Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Weybrets fulfill dream of traveling in Germany

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Marty Weybret

Posted: Saturday, July 31, 2010 12:00 am | Updated: 2:31 pm, Mon Nov 15, 2010.

July 5, 2010, Bacharach, Germany — Christi and I have wanted to travel in Germany forever, really. We planned a trip there back in 1987 and then Christi became pregnant with our oldest son, Rob, who will be 23 soon. When the U.S. Air Force sent him to Ramstein AFB in southern Germany, the old idea became a great new idea.

Mike, 20, wanted to go with us. He would bring his friend from Lodi High days, Will Darsie. And they wanted to see former German exchange student Kai Heinius. Of course, once in Germany, they’d have to ditch us and backpack around Europe.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

You must login to view the full content on this page.

Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

Readers Choice Awards 2014

Video

Popular Stories

Send Us Your Snapshots!

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Opponents of California's $68 billion high-speed rail project submitted an appeal Tuesday to the state Supreme Court, asking it to overturn a lower court's ruling that allowed the project to proceed despite questions about whether it complies with promises made to voters.

Central Valley residents argue in their petition that the July 31 ruling by the appellate court undercuts 100 years of legal precedent requiring strict compliance with the intent of the voters in implementing a voter-approved bond measure.

Proposition 1A, approved by voters, promised that the state would identify funding for the first useable segment of the rail line and that it would have necessary environmental clearances done before starting construction.

The plaintiffs, Kings County and landowners in the Central Valley, successfully argued in Sacramento County Superior Court that the state failed on both counts, identifying only $6 billion of the estimated $26 billion needed for the first 130-mile segment, and failing to secure sufficient environmental approvals.

In rulings that prevented the sale of $8.6 billion in voter-approved bonds and created ongoing uncertainty about the project, the judge ordered the state to draft a new funding plan and seek more environmental clearances.

In its ruling last month, the 3rd District Court of Appeal acknowledged legitimate legal concerns about whether the "high-speed rail project the California High-Speed Rail Authority seeks to build is the project approved by the voters."

But the judges said plans are still in flux and noted that on other public-works projects, the California Supreme Court has allowed substantial deviation between preliminary plans given to voters and the eventual final project.

In the petition to the high court, the plaintiffs note that the appellate court also said the state Legislature had included strictures in the ballot language that amounted to a "financial straitjacket."

"The court of appeal's decision, however, allows the authority — and the Legislature — to escape, Houdini-like, from that straitjacket, undercutting the intent of the voters and raising questions about whether voters can put their trust in clear, mandatory provisions placed in a bond measure," they argued.

Separately, the 3rd District Court of Appeal on Tuesday denied petitions to re-hear the case filed by the plaintiffs and by two other interested parties, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and a Bakersfield church whose property lies in the bullet train's planned path.

Demolition work and construction testing has already begun around Fresno, one of the first hubs on a 28-mile stretch in the Central Valley.

Other impediments remain, however, including ongoing uncertainty about funding; a land-acquisition process that is behind schedule; and another lawsuit by the same plaintiffs arguing that compromises made to cut the price to $68 billion mean the bullet train won't be able to travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes, as promised.

The petition submitted Tuesday will be filed with the court Wednesday. There is no timeline for the court to decide whether to hear the case.

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists