SAN FRANCISCO - Another two appeals have been filed to the California Supreme Court, asking it to hear challenges to a bond sale authorized for California's high-speed passenger rail project.
The Pacific Legal Foundation and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association announced their appeals during a press conference in Sacramento on Tuesday.
The groups are filing two separate petitions asking the state Supreme Court to review a recent decision from the Third District Court of Appeal that gave California the go-ahead to issue $8.6 billion of state general obligation bonds for high-speed rail.
The rail project, estimated to cost a total of $68 billion, would connect the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas with high-speed passenger trains on new tracks.
"I believe this case has California Supreme Court written all over it," said Harold Johnson, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation. "It raises historic questions about whether public-works projects must be operated in a way that is accountable to the public and compliant with the law. And the size and cost of the bullet-train project is monumental."
The Pacific Legal Foundation represents the First Free Will Baptist Church in Bakersfield. The rail line's route is planned to go along the north side of the church's property.
The church's pastor, Mark Harrison, said they want the project to be entirely open and responsive to the public and the public interest at all levels.
"As a church, we've had frustrating experiences when we've tried to share concerns and get forthright answers about the impacts of having a rail line right next to our church and school," Harrison said.
PLF and HJTA say the bond-authorization process was not conducted with legally required openness and accountability, and that state officials have not shown that the current rail project is the same one that voters approved in Proposition 1A in 2008.
Johnson said the Court of Appeal ruling needs to be reviewed because the high-speed-rail bonds do not comply with basic legal and constitutional requirements.
"Agencies can't be allowed to make important and expensive decisions in the dark," Johnson said. "Especially decisions like authorizing billions of dollars in bonds that will saddle taxpayers with repayment burdens for decades."
After filing a petition for review, the Supreme Court generally has at least 60 days to decide whether to grant the review.
The two petitions follow a similar filing last week by a farmer, a rural homeowner, and Kings County, who are also asking the Supreme Court to review the previous ruling.
Following last week's filing, a spokesperson for the rail authority said they remain committed to the program even though opponents "still hope to thwart the will of the people."
