Florida toll booth incident creates a police state

Link to article here.

POLICE STATE, USA

Drivers detained for paying tolls with U.S. currency

Motorist uncovers state scheme to collect personal information

Posted: March 06, 2011
4:53 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

 A man in Tampa, Fla., has uncovered what he calls an illegal scheme by the state's turnpike authority to detain motorists who pay tolls with $20, $50 or $100 bills until they disclose personal information recorded by the state.

Joel Chandler first became aware of the practice when he paid a $1 toll with a $100 bill, and the toll taker refused to let his car pass until he filled out a personal information form. He then started testing the system, taping his encounters as he went through toll booths.

"This is a serious, serious criminal offense," Chandler told Tampa's WTSP-TV, "to illegally detain somebody without legal authority."

"Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws"

Chandler's brother joined the video investigation and not only found the practice widespread, but also found one toll worker who threatened to call the Florida Highway Patrol if he did not surrender the information.

When Chandler complained about the detentions, however, he says state officials denied the practice and engaged in "a very concerted effort to cover it up."

A news report from WTSP-TV, which includes Chandler's video, can be seen below:

Study uncovers dangers of privatizing infrastructure

Link to article here.

There are bills currently before the legislature that would not only privatize our public highways (HB 2255), but would also privatize parking meters, water facilities, and other infrastructure (HB 2432). So as this study points out, it means the taxpayers have to pay private entities penalties for expanding our public roads or closing down a road for a parade.

If it sounds too good to be true. . . What you need to know, but don’t, about privatizing infrastructure

Authored by: Ellen Dannin
Posted By: Ellen Dannin - Pennsylvania State University
Posted March 2, 2011

Remember the old joke about some sharpie who takes innocents by “selling” them the Brooklyn Bridge? By the time the poor guy finds out he was taken, the crook is long gone.

Flash forward to the present. States and cities are being told that they can fix their budgets and have money left over by leasing their infrastructure for 50, 75, or even 99 years. It sounds great, even miraculous. But we all need to slow down and do our homework, because the rule “If it sounds too good to be true, it is” still applies, and there are good reasons why state and local governments should not want any part of these deals.

The truth is that, rather than making money on just tolls and fees, private contractors make their money through big tax breaks and by squeezing state and local governments for payments for the life of the contracts.

In fact, tax breaks explain why the deals last generations. One tax break for leases that last longer than the useful life of the infrastructure allows investors to write off their investment in just over a decade. A second tax break lets private companies issue tax-free bonds to finance their deals. While tax-free bonds and tax breaks make it less expensive to finance these deals, the downside is that governments lose tax revenue. Losing tax revenue puts government budgets deeper in the red and worsens problems privatization was supposed to fix.

But that’s not all. Infrastructure privatization contracts are full of “gotcha” terms that require state or local governments to pay the private contractors. For example, now when Chicago does street repairs or closes streets for a festival, it must pay the private parking meter contractor for lost meter fares. Those payments put the contractors in a much better than the government was. It gets payments, even though Chicago did not get fares when it had to close streets.
Highway contractors can be entitled to payments if there is an accident on the highway and if the police, fire, and emergency crews do not give “appropriate” notice and do not perform their emergency work in a way that is “reasonable under the circumstances”. And, given the vagueness of those standards, states and cities may end up paying just to avoid the costs of litigation.

Highway privatization contracts also often include terms that forbid building “competing” roads or mass transit. Some even require making an existing “competing” road worse. For example, the contract for SR-91 in southern California prohibited the state from repairing an adjacent public road, creating conditions that put drivers’ safety at risk. A proposed private highway around the northwest part of Denver required that local governments reduce speeds and install speed humps and barriers and narrow lanes on “competing” roads to force drivers to use the privatized road.

And worst of all, these deals put a stranglehold on democratic decision making and the public interest. For example, Virginia decided to promote carpooling to cut down on pollution, slow highway deterioration, and lessen highway and urban congestion. As a result, Virginia must reimburse the private contractor for lost revenues from carpoolers, even though not all of the people in a car would otherwise have driven individually. Chicago is not allowed to reduce the number of parking meters for the life of the contract. So when there have been changes that mean parking meters in one location are no longer appropriate, the city has had to install meters where none have ever been.

All of these contract terms put the public safety and well being last and the investors’ profits first. And, although infrastructure privatization proponents claim that the deals transfer risk from the public to the contractors, a fair reading of the contract terms shows that this is not the case. State and local governments lose control of their destinies and communities, while giving private investors power over our new dollar democracies.

These problems will persist even when the private contractor does a good job in maintaining the infrastructure and providing good public access to it. But contractors have not always done a good job in keeping their agreements.

