Actually, your response just clouds issues further.

If your point is that "rather than extend the rail surcharge, the legislature should pass three billion in new appropriations," then your earlier claim that moneys to be used for the rail project's cost increases could be used for various other purposes is simply false, unless you are proposing that the surcharge be extended for purposes other than rail, which doesn't appear to be the case.

It is undeniably true that your lawsuit drove up the cost of rail. I did not say it was the only lawsuit or only factor that drove up costs. I certainly agree that the other lawsuit was also totally unnecessary and accomplished nothing but driving up the cost of rail and provoking a change to the law so that the same lawsuit filed today would be baseless.

You have obviously neglected to disclose which special interests financed your lawsuit, and how much they spent. That's a serious lingering question.

I respectfully await enlightenment.