More housing, less choo-choo

Brightline train, Virgin Trains USA //  photo by Patrickhamiltonbrightline

Although I am against subsidies for housing, or most of anything else for that matter, let's do this sensibly if we're going to be doing this at all.

I don't mind trains. In fact, I kind of like trains. But I don't like forcing taxpayers to pay for them. The state is undergoing a massive housing shortage coupled with high demand for housing. So naturally, our benevolent overlords in Sacramento are shifting bond money from affordable housing to a train running from Apple Valley (where?) to Vegas. People are homeless and families struggling to cope with the cost of living. "TRAINS!" the political brain trust concludes. After all, California's train projects all go so well.

Granted, this Apple Valley to Vegas train is a private line so it won't get bogged down in bureaucracy and leadership facing minimal repercussions for cost overruns. At the same time, if Virgin Trains, a private company, wants to build a line there, why should taxpayers and people struggling with housing costs have to pay for it? Let Virgin Trains finance their own train line. If they can't make it pencil on their own, it probably wasn't a great idea to begin with.

In shockingly unschocking fashion, the government actors and the cronies that feed them sound off.

From the Bloomberg article, Virgin Trains's VP Ben Porritt said "Developing rail between Southern California and Las Vegas provides a tremendous public benefit beyond transportation by generating jobs, tax revenue and housing."

An "economic analysis" commissioned by the company was provided stating thousands of construction workers would be employed and 600 employed after completion. Yeah, thousands of people could also be employed by building a giant shit statue, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea. No specifics were given about the 600 workers, whether they would be Virgin's own employees (gee, thanks, Virgin, for using our money to employ your people) or whether they're other employees whose positions were simply shifted over from elsewhere. Tax revenue is supposed to be taken as a plus with no explanation of what it would be used for, nor is any explanation given for how long it would take for the tax revenue to compensate for the bond repayment. The analysis's "envisioning" of 1,800 housing units is still market rate housing that needs to be paid for, not something that magically appears after a rail line is built. It's also particularly rich, given that the bond money comes at the exclusion of affordable housing.

State Controller Betty Yee said, "We wanted to take advantage of [the rail line] because I don’t know if we’re ever going to see something like this again," also stating that the project gives "a lot of bang for the buck."

Yeah, so much bang that the company needed welfare buck to make it happen.

State Treasurer Fiona Ma said "The High Desert is one of the poorest parts of the state. They have never seen any attention or assistance from government before."

If she wants to help these people, maybe instead cut their taxes so they're not exporting a tenth of their paychecks to funds that go to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Diego. By her own admission, the government has never given them any attention. So what have they been paying state income tax for? But what a great cover story for siphoning money away from people and into corporations.

You know another way to increase (way more) jobs in the state and taking (way more) cars off the road to Vegas in a way that doesn't really cost anything? Legalize gambling. Yeah, people will still go to Vegas, but in fewer numbers. And it costs nothing to start.

The politicians clearly are not capably allocating resources to where it's most needed. Which is just another piece of evidence of not having state subsidies in the first place.