Shortly after it took over the Indiana Toll Road, the private contractor put sand-filled barrels in turn-arounds with no notice to the state. State officials begged and pleaded for the barrels to be removed, so police and emergency crews could get to accidents and deal with other public safety problems as quickly as possible. Those pleas fell on deaf ears, while the turn-arounds remained blocked for months.

Or consider the poor people of Auckland, New Zealand.  Their government had become enamored of privatization, because they had been told that the private sector always provided better service at lower cost. The private company that bought the electrical service for Auckland decided to save costs by eliminating backup power, by not replacing parts of the system that were years past their normal life, by doing no maintenance, by having no electrical cables in reserve, and by terminating its repair crews. When they were terminated, the crews left NZ to find work elsewhere. All these decisions were made to increase company profits.

Those decisions may have lowered the company’s costs, but at a huge price, most of which it did not bear when the power cables to Auckland’s central business district failed. Banks, stock exchanges, restaurants, and all functions that depended on electricity were hard hit. Water, sewage, and all systems went down, and the power outage lasted nearly two months, because it had no repair crews or replacement components on hand.

Auckland's businesses lost millions of dollars. Companies tried to stay open by using generators, office workers climbed stairs in skyscrapers in mid-summer, and generator noise and diesel smoke filled downtown. At one point Auckland was provided power to essential facilities through an electric cable plugged into a large ship in the harbor.

You would think that New Zealand privatization advocates would have rethought their positions after they saw the carnage created by Mercury. But that was not the case. They actually claimed that the problem was caused by not having privatized enough infrastructure. While ludicrous, given what they had experienced, that view is not unique.

Consider, then, that at this very moment, state and local governments are contemplating signing contracts that restrict their rights to inspect infrastructure paid for with public money. Consider that they are agreeing to sign away their ability to protect the public interest and are setting in motion the same sort of disaster that Auckland faced, while the federal government is offering tax breaks to promote privatization.

The lesson and warning for states and local governments who are being wooed by private contractors is to do their due diligence. Read the contracts. Demand explanations and information. Ask for evidence that the public sector cannot do what private contractors do — and at lower cost – since the public sector does not need to pay dividends to investors. Get advisors who are not beholden to the privatization industry. And use common sense.

If you had thought the miracle of infrastructure privatization sounded too good to be true, now you know it is. But if you still have a hankering to give privatization a try, well, I just might have a bridge to show you . . .

You can find more details in Crumbling Infrastructure, Crumbling Democracy: Infrastructure Privatization Contracts and Their Effects on State and Local Governance. It was first published in the Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy at 6 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol’y 47 (2011), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njlsp/v6/n1/2/.

TxDOT sinks deep into debt to pay for roads

Link to article here.

Texas Transportation Department going into debt to pay for road work

Posted Sunday, Feb. 27, 2011

By Gordon Dickson / Star-Telegram

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Texans are increasingly borrowing from their children to pay for the roads they are using today.

Unable to persuade lawmakers to raise gas taxes or vehicle registration fees, the Texas Department of Transportation is going deep into debt to build roads and keep up with the state's explosive growth.

Since 2001, legislators and voters statewide have allowed the department to use a variety of new tools to speed up road work. That eased traffic congestion in the short term -- but now nearly $1 billion of the agency's roughly $8 billion annual budget goes to debt service.

It wasn't always that way. Traditionally, roads weren't built until the state had cash in hand. But many long-awaited projects were delayed because of chronic funding shortages.

"We've advanced as much as we can with the ability to borrow funds," Transportation Department spokeswoman Jodi Hodges said. "Now we're having to pay it back with interest."

Texas has borrowed $11.9 billion, which will cost $21.1 billion including interest and other fees, to pay back over 30 years, said state Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso.

Some of the money repays debt from bond sales. Some goes to reimburse cities and counties, which use property tax-backed bonds to build roads.

"At the end of the day, there's not going to be any new money," Pickett said. "So we're leaving it up to the communities to handle this crisis."

Some of the money is paired with private equity from private developers: the North Tarrant Express project on Loop 820 and Texas 121/183 in Northeast Tarrant County, for example. The developers bring in their own funds to a project in exchange for control of the roads and toll collection for 52 years.

Though some Texas leaders criticize the federal government for engaging in expensive programs that mortgage the nation's future, the state is arguably doing something similar by increasingly relying upon alternative financing options such as debt and public-private partnerships that commit public resources for decades.

Even so, supporters of the approach say building the roads now -- even if Texas can't put cash on the barrelhead -- is a worthwhile investment.

Relieving the traffic now, they say, creates a setting for continued job growth in Texas and reduces air pollution in Dallas-Fort Worth.

Examples of alternative financing tools used in Texas:

Proposition 12

In 2005, voters authorized the Legislature to issue up to $5 billion in Proposition 12 bonds for road work and repay the money through the state's general fund.

