Below the Fold

I realize it's impolite to talk about something else when there's a thought criminal on the way to the gallows, but if I were a resident of Southern California, this story would interest me considerably more than the deep thoughts of Donald Sterling:

Toyota Motor Corp. plans to move large numbers of jobs from its sales and marketing headquarters in Torrance to suburban Dallas, according to a person familiar with the automaker's plans.

The move, creating a new North American headquarters, would put management of Toyota's U.S. business close to where it builds most cars for this market.

North American Chief Executive Jim Lentz is expected to brief employees Monday, said the person, who was not authorized to speak publicly. Toyota declined to detail its plans. About 5,300 people work at Toyota's Torrance complex. It is unclear how many workers will be asked to move to Texas. The move is expected to take several years.

It makes sense for Toyota to move to Texas since many of its cars are manufactured in the South. Of course, there's another reason, which the Los Angeles Times gets to later on:

The automaker won't be the first big company Texas has poached from California.

Occidental Petroleum Corp. said in February that it was relocating from Los Angeles to Houston, making it one of around 60 companies that have moved to Texas since July 2012, according to Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Perry last month visited California to recruit companies. The group Americans for Economic Freedom also recently launched a $300,000 advertising campaign in which Perry contends 50 California companies have plans to expand or relocate in Texas because it offers a better business climate.

Like these other companies, Toyota could also save money in an environment of lower business taxes, real estate prices and cost of living.

The mayor of Torrance, California, laments the development:

Frank Scotto, Torrance's mayor, said he had no warning of Toyota's decision. He said he did know that the automaker planned a corporate announcement for Monday.

"When any major corporation is courted by another state, it's very difficult to combat that," Scotto said. "We don't have the tools we need to keep major corporations here."

The mayor said businesses bear higher costs in California for workers' compensation and liability insurance, among other expenses.

"A company can easily see where it would benefit by relocating someplace else," Scotto said.

On the bright side, Mayor Scotto can certainly look forward to the economic boom that will arise from another Golden State initiative:

Doubts about the High Speed Rail Authority’s ability to fund its estimated $68 billion program dominated last week’s Senate Transportation and Housing Committee hearing (see the background report in this PDF). Committee Chair Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) said he was “somewhat skeptical” about the Authority’s 2014 Draft Business Plan and questioned CAHSRA CEO Jeff Morales on the authority’s reliance on uncertain funding sources.

“You couldn’t get a [small business loan] based on what we’re assuming here,” DeSaulnier told Morales, referring to the high cost estimates and funding prospects in the Business Plan.

Don't worry about that, though, because there's a magic funding formula!

DeSaulnier asked all the questions at the informational hearing, since he was the only Committee member who showed up for it. However, he came well prepared, so instead of  yet another presentation on how cap-and-trade works, there was a pointed exchange about the funding capabilities of high speed rail.

DeSaulnier warned Morales that the Authority may have a hard time getting the necessary votes in the state legislature to pass the governor’s cap-and-trade expenditure plan, which proposes giving $250 million to high-speed rail from the proceeds of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions law, A.B. 32.

That's right, they are going to regulate their way to richness by controlling greenhouse gas emissions! And with a $250 million a year payment schedule, they'll have that light rail deal paid for in 272 years! Sure, they'll probably have other funding sources to get that $68 billion, so maybe they can get 'er paid for in 136 years.

So you've got a state that's spending money it doesn't have, losing businesses it needs, with a plan to continue taxing everything that moves, and things are getting desperate. Well, I'm sure it will all look better once Donald Sterling is gone.