Agenda Item # 3.2 - Joseph P. Thompson | Received 08/02/2022OJT.%,2U
c�
EDITOR: �/ -/
Am - , ?
THE CITY MANAGER'S RESPONSE AT THE LAST GOVE ENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Cet''
MEETING AT THE GILROY CHAMBER OF COMMER TO MY QUESTION ABOUT
SPENDING ANOTHER $400,000 OF TAXPAYERS MONEY TO STUDY THE "DOWNTOWN
ROUTE" FOR THE BULLET TRAIN BEING A WASTE OF THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY WAS 1..0a4.,)'
MADE IN ERROR. HE SAID THAT UPRR HAD NEVER PROTESTED AGAINST BULLET
TRAIN USING ITS PROPERTY. JUST THE CONTRARY, UPRR HAS FROM THE OUTSET 7
OF THE BOONDOGGLE PLANNING BY THE RADICAL SOCIALISTS ADAMANTLY
ASSERTED ITS PROPERTY RIGHTS TO PROHIBIT TRESPASSERS. AND SINCE UPRR'S .2
EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY TRUMPS THE BULLET TRAIN'S EMINENT DOMAIN
AUTHORITY, PLANNING TO TRESPASS ON UPRR'S PROPERTY IS A CONSPIRACY TO
COMMIT A CRIME. IT'S ALSO LUNATIC EVIDENCE THAT THE WASTRELS WHO AREnee C
PISSING-AWAY OUR MONEY ON MARXIST-LENINIST-STALINIST SCHEMES ARP -"
RUINING OUR STATE. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE FROM GRC AND CHAMBER
LEADERSHIP ABOUT THIS GANG -RAPE OF THE TAXPAYERS? FOR US TO SPEND
$400,000 TO PAY BULLET TRAIN FOR THE FURTHER STUDY OF THE "DOWNTOWN�&'r"
ALIGNMENT" MEANS THAT WE MUST PAY 9.9 TIMES $400,000 = $3,960,000 TO Cry p SACRAMENTO TO GET THE $400,000 BACK TO PAY BULLET TRAIN. THE SMOKE- W
SCREEN RAISED BY COMMUNISTS AT VTA-COG TO CONCEAL THIS GANG -RAPE O'
TAXPAYERS IS TOLERATED AND ACCEPTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEADERS,
WHO OUGHT TO BE RECALLED FROM OFFICE FOR ALLOWING THIS ABUSE TO
CONTINUE. PLEASE LET YOUR READERS KNOW THE TRUTH IN TRANSPORT.
JPT
C�C�OC�II�D
AUG 0 2 2022
GILROY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Fax (831) 637-4107
Editor editor@freelancenews.com
The Hollister Free Lance
Hollister, CA 95023
JOSEPH P. THOMPSON
Attorney at Law
8339 Church Street, Suite 112, Gilroy, CA 95020
Post Office Box 154, Gilroy, CA 95021-0154
Telephone (408) 848-5506; Fax (408) 848-4246
E-Mail: TransLaw@PacPell.Net
October 4. 2008
Re: Prop. 1A November Ballot: Bullet Train or Trojan Horse?
Dear Editor,
A new, independent study of the Bullet Train proposal concludes that the annual operating
deficit will be $4.17 billion, which will be another tax burden on the backs of taxpayers whose backs
are already broken. Bond debt service will be extra on top of that.
Passenger rail service does not reduce highway congestion. Freight rail service does.
•
RE
Generating electricity for Bullet Train will cause more pollution than traffic reduction is produces.
We don't have Japan's density. We don't want and can't afford French socialism. It is folly
to attempt their countries' "solutions" which won't work here in USA.
Why can't we learn from history? Do we really want to believe the liars' false predictions,
again? Amtrak is a failed experiment, except to subsidy recipients who don't pay for their rides (99%
of total costs), while motorists pay 100% of their own costs, and subsidize the Amtrak riders.
When Amtrak was formed in 1970, Congressmen promised that it would be profitable in
three years. Well, after 38 years, taxpayers have paid $40++ billion in subsidies, with no end in sight.
As Traffic World reported, that is a stack of $100 bills higher than the World Trade Center stood.
Supporters of the Bullet -in -the -Brain train will make profit building and operating it, just as VTA
does operating Black Hole Lite Rail. However, taxpayers will be the losers. The galley slaves will
need to quicken their strokes so that the recipients of their labors will enjoy their rides. Will Rod be
successful in converting us to a socialist society, living in concrete high-rise Dirodonominiums like
the USSR's "affordable housing"? Until Rod was appointed to HSRA, they had projected a $900
million annual operating loss (truth probably doubles their estimate), but now they project a
profitable operation. "Profitable" in the same definition of VTA's "profit." I do not swallow this big
lie. Do you? It would be cheaper for taxpayers if we bought an airline. We could buy all outstanding
stock of both American Airlines and Continental Airlines for less than the Prop. 1 A bond principal.