So far, $1 billion in bonds has been obligated to nontoll highway projects, and repayment over 30 years will cost taxpayers $1.5 billion including interest and fees, Pickett said.

Another $1 billion was authorized for the state infrastructural bank.

The Transportation Department is seeking authorization from lawmakers to spend another $1 billion.

Projects must fit into a handful of categories, including rehabilitation work or improvements to nontoll corridors of statewide significance.

Most of the funds have been spent outside Dallas-Fort Worth, although $144,000 was used to resurface Cooper Street in Arlington from Arkansas Lane to Pioneer Parkway.

Nearly $1.9 billion overall is being spent improving 94 miles of Interstate 35 in the Waco, Belton and Hillsboro areas -- much of it from Proposition 12 funds.

Many projects are coming in under budget because contractors are bidding less than expected, so more projects may be financed with Proposition 12 funds.

"We definitely have the benefits of an economy working in our favor," Randy Hofmann, the Transportation Department's Tyler district engineer, told transportation commissioners Thursday. Hofmann is overseeing the Proposition 12 program.

Proposition 14

The Transportation Department has issued $4.6 billion in funds from Proposition 14, which allows the agency to repay the debt with future gas tax revenue. Repayment over 20 years will cost $7 billion, Pickett said.

And more projects are on the way. The state has authorized all but about $45 million of the $6 billion in Proposition 14 funds, said Hodges, the Transportation Department spokeswoman.

The long-awaited I-35W expansion in north Fort Worth could be under construction by 2017 after the Texas Transportation Commission agreed last year to set aside $135 million in Proposition 14 funds for the project.

Texas Mobility Fund

Voters created the Texas Mobility Fund in 2001 by constitutional amendment as a revolving fund to pay for roads.

About $6.3 billion has been committed, which will cost $12.1 billion to repay over 30 years. The money comes from a variety of state sources, as directed by lawmakers, including driver's license and title fees.

At times during the past four years, mobility fund dollars have been shipped to Tarrant County to help with projects including improvements to I-35W south of downtown, U.S. 377 north of Keller and East Loop 820 right-of-way purchase.

But transportation commissioners have sometimes been criticized for steering the fund toward toll projects. Last week, the commission learned that $340 million in unspent mobility funds could be used on Grand Parkway in Houston, a multibillion-dollar toll loop project that will likely bring in private equity as well.

Pass-through financing

Cities and counties pay for road work, and the Transportation Department reimburses the costs over several years based on a formula. The state is asking local entities to submit projects for $282 million in pass-through financing this year.

In the Metroplex, Hudson Oaks and Weatherford are using $7.9 million and $52.4 million, respectively, to improve the Interstate 20 corridor west of Fort Worth.

In the Dallas area, the North Central Texas Council of Governments applied for $63 million in pass-through funding for Interstate 30 managed lanes, and Denton County applied for $41 million to expand Farm Road 1171 from Shiloh Road to I-35W.

Colleyville applied last year for $25 million in pass-through funding for Texas 26 improvements and is negotiating with the Transportation Department and Tarrant County to get the work done through a variety of funds.

Reinvestment zones

El Paso and Forney have approved projects that use investment zones to capture property taxes and use that money to pay for road work. Pickett has filed a bill that would give cities more flexibility to create reinvestment zones.

In Fort Worth, supporters of a proposed commuter rail line from southwest Fort Worth to Grapevine, Dallas/Fort Worth Airport and possibly as far east as Carrollton, Addison, Dallas and Richardson would like reinvestment zones expanded to include development around future rail stations.

TxDOT to drop truck toll rate on SH 130...AGAIN!

Link to article here.

Texas 130 toll break unlikely to move many truckers

TxDOT set to vote on 25% cut today, but it's expected to have little effect on I-35 traffic.

By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Updated: 5:22 a.m. Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011

Published: 8:06 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2011

Cutting truck tolls on Texas 130 by 25 percent won't make a difference to Sam Hutchins, a trucker for 30 years.

"They don't like us taking toll roads at all," Hutchins said of L&L Hauling, the company he has worked for over the past three years.

The Texas Transportation Commission is set to consider today lowering truck tolls on the eastern tollway loop around Austin, shaving what a five- or six-axle 18-wheeler pays from about $28 to $21.

TxDOT estimates that the change, even if it accomplishes the agency's goal of enticing extra truck traffic to the tollway, will have little effect on revenue. And it will likely have little effect on traffic congestion on Interstate 35.

TxDOT estimates that the lower tolls will increase truck traffic on Texas 130 and Texas 45 Southeast — which feeds into Texas 130 and would see the same toll cut — by 20 to 25 percent . That percentage increase, however, would apply to what is a very small number right now.

Officials last year said the 25 percent proposed cut probably would put about 350 additional trucks a day onto Texas 130 and, therefore, pull them off the parallel interstate.

