Your Editorial Board needs to do better homework.

There were two agenda items before the Capitola City Council.

First, consideration was given to four possible interpretations of the Municipal Code §8.71(“Greenway Capitola Corridor”) prepared by the city manager and city attorney. The Capitola mayor had requested this, although there was no public notice beforehand, and nobody expected it. That ordinance, added due to Measure L in 2018, has been much in dispute; locals have disagreed vehemently about its meaning and application, which is unsurprising.

The city attorney’s 2018 impartial analysis stated that Measure L “raises a number of legal concerns, including whether it proposes a legislative act, or merely directs administrative or executive actions, which are generally not subject to initiative or referendum; whether … [its] terms are too vaguely defined and ambiguous to be enforceable; and whether its restrictions on expenditure of funds improperly interfere with the City Council’s authority over the City’s fiscal affairs. For these reasons, the measure may be vulnerable to a legal challenge as to its validity.”

The City Council chose an interpretation that users of the future Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail in the railroad corridor owned by the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) may not “detour” from the railroad corridor onto Capitola streets and sidewalks. This interpretation also specified that the RTC and Santa Cruz County would not be permitted to build the 0.7-mile section of rail trail that had been proposed alongside Park Avenue — neither on the street nor in it, but partly on the Park Avenue shoulder and partly within the adjacent railroad corridor.

The second item on the agenda was the consideration of the rail trail alignment along Park Avenue that the City Council’s preceding decision had obviated. So, that went kaput.

Many admirers of Measure L argue that its purpose was to compel the RTC to construct the rail trail across the deteriorating Capitola railroad trestle over Soquel Creek and to eliminate the railroad tracks in favor of a paved pathway, rather than “detouring” rail trail users onto streets and sidewalks through Capitola Village until a suitable new rail and trail bridge can be funded and built, as outlined in the plan adopted by the City Council in 2015.

The reality is that Capitola has no authority over the rail corridor through Capitola, or the trestle, as they are controlled solely by the RTC. The RTC director has made it clear to the public that the existing trestle cannot be used for any transportation purpose until it is replaced with new infrastructure, which cannot happen anytime soon.

Capitola now forces the RTC to build the section of the rail trail paralleling Park Avenue entirely within its railroad corridor, on the coastal side of the tracks, at a cost of at least $18 million more than the alignment alongside Park Avenue on the other side of the tracks would have cost. The RTC lacks this funding and will need to determine how to obtain it. If that doesn’t happen, it could mean the RTC will indefinitely leave the Capitola stretch of the rail trail unfinished.

No rail trail will be built across Capitola Village and Soquel Creek anytime soon. The long-established regional plan is to allow rail trail users to pass through Capitola’s streets and sidewalks in the meantime, using painted stripes and separations to facilitate multiple uses.

Local hardliners believe they can compel the RTC to reverse its decision and abandon the railroad tracks in Capitola, along with plans to proceed with the Zero-Emissions Passenger Rail and Trail project. They think they can somehow maintain the existing 125-year-old trestle for a recreational trail across Capitola Village, despite the RTC’s opposition and the city of Capitola’s lack of jurisdiction.

You’re probably right that Capitola’s action will add further delay and difficulty for a public works project that’s already been much delayed by political opposition.

Barry Scott is an Aptos resident.