We could buy Southwest Airlines stock for less. If we did then we'd have lower budget deficits;
transport less harmful to the environment and less burdensome for crushed to smithereens California
taxpayers.
As their financial reports show with Caltrain, Lite Rail, and Amtrak, taxicabs and limousines
would be cheaper for the taxpayers than paying rail passenger service. But have we learned anything
from the history of the last Century? If we defeated the USSR, then why are we adopting their
philosophy?
I appeared before the High Speed Rail Commission (before it became an "authority") five
times and told the commissioners that if they put enough Fedex, UPS, and Postal Service tonnage
on their train, then they would not need to ask the taxpayers for a dime. Instead of following a
capitalist model, they insist (with Bechtel Corporation's —the builder —support) that California must
have a Soviet -style horizontal elevator. Well, if voters believe that B.S., then they deserve to wear
this albatross around their necks. But ask yourselves, do our children and grandchildren deserve the
consequences of our compulsive spending disorder? Are we building the future for them, or
welcoming a monster Trojan Horse?
Vote "NO" on Soviet -style Bullet Train —we cannot afford it.Caveat viator.
Very truly yours,
JOSEPH P. THOMPSON
Member: SBCCOG Citizens Rail Advisory Committee
Candidate: American Society of Transportation & Logistics
Member: Legislation Committee, Transportation Lawyers Assn.
7725122, 2:3D PM Letter: Bilis Force truckers off the road - Gilroy Dispatch
Near my high school in Cupertino you could find examples of small business owners starting up their own
businesses, which today have become major successes of our economy. Hewlett and Packard, Jobs and
Wozniak, started in garages, and today are two of the largest businesses in the nation.
AB5, AB2257, PRO Act, all are laws which deter such successes in the future. We must take action now to
prevent a future Hewlett and Packard, or Jobs and Wozniak from making A
Joe Thompson
Past -President 1999-2001, 2006, Gilroy -Morgan
https:llgilroydispatch.comiletter-bills-force-truckers-off-road/ 2/2
7/25/22, 2:30 PM
Letter: Bills force truckers off the road - Gilroy Dispatch
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Letter: Bills force truckers
off the road
By: JOE THOMPSON fn July 25. 2022
In addition to inflation worsening our supply chains, the throttling of 70,000 owner -operator truckers by
California's AB5 and AB2257 is one heck of a monkey wrench tossed into our gearbox.
029
I am a 1966 graduate of the Motor Carrier Fleet Safety Supervisor School at UC Berkeley, and was a truck
dispatcher in San Jose from 1966-1970 during the Vietnam War for Southern Pacific's truck subsidiary
Pacific Motor Trucking. I've practiced transportation law for 42 years, and am a member of the
Transportation Lawyers Association. I've done post-doc study of transport law and policy at Norman Y.
Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies, SJSU; Transportation Research
Board, Georgetown U; and at the Library of Congress. I'm a past -Chair, Legislation Committee, of the TLA.
Secretary Mineta's signature "deregulation" legislation, F4A Act of 1994, was intended to nullify
contradictory State laws which hinder our arteries of commerce like AB5 does.
We need a legislative correction either by the Legislature or the Congress which provides that owner -
operator truckers are independent contractors, not employees. The B2B Exception in AB5 and AB2257 is a
starting point. Notice that the PRO Act HR-842, S-842, does not contain a B2B Exception in the version
passed by the House. The owner -operator model in the trucking industry has been standard since the end
of World War II, and makes it possible for a small businessman or woman to start their own trucking
business, and hopefully, succeed, just as did UPS founders, and Fedex founder, and many others.
While a trucker may choose to be a member of a union, he ought to have the choice of being a small
business owner independently contracting his trucking services.
https://gilroydispatch.com/letter-bills-force-truckers-off-road/ 1/2
7/5/22, 10:09 AM Time to Adapt: U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review of California Assembly Bill No 5 - Lexology
°o®LEXOLOGY
Time to Acaot: U.S. Supreme Court Declines review of
California Assemoly Sill \o 5
USA June 30 2022
Unfortunately, today, June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a deeply disappointing loss to the
transportation industry and supply chain interests throughout the country by declining to review the California
Trucking Association's challenge to Assembly Bill No. 5 ("AB5").