However, that amounts to about 1.5 percent of the 24,000 trucks a day that TxDOT counted in 2007 on I-35 in the middle of Austin, and less than one-fifth of 1 percent of the total traffic on the interstate in Central Austin.

Interstate drivers probably will not perceive a difference.

Nevertheless, "it's a positive step," said John D. Esparza , president of the Texas Motor Transportation Association, a trucking industry trade group.

Esparza and truckers themselves pointed to several factors that will keep truckers on I-35 despite the cut.

The route through Central Texas on I-35 is 12 miles shorter than the eastern loop formed by Texas 45 Southeast and Texas 130. That amounts to about two gallons of diesel for most trucks, Esparza said.

With diesel selling for $3.43 a gallon Wednesday, that would be an additional fuel cost of close to $7 to take the tollways, assuming that a trucker doesn't end up caught in Austin traffic.

In other cases, the bosses don't want their truckers paying tolls.

"It's a business decision for each one of them," Esparza said. "Is the toll road costing me more than I'm going to get out of it?"

_____________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

Texas Transportation Commission votes to lower truck tolls

The new lower truck toll rates in Texas go into effect March 1.

The Trucker Staff

2/24/2011

 

AUSTIN, Texas — In an effort to lure more big rigs away from busy Interstate 35, the Texas Transportation Commission Thursday voted to lower toll rates for trucks on State Highway 130 and State Highway 45SE, which essentially bypasses Austin east of the city.

The new lower toll rates go into effect March 1.

Since the Central Texas Turnpike System opened, traffic and revenue have continued to perform above projections; however, actual truck traffic volumes have been lower than originally anticipated, the commission noted.

Following a survey of trucking companies and independent truckers, as well as traffic and revenue analyses, the Texas Department of Transportation staff recommended that the commission lower truck toll rates to incentivize use of the tolled bypass, part of which opened in 2006 and part in 2008.

The current TxTAG rate for trucks on SH 130 and SH 45SE is $25.60.

The new TxTAG rate for trucks on SH 130 and SH 45SE is $19.20.

The current Pay By Mail rate for trucks on SH 130 and SH 45SE is $34.12.

The new Pay By Mail rate for trucks on SH 130 and SH 45SE is $25.59.

The toll rate changes are expected to have a net neutral impact on tollway revenue, while increasing the number of trucks using the bypass, TxDOT said.

Payment of tolls with a TxTag remains the most cost effective method to pay tolls.

The Harris County Toll Road Authority’s EZ Pass and North Texas Turnpike Authority’s Toll Tag are also accepted on all toll roads throughout Texas.

Paxton: Make Transportation Funding a Priority

Make Transportation Funding a Priority

Posted By admin On February 25, 2011 @ 5:25 pm In On The Record | 6 Comments

By State Rep. Ken Paxton

Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas – The Legislature’s top priority for this legislative session is to pass a balanced state budget for the next biennium.  My top priority for this session is to do so without creating new taxes or passing any increases in existing taxes. In order to achieve this goal, the Legislature must prioritize its spending and focus on essential state services, such as  transportation.  

One of the most frustrating practices I have witnessed since serving in the Legislature is the diversion of gas tax revenue to fund non-transportation related expenditures.  Therefore, I have introduced House Bill 815 to limit the permissible uses of the State Highway Fund and to dedicate additional revenues to the Fund in order that we may better address our State’s transportation needs.

I have also introduced H.J.R. 75, which proposes a constitutional amendment to limit the permissible uses of the State Highway Fund to prohibit future legislatures from diverting more revenue from this Fund for use on non-transportation related expenses.  

Currently, the first 25% of our State’s gas tax revenue is constitutionally mandated to go to the available school fund.  However, of the remaining 75%, approximately $1.5 billion in revenue is appropriated for purposes other than building and maintaining our State’s transportation infrastructure.  My bills would reallocate this revenue to the construction and maintenance of non-tolled public roads and other transportation-related infrastructure in Texas.

Additionally, my legislation would dedicate other existing taxes, such as sales tax collected from the sale of tires and motor vehicle parts as well as tax revenue from undyed diesel fuel used for off-highway vehicles to the credit of the State Highway Fund.

The Texas Department of Transportation is in need of additional funding for highway construction to keep up with our State’s population growth.  Conservative estimates by the Texas State Demographer show that Texas’ population will nearly double in the next 30 years.

This growth will obviously create congestion on our State’s roads, particularly in growing cities and suburban areas, like most of the communities in Collin County, if we do not address this problem now.

By stopping the current diversions and dedicating additional revenue from sales and use taxes to the State Highway Fund, the Legislature can provide more funds to improve our State’s infrastructure without raising taxes.

