we can accomplish this deal, just look how much money we bring in compared to any other state! Though i can see why everyone would just turn this down, and we don’t need to be in more of a depth than we are now, so most likely the best thing to do is to just wait for more opportunities to show to us, that will give us a sure-fire way to fix our economy

By: **iAn*oLaZaBa**

**iAn*oLaZaBa** — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:53:36 +0000

Eventough the state is really trying to make the comunity better like keeping the streets clean and taking pollution to a lower level it is a pretty bad time to borrow money. We are already in so much dept that people are losing their things like houses, cars, businesses, etc.
My votewill go towards the negative side of this proposition but if the state decides to so borrow money for the better being of the state i will not go to much against it.

By: clay

clay — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 03:26:33 +0000

Like most of you, I will have a difficult time voting yes on this proposition, because of our current economic crisis. With the federal bailout of Wall Street and now California potentially asking the federal government to bail them out, I am not comfortable pack on the debt.

However, we do need projects like this to create jobs and expand the economy. Therefore, there may be a project out there that I would vote for even if we have to borrow to build it.

By: Brett Hansen

Brett Hansen — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:09:02 +0000

Personaly I would enjoy seeing a super speed train because of mostly the speed and proof of technology advances of it but i would have to vote no on it mainly for the fact that california can’t afford it at this time and even if we could it isnt a for sure that it will ever be completed. the pros of it are very convincing, it would be fun to have such a quick and safe form of transportation but it doesnt seem cost effective and it doesnt seem like it would cut back on very much gas because of the fact that i dont think it would be all that popular if it only goes an small ammount of places.

Dragracekid

By: Molly Lift

Molly Lift — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:06:18 +0000

I would NOT vote for Prop 1A because its not really necessary for us to have a train that goes from San Fransisco to LA. We have much larger issues at hand here, and a train should not be one of our big worries. We could use the billions of dollars they want to spend on a train on more important things, such as education. College funding is ridiculously low, and they keep cutting the budget, but they want to spend billions on a train? California needs to get its priorities straight.

By: Whitnee like duh =p

Whitnee like duh =p — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:59:58 +0000

The points made by the article about proposition 1A are all valid and I am well aware of the financial crisis effecting Americans world wide however I feel commencing the construction of a train that drives from Los Angeles (LA) to San Francisco (SF) is a beneficial endeavor. As the price of gas goes up so does the demand for public transportation, consentient of prop 1A is doing just that by giving the public what they want.
The train may seem to be a burden to the economy right now but the benefits of the operation outweigh the initial $647 million per year sacrifice. The first way the high-speed passenger train project helps the economy is by providing jobs to the thousands of construction out of work due to the halt in constriction.
The second benefit is in the area of gas, proposals like proposition 1A alleviate some of the dependency we Americans have on foreign fuel by providing other means of transportation. The train can also spur the economy by attracting tourrist to come in spend money in not only the large cities like LA and SF but surrounding ones as well.
The third benefit is that the train provides both construction jobs during the train is being built and maintenance jobs for after the train is built. Based on the data given, i am confident to say that i support prop 1A because of the benefits it gives to Americans.

By: ((mAdaLyN guerRerO))

((mAdaLyN guerRerO)) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:52:50 +0000

CALIFORNIA DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY!!!! America is in a rescission right now and cannot afford to use 19.4 billion of the little money we do have to support Prop 1A. Yes the idea is a great one because it can reduce the chaos on the roads, minimize air pollution, and bring more job opportunities. Prop 1A may possibly bring pollution down, but that it. If it is passed it will accentually cause California to lose money because the cost of the trains itself is about 4 million dollars maybe even more, and the yearly maintenance of the train will eventually add up!

So to answer the question would I vote for Proposition 1A, the answer is “NO”. “Why” I would not vote for 1A is because California cannot afford to lose money right now. Prop 1A in no way would bring profit because of the fact that it will take about 30 years to pay off (2039), that just is an idiotic move. To support this proposition is like to elect president Bush for another term; complete an utter disaster.

By: Dominick Do "Thats Toe-riffic!!!"

Dominick Do "Thats Toe-riffic!!!" — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:40:10 +0000

I Think I would have to say no to Proposition 1a. We are already in a debt crisis, so we shouldn’t be spending much anyways. Especially since the economy is going crazy right now we should be cautious and thoughtful of where our money is going to. If we weren’t in such a huge debt and the banking crisis didn’t happen I would be happy to vote yes for it but unfortunately that’s not the situation. It would take too long for us to gain profit from the train, and right now if we are going to invest into building something, that something should be cheap and able to make profit fast because we can’t afford to wait around, time is money after all.

By: DeNaye Mack

DeNaye Mack — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:40:02 +0000

I would vote no on this proposition because I believe it is a huge waste of the taxpayers money. That money could be used for more useful projects. With our economy in crisis, we need to be smart with where we put our money. Instead of making rail line that money could be used to fix the free way problem instead. That would benefit many more Americans, who have problems getting to work. I think that putting that 9.95 billion dollars towards the free way problem, or towards education would benefit our state way more. This train is more a luxury than a necessity. I’m sure it would make traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles a lot easier, but come on, how man Californians would really benefit from that train? Think about it percentage-wise I’m sure it is very miniscule. I think Californians need more help getting from lets say “Pomona to West Covina” than they do traveling over 300 miles. People don’t have the money to vacation, and it seems more of a vacation type of trip than anything else.