By way of background, AB5 codified into statutory law a rigid "ABC" test used for determining whether a worker is
an employee or an independent contractor. On December 24, 2019, in a federal case brought by the California
Trucking Association and others (collectively, "CTA"), CTA moved for a temporary restraining order to prohibit the
enforcement of AB5 against motor carriers operating in California. Among other things, CTA argued that AB5 was
preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), known as the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act
("FAAAA"). On December 31, 2019 (the day before AB5 was to become effective), Judge Roger T. Benitez issued a
decision granting CTA's request for an emergency order enjoining the State of California from enforcing AB5 as
against motor carriers. The judge found that that the "B" prong of the ABC test embodied in AB5 "is likely
preempted by the FAAAA" because AB5 "effectively mandates that motor carriers treat owner -operators as
employees, rather than as the independent contractors that they are." Judge Benitez later converted the temporary
restraining order into a preliminary injunction. An appeal followed and, in April 2021, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unfortunately reversed the district court's decision, finding that AB5 was not in fact
preempted by the FAAAA. However, the appellate court did stay enforcement of its decision pending CTA's request
for the United States Supreme Court to review the appellate court's decision.
After extensive briefing, and an outpouring of industry support emphasizing that this subject is of great public
importance and that the Court needed to resolve a circuit split regarding the scope'of FAAAA preemption, the Court
nevertheless today declined to accept the case for review. As a result, the decision of the Ninth Circuit stands. Upon
the Ninth Circuit's dissolution of the stay that it previously entered, the State of California may proceed to enforce
AB5 against motor carriers in California. The Ninth Circuit's order entering the stay last year stated that, if certiorari
was denied, the Ninth Circuit would issue the mandate to the trial court "immediately." Further, the Ninth Circuit
requires the parties to advise the Ninth Circuit "immediately" upon the denial of certiorari.
Of course, the Court's decision to deny review has profound consequences for the transportation industry and supply
chains in general. At a time when transportation resources and supply chains are already stressed, motor carriers,
transportation intermediaries, and commercial shippers must all now adapt to the new landscape in California.
Moreover, the industry can expect that other like-minded states will proceed with "copycat" legislation, creating yet
further supply chain disruption.
Most immediately, motor carriers must evaluate and adopt alternative operating models to mitigate risk if they intend
to continue to do business in California. These alternatives include pivoting to an employee driver model, seeking to
comply with the business -to -business exemption in AB5, deploying a freight brokerage model, utilizing a "two-
https://www.lexology.comllibrary/detail.aspx?g=afd22761-6da0-4cc2-b431-860a3ae5d393&ulm_source=Lexology+Da i Iy+N ewsfeed&u tm_rnediu m=HT ... 1 /2
//b/ZZ, 1U:09 AM Time to Adapt: U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review of Califomia Assembly Bill No 5 - Lexology
check" system of compensation, or implementing a "taxi cab medallion" model. Motor carriers who quickly adapt
• and innovate may be able to make summer lemonade out of the lemons delivered today by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP - Marc S. Blubaugh
Powered by
LEXOLOGY
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=afd22761-6da0-4cc2-b431-860a3ae5d393&utm_source=Lexology+Dai Iy+Newsfeed &utm_med iu m=H T ... 2/2
O! I0/4Z, Z:S/ F'M
111111,1
How California trucking is handling AB 5, $7 diesel and more I Overdrive
JVERDRI VE
OVERDRIVE RADIO
BY RANDALL REILLY
California trucking at a crossroads: AB 5, $7 diesel and
a special truck show in the offing
Todd Dills
Jun 10, 2022 I Updated Jun 16, 2022
California trucking crossroads: $7 fuel, AB 5 and a special truck show in the ...
ce
https //www.overdriveonline.com/overdrive-radio/podcast/15293034/how-California-trucking-is-handling-ab-5-7-diesel-and-more?utm_term=VersionB&... 1/9
or inr«, csr rim How California trucking is handling AB 5, $7 diesel and more I Overdrive
Small fleet car -haul owner -operator C.G. Soza of California's Central Valley has quite a lot
on his plate these days, not the least of which is the $7-plus diesel sign he saw early this
week in Madera, California, a first for the owner. He's also keeping a close eye on the
Supreme Court, which is set to conference June 23 and possibly make its decision as to
whether it will take up federal pre-emption questions in the California Trucking
Association's appeal of its case against the AB 5 state contractor Iaw's application to
trucking.