Representative Ken Paxton was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 2002 and is currently in his 4th term representing District 70.  Paxton received his BA & MBA from Baylor University, and also earned a law degree from the University of Virginia. He and his wife Angela live in McKinney, TX and have 4 children.

Grand Pkwy design to begin

Link to article here.

Remember this is a greenfield project through the Katy prairie to benefit ExxonMobil (think economic development in the name of a "public use"), not commuters stuck in traffic on 290E on the outskirts of Houston.

Grand Parkway gets green light for design work

But no funding authorized, and foes not swayed

By NOLAN HICKS

Houston Chronicle
AUSTIN BUREAU

Feb. 25, 2011, 5:39AM

 
AUSTIN — The state Transportation Commission on Thursday granted the Texas Department of Transportation authority to begin design work and negotiating contracts to build a key segment of the Grand Parkway.

The unanimous vote did not, however, authorize funds to start work on Segment E of the tollway, which would link the Katy Freeway to the Northwest Freeway, just west of Fairfield.

"The Grand Parkway project is an important project for our region and our state," said state Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands. "Having a loop that passes around Houston, whether it's the third or fourth loop depending on where you start counting them, … will help reduce congestion and facilitate economic development."

Williams, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee, called the parkway one of his highest priorities.


TxDOT spokesman Mark Cross said the agency estimates it will cost about $350 million to build the 15 miles of toll road linking Interstate 10 to U.S. 290. He said the agency has no construction time frame, but the Transportation Commission wants work under way as soon as possible.

When completed, the parkway would be about 180 miles in circumference - running as far north as Tomball and New Caney, as far south as League City, as far west as Katy, and as far east as Baytown. The total price tag for the project is expected to exceed $6 billion.

Suburban sprawl

Harris County should finish its review of the financial viability of the parkway toll project in the next couple of months, said Mark Tomlinson, director of the Texas Turnpike Authority, which builds and operates the state's toll roads.

Opponents of the long-sought outer-outer loop insist it will do little to reduce commuter congestion and will spur further suburban sprawl.

"Many people are going to move to the region, and we do need to spend money on transportation infrastructure, but this won't help," said Jay Blazek, a researcher with Houston Tomorrow, which favors greater urban planning and expansion of mass transit. "By doing this project, TxDOT is deciding urban planning for us."

He said the low-population densities generated by suburban sprawl promote further congestion and make it much more expensive for cities to maintain infrastructure.

Other critics say the new segment of the toll road no longer is needed with the completion of Fry Road, which roughly parallels the expected path of Segment E.

"If TxDOT is running out of money, one would hope they would take the last of their money and use it to solve transportation problems for real people," said Robin Holzer, who chairs the Citizens' Transportation Coalition, which long has opposed the Grand Parkway project.

"Look at congestion in Dallas, look at what's happening on 290, look at what's happening in San Antonio or Austin - are we really saying this is the best use TxDOT can come up with for $350 million? That's absurd," she said.

Dates back 3 decades

The history of the Grand Parkway toll road has been marked by controversy over the past three decades. In the 1980s, then-Texas Highway Commissioner and future Houston Mayor Bob Lanier came under fire for owning 1,700 acres near the proposed path of the parkway. At least two other lawmakers had to leave their posts at various transportation agencies involved in the project due to similar conflicts of interest.

Jeff Moseley, a former Denton County judge and current CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership, rejected the criticism of the proposed toll project, calling it a key to Houston's economic viability.

"The reality is, this 180-mile loop was contemplated in the late '60s as a reliever to the growth for the region," Moseley said. "Some things have come forward that have added to the strategic value of the corridor, and probably the biggest is the tremendous population density that has moved to our region."

He said the toll road will play a key role in allowing shippers to get their goods quickly to and from the Port of Houston, which he said would see a significant uptick in business because the Panama Canal will begin allowing larger ships though.

"When you shift logistics for the mid-continent of America to Houston, you have to have a Grand Parkway," Moseley said.

Strip mall owner tries to oust neighbor using eminent domain

This is yet another example of the rampant eminent domain abuse across the country. No one should lose their land for another private interest's gain.

Stop Rick Caruso’s land grab in Glendale

By
Larry Gilbert
– February 15, 2011



After the Kelo land grab decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court many of the 50 states enacted legislation to prevent future redevelopment abuses that included implementation of local police powers of eminent domain. Unfortunately the voters of California were asleep and said it won’t happen to us so they rejected Prop 98 and approved Prop 99. What we said at that time is that with one possible exception, your private property will not be protected with Prop 99 but we lost that fight.
 
Fast forward to today where Ray Patel’s Golden Key Hotel on Colorado Street is being threatened by the Glendale redevelopment agency.  His options. Sell out to developer Rick Caruso who owns the adjacent American at Brand mega mall for future expansion, or renovate. As of today the city is threatening to seize the Golden Key Hotel for Ray Caruso. Mr Patel was forced to submit a plan for redevelopment of his hotel or risk losing it to condemnation. “city officials determined that Caruso is more qualified to redevelop the site, and that an expanded Americana would be more beneficial for the city in terms of sales tax revenue and neighborhood compatibility.”

This reminds me of the 99 cents only store fight in Lancaster, CA  where Costco wanted to expand for the same objective. To expand sales tax revenues. 99 Cents Only Store owner David Gold had a lease, did not own the property, yet with support from property rights attorney Gideon Kanner prevailed in his fight.”You can’t condemn someone’s property to appease a corporation that just wants to get bigger.”

A special hearing of the Glendale Redevelopment Agency is being held at 9 a.m. today.
Welcome to America the land of the free and Fifth Amendment protection.
 
Supporting Mr Patel at this morning’s hearing are representatives of the Institute for Justice and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights.
 
PS: Mr. Patel’s property is NOT FOR SALE.

Federal money for roads goes unused

Link to article here.

Federal money for local road projects unused and collecting dust

Reported by: Mireya Villarreal
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Last Update: 2/19 12:38 pm

SAN ANTONIO - Millions of your tax dollars are set aside to help the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) fix one of the most chaotic intersections in San Antonio.

But the News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooters have uncovered, for nearly five years, that money has just been sitting around, collecting dust.

We all know - Someone's life could depend on how fast an ambulance gets to the hospital. So, you'd like to think people would follow the law and pull over when they hear the sirens.

But on more than one occasion, our camera caught ambulances fighting through medical center traffic just to get to the emergency room.

In one case, drivers don’t even attempt to move over because there’s just not enough room.

"When the traffic backs up at the lights, there's no real way for ambulances to get around," Dave Hearst, a San Antonio driver, told us.

Gabe Ramirez, who works nearby, agreed, "Ambulances - I've had them behind us trying to make their way through. Coming this way down Medical and it's just not happening."

In 2006, the News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooters first uncovered there is a plan to fix all this. Back then, TXDOT had just announced they were going to buy up businesses near Fredericksburg and Medical Drive. After that was done, they were going to widen the road.

To help start the project the federal government gave TXDOT $3.5 million. Fast forward five years and it doesn’t look like much has changed in the area.

"These were funds approved back in 2005. It's 2011 and construction won't even start till next year. Why take so long,” News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooter Mireya Villarreal asked.

“Well, just like I said, it's a long process," Darla Laughter, TXDOT project spokesperson, told us.

The Fredericksburg/Medical Drive project has been in the works for more than 10 years. And that's because, on top of the federal funds, TXDOT needed another $16 million to make it happen.

"The environmental, the planning, the designing, just buying property from people, it's very time consuming," Laughter explained.

The News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooters also found out what other projects have stalled out around San Antonio.

Mission Trails, phases 4 & 5 - $3.8 million
Kelly Parkway Corridor - $400,590
Transportation improvements at Fort Sam - $427,500

These are all city and TXDOT projects given federal funds years ago; but for some reason they haven't been used.

"These earmarks, this money is just sitting there. You know, collecting dust. Is that the case here," Mireya Villarreal questioned Laughter with TXDOT.

“Absolutely not," Laughter stated.

TXDOT has already started to buy out businesses for this project and they expect to start construction in the spring of 2012. The plan is for Medical Drive to go underneath Fredericksburg. Drivers say the change can't come fast enough.

Corinth pressed to endorse 80 cent per mile tolls on I-35

Link to article here. Lawmakers are leery of re-authorizing controversial public private partnerships (PPPs), or privatized toll road contracts called Comprehensive Development Agreements (CDAs) in Texas. Lawmakers have said regions must show local support for private toll roads before they'll bless it. So bureaucrats at TxDOT and the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) are going around trying to gin-up "support" for 80 cent per mile tolls on I-35E in Denton County by getting cities, counties, and other groups to pass resolutions in favor of a deal that would benefit a private, foreign toll operator. They can't go to the public who doesn't support such draconian taxation nor ceding control of our public roads to a for-profit entity, so they fabricate public support by trying to strong-arm politicians and precinct chairs to pass resolutions against the public interest. Never confuse support of politicians with actual public support in these circumstances. Our politicians have shown time and again they'll sell us out in a heartbeat over our loud objections. Beware of these tactics and DEFEAT every one of them!

Corinth pressed on I-35E widening

County says project funding hinges on cities’ endorsement

06:30 PM CST on Sunday, February 13, 2011

By Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe / Staff Writer
Denton Record Chronicle

CORINTH — Denton County leaders have asked the Corinth City Council to join other Denton-area cities along Interstate 35E in endorsing a plan that would bring in a private developer to widen the highway from the Bush Turnpike to U.S. Highway 380.