[Related: California Trucking Association tears down Solicitor General's AB 5 argument]
If the Supreme Court doesn't take up the case, June 23 could be quite eventful for Soza
and scads of other small fleet owners who, like his Soza Trucking business, contract with
leased owner -operators -- and plenty California -based leased owner -operators
themselves, of course. The AB 5 law puts longtime federally recognized carrier -to -leased
owner -operator relationships, as traditionally structured, in jeopardy.
As if owner-ops in California didn't already have enough to contend with when it comes
to business difficulties in the now extremely -high -fuel state.
[Related: California AB 5: Wait -and -see mode, unanswered questions prevail among
small fleets, owner-ops]
June 23 also happens to be a set-up day for Soza's A.J. Soza Memorial Truck Show,
kicking off the following day at the Merced County Fairgrounds and featuring an old -
school truck rodeo, likely well upward of 100 rigs showing out, and much more, as you'll
hear in this edition of Overdrive Radio:
California trucking crossroads: $7
fuel, AB 5 and a special truck show i.,.
Jun 10 Overdrive Radio
https://www.overdriveonline.com/overdrive-radio/podcast/15293034/how-California-trucking-is-handling-ab-5-7-diesel-and-more?utm term=VersionB&... 2/9
to/LL, L:3t3 NM Caltrux calls Solicitor General's AB 5 argument 'wrong' I Overdrive
OVERDRIVE
BY RANDALL REILLY
REGULATIONS
California Trucking Association tears down Solicitor
General's AB 5 argument
Matt Cole
!t
Jun 6, 2022 I Updated Jun 10, 2022
The California Trucking Association, in response to a brief filed May 24 by the Solicitor
General on behalf of the U.S. government, said the government's stance laid out in the
brief on California's AB 5 law "is head-scratchingly wrong."
CTA filed a supplemental brief on Friday, June 3, in response to the Solicitor General's
brief. The Solicitor had argued last month that the Supreme Court should deny CTA's
request to review its case challenging AB 5, which would effectively ban the traditional
leased owner -operator model in the state. CTA's case claims that AB 5 is preempted by
the 1994 Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA or F4A), which bars
states from enacting laws that interfere with "routes, prices and services" of motor
carriers.
The Solicitor General claimed that AB 5's requirements are easily avoided, that the law
may have no impact at all on carriers or owner -operators, and that there is no conflict in
other circuit courts.
https://www.overdriveonline.com/regulations/article/15292803/caltrux-calls-solicitor-generals-ab-5-argument-wrong 1/10
V, I V/44, 4:o0 riw Caltrux calls Solicitor General's AB 5 argument 'wrong' Overdrive
California's Ninth Circuit Court reversed an injunction that exempted the trucking
industry from AB 5, and CTA said the Ninth Circuit "affirmatively embraced its conflict
with the First Circuit, acknowledging that" a statute in Massachusetts was "identical" to
AB 5 but rejected a First Circuit ruling that the Ninth acknowledged was "contrary to our
precedent."
With respect to the Solicitor's claims that there is no conflict between the Ninth Circuit
and other circuits' decisions, CTA said, "the government barely even attempts to deny
the existence of a conflict between the Ninth and First Circuits. It asserts without
explanation that the conflicting decisions are 'case -specific,' but it is hard to see much
space between rulings that reach opposite conclusions about the validity of 'identical'
state statutes."
[Related: Solicitor General recommends Supreme Court deny review of AB 5
independent contractor law]
In debunking the government's claims that AB 5's requirements can be easily avoided
and that there may be little impact on carriers and owner -operators, CTA cited the
Owner -Operator Independent Drivers Association, which said AB 5 "would cause motor
carriers and owner -operators to bear the substantial, if not insurmountable, costs and
burdens associated with shifting to an employer/employee business model." To back up
this point by OOIDA, CTA also cited Overdrive reporting from May 2021 that found even
the prospect of AB 5 taking effect was already causing carriers to limit or abandon
operations in California.
The Solicitor's first point -- that carriers can easily comply with AB 5 by hiring owner -
operators as part-time employee drivers and require them to supply their own trucks
with no noticeable change in operations -- "is not a real possibility, for several reasons,"
CTA said.
CTA argued that the proposed workaround "assumes that owner -operators will give up
their independent businesses and become employees of carriers. But in fact, a great
many owner -operators would not respond to AB 5 by becoming employees." The group
cited American Transportation Research Institute's study that found owner -operators
value their independence and flexibility "as far more important than do employee
d rivers."
"It therefore can be expected that numerous owner -operators would retire, leave
' • r i
https://www.overdriveonline.com/regulations/article/ 15292803/caltrux-calls-solicitor-generals-ab-5-argument-wrong
2/10
b!'IblLL, L:StS rm Caltrux calls Solicitor General's AB 5 argument 'wrong' 1 Overdrive
Laiirornia to work as owner -operators in otner states, or seek work opportunities in otner
industries, rather than become employees of carriers," CTA said in its brief.