County transportation consultant John Polster told the City Council that even if the Texas Department of Transportation devoted all the funding it had for the next decade, it would not be enough to pay for the nearly $5 billion project.

The state has $800 million available for all projects in TxDOT's Dallas district and the county has $500 million available for I-35E from its own bonds and the tolling of State Highway 121.

Even though the county and the state don’t have the money to widen the road, developers such as the Spanish toll firm Cintra consider the project lucrative, he said.

A private developer could charge anywhere from 15 cents to 80 cents per mile in privately managed lanes to recover its investment in the project.


People could still drive in one of the four free lanes, or on the frontage road, but if they wanted to get to their destination faster, they could pay the variable toll to travel in the managed lanes.

“They [the managed lanes] guarantee a travel speed of 50 mph,” Polster said.

In other words, the more congestion there is, the higher the variable toll to guarantee the free flow of traffic in the managed lanes.

Polster also told the council that, while the toll lanes would run the entire length of the expansion, the majority of the revenue from the managed lanes would be expected between the turnpike and State Highway 121.

But the kind of project Denton County is proposing — a public-private partnership — got kicked to the curb by the Texas Legislature in 2009. A few projects in the Dallas-Fort Worth area were grandfathered in, including the reconstruction of Interstate 635, the North Tarrant Express and the DFW Connector, popularly known as the Grapevine Funnel.

In order for the Legislature to revisit the funding mechanism for Denton County, state representatives are looking for endorsements, such as city council resolutions, of the concept, Polster told the council.

Council member John Booher questioned why — funding model aside — Corinth should endorse a project that would change the exit ramps and make it difficult to stop in the city.

Polster told him that the design for the managed lanes would require that drivers travel certain lengths uninterrupted for safety and mobility, but he would look into the design changes and report back.

Booher questioned whether public officials could make an informed decision about the deal, since some of the funding assumptions are private. Toll road developers conduct the research on the profitability of variable tolls but consider their research methodology proprietary, Polster said.

In an interview Friday, Booher said he felt the council wasn’t given enough information about the way the bond package would be set up.

“If the bondholders are getting both the yield of a private sale and the tax breaks of a public sale, that implies the deal is high-risk,” Booher said.

He questioned whether the county would really be protected if the bondholder couldn’t make the payments, even though county leaders have said they could sell the road to another investor.

“If the business model fails, why would someone else buy it, without the county taking more of the risk?” Booher said.

The Corinth council is expected to take up the matter at its regular meeting Thursday.

EPA to study hazards of fracking

Link to article here.

Fracking is a controversial method of oil & gas drilling that's happening around Texas. The opposition in Tarrant and Denton counties is reaching a feverish pitch, and rightly so. Rule 37, authorized by the Texas Railroad Commission, essentially gives authority to private companies to steal the mineral rights out from under adjacent property owners. Private companies utilizing fracking are running roughshod over many urban and rural areas in Texas and stealing their mineral rights in the process. Read more about these abuses here.

EPA Wants to Look at Full Lifecycle of Fracking in New Study

by Nicholas Kusnetz
ProPublica, Feb. 9, 2011, 2:32 p.m.

.
The EPA has proposed examining every aspect of hydraulic fracturing, from water withdrawals to waste disposal, according to a draft plan the agency released Tuesday. If the study goes forward as planned, it would be the most comprehensive investigation of whether the drilling technique risks polluting drinking water near oil and gas wells across the nation.

The agency wants to look at the potential impacts on drinking water of each stage involved in hydraulic fracturing, where drillers mix water with chemicals and sand and inject the fluid into wells to release oil or natural gas. In addition to examining the actual injection, the study would look at withdrawals, the mixing of the chemicals, and wastewater management and disposal. The agency, under a mandate from Congress, will only look at the impact of these practices on drinking water.
 
The agency’s scientific advisory board [1] will review the draft plan on March 7-8 and will allow for public comments then. The EPA will consider any recommendations from the board and then begin the study promptly, it said in a news release [2]. A preliminary report should be ready by the end of next year, the release said, with a full report expected in 2014.

A statement from the oil and gas industry group Energy in Depth gave a lukewarm assessment of the draft.

“Our guys are and will continue to be supportive of a study approach that’s based on the science, true to its original intent and scope,” the statement read. “But at first blush, this document doesn’t appear to definitively say whether it’s an approach EPA will ultimately take.”

The study, announced in March [3], comes amid rising public concern about the safety of fracking, as ProPublica has been reporting [4] for years. While it remains unclear whether the actual fracturing process has contaminated drinking water, there have been more than 1,000 reports [5] around the country of contamination related to drilling, as we reported in 2008. In September 2010, the EPA warned residents of a Wyoming town [6] not to drink their well water and to use fans while showering to avoid the risk of explosion. Investigators found methane and other chemicals associated with drilling in the water, but they had not determined the cause of the contamination.

Drillers have been fracking wells for decades, but with the rise of horizontal drilling into unconventional formations like shale, they are injecting far more water and chemicals underground than ever before. The EPA proposal notes that 603 rigs were drilling horizontal wells in June 2010, more than twice as many as were operating a year earlier. Horizontal wells can require millions of gallons of water per well, a much greater volume than in conventional wells.

One point of contention is the breadth of the study. Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, said he understands the need to address any stage of the fracking that might affect drinking water, but he’s skeptical that water withdrawals meet the criteria.

“The only way you can argue that issues related to water demand are relevant to that question is if you believe the fracturing process requires such a high volume of water that its very execution threatens the general availability of the potable sources,” he wrote in an e-mail.

The EPA proposal estimates that fracking uses 70 to 140 billion gallons of water annually, or about the same amount used by one or two cities of 2.5 million people. In the Barnett Shale, in Texas, the agency estimates fracking for gas drilling consumes nearly 2 percent of all the water used in the area.

The EPA proposes using two or three “prospective” case studies to follow the course of drilling and fracking wells from beginning to end. It would also look at three to five places where drilling has reportedly contaminated water, including two potential sites in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, and one site each in Texas, Colorado and North Dakota.

Critics of SB 18 get noticed

Link to article here.

Too Imminent

Eminent domain reform is on the legislative fast track, but activists aren’t cheering.

Wednesday, 16 February 2011
BY JEFF PRINCE
Ft. Worth Weekly

The Legislature’s latest attempt at passing an eminent domain reform bill looks like it might actually make it to the finish line and end up on Gov. Rick Perry’s desk for his signature. For six years the topic has been examined, poked, and prodded by lawmakers, property owners, and myriad special-interest groups led by the oil and gas industry. Similar bills have died before being passed into law. Perry vetoed eminent domain legislation in 2007 while he was pushing to establish the privately owned Trans-Texas Corridor tollway.

This session looks different. Senate Bill 18, whose chief sponsor is Sen. Craig Estes of Wichita Falls, has been given the royal blessing by Perry, who dubbed the bill an “emergency issue” and encouraged lawmakers to get ’er done. metro
Steve Doeung represented himself in court while fighting eminent domain. Jeff Prince

The Texas Senate approved the bill unanimously last week. The Texas House is now considering it. Meanwhile, the mainstream news media is characterizing the bill as a boon for property owners. A Fort Worth Star-Telegram headline proclaimed: “Fast-tracked Texas bill would empower homeowners against eminent domain.”

“Texas Senate passes bill to extend property rights,” said a Houston Chronicle headline.

Folks such as local rancher Billy Mitchell ought to be thrilled, right? In recent years, government agencies and private companies have used eminent domain powers to force North Texas property owners like Mitchell to sell their land for what amounts to private development — natural gas pipelines, gas rigs, privately owned toll roads, Trinity River Vision-type projects, or just the expansion of a shopping mall. Activists have been hoping that legislation would be passed this year to add protections for property owners. The issue draws a broad spectrum of support, and activists thought new legislation might be doable even in a Republican-dominated legislature.

But Mitchell isn’t thrilled. He’s mad.

“The bill is totally useless,” he said. “It’s doing what the creator designed it to do — make the voters think he’s doing something. Estes is just trying to get brownie points.”

Other grassroots organizers are echoing that sentiment.


Texas has been massaging its eminent domain laws ever since 2005. That’s when a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London opened the doors for municipalities seeking to use eminent domain to seize property for what are essentially private projects. The court ruled that seizing property for private development could be considered as “public use” if the economic growth and tax boosts from the new development were expected to benefit the community.

Texas lawmakers say the new bill would make it more difficult for a government entity or private company to seize property “if the taking is not for a public use.” But therein lies the rub: In the bill, as in the current law, words like “public use” and “bona fide” are left undefined. The proposed law, just like current law, requires making a “bona fide” financial offer to a property owner during the eminent domain process, without setting criteria for what constitutes such an offer.

Mitchell found out the hard way about the vagueness of the current law’s language — and the expensive nature of interpreting it in court. He spent about $100,000 on legal fees while trying to prevent a pipeline company from using eminent domain to grab his ranch property for natural gas pipelines.

“The oil and gas companies can run up your attorney fees by taking you to court to decipher what words like ‘bona fide’ mean,” he said. “Another one is ‘public use.’ The pipeline companies say they serve the public. But McDonald’s serves the public.”

The proposed legislation would still allow a private, for-profit company to use eminent domain laws to take his ranchland against his will, he said.

“All I wanted was a jury trial and a day in court,” he said. “The lawyers ran up bills with depositions — they kept me all day long knowing I’m