CTA also said that even if owner -operators were willing to become employees, the
government's proposal still wouldn't be workable due to California's complicated wage -
and -hour requirements.
[Related: California contractor law: Likely next steps, pivots for truckers if enforced]
Additionally, classifying owner -operators as part-time employees in California wouldn't
necessarily mean those operators aren't still classified as independent contractors in
other states, CTA said. Therefore, for a carrier moving freight into or out of California
from another state to comply with AB 5, it would have to either use an employee driver
for the entire trip or incur the expense and delay of transferring the freight to a truck
driven by an employee when the freight enters California, or to a truck owned by an
owner -operator when the freight leaves California, CTA said. "The government makes no
attempt to explain how this problem could be addressed."
Finally, requiring that current owner -operators become employees and provide their own
trucks -- a model often referred to as the two -check system -- would not work as a
permanent solution, CTA added. Even if this worked to begin with, "as trucks become
obsolete overtime existing trucks will have to be replaced with new ones," the group
said. "Carriers would be responsible for that replacement, as employees could hardly be
expected to purchase and maintain vehicles that cost well in excess of $100,000 (new
trucks can cost up to $240,000) simply so that the vehicles could be leased to their
employers."
[Related: California independent -contractor fall -out: Two -check system explored]
The Solicitor General also asserted that trucking companies and owner -operators could
use a business -to -business (B2B) exemption that is included in the AB 5 law that allows
independent businesses set up as sole proprietorships, LLCs or other business models to
contract with other businesses. This exemption, however, is narrow in scope and requires
businesses to meet 12 criteria to operate under the exemption.
CTA contended that one of the prerequisites -- that an owner -operator "advertises and
holds itself out to the public as available to supply the same or similar services" it offers
to carriers -- cannot be realistically met, a point also addressed in Overdrive reporting
referenced in CTA's supplemental filing.
https://www.overdriveonline.com/regulations/article/15292803/caltrux-calls-solicitor-generals-ab-5-argument-wrong 3/10
O/ I0/4Z, Z:jtf VIVI
Caltrux calls Solicitor General's AB 5 argument 'wrong' I Overdrive
"As a practical matter, [leased] owner -operators do not advertise to the public at all
because that is not how they obtain business; and as a legal matter, truck drivers may not
provide services to the general public without holding a motor carrier license, which
would place them outside the owner -operator context," CTA said.
The association added that, even if this and the other B2B exemption requirements were
met to legitimize an leased owner -operator's relationship with a larger motor carrier,
meeting the requirements "would obligate carriers and owner -operators to restructure
their operations in significant ways," CTA added. "Requiring owner -operators to maintain
business locations they do not need, or run advertisements and cultivate categories of
customers that are unnecessary for their businesses, would force them" to offer services
they don't currently provide and that they would prefer not to provide. The existence and
practical outcomes of meeting the B2B exemption thus stood as further evidence in
CTA's case that AB 5 directly impacts "prices, routes and services" of carriers and should
be pre-empted by FAAAA for trucking.
Finally, on a practical basis, CTA said carriers and owner -operators would not try to
invoke the B2B exemption because, to benefit from it, a carrier would have to separately
establish a "bona fide business -to -business contracting relationship" with each owner -
operator it deals with -- "a fact -specific showing that would require the restructuring of
the businesses involved with no assurance of success and no mechanism for obtaining
advance approval of business -to -business status."
Truckload Carriers Association Vice President for Government Affairs Dave Heller
believed the prospects for the Supreme Court taking up the CTA challenge to AB 5
remained good. The Solicitor's opinion "doesn't meant the game is over," Heller said.
"Things still look good for [the Court] reviewing this case."
Next steps in the case could include filings by the state of California responding to the
Solicitor General's brief. The CTA case is expected to be considered by the Supreme
Court possibly as soon as Thursday at its next conference. SCOTUS has three conference
days remaining on its schedule -- June 9,16 and 23 -- before its summer recess.
As transportation attorney Greg Feary and his Scopelitus firm noted in prior reporting,
given the timing for supplemental filings to come in, "it is possible that the petition will
not be considered before the Court recesses for the summer at the end ofJune, in which
case the next currently scheduled conference is Oct. 6."
re-•_1_._..1.,n,1 , 1 • - -rr„ , I f• I f
https://www.overd riveonli n e.com/regulations/article/ 15292803/ca ltrux-cal Is-sol ici tor-generals-ab-5-argu men t-wrong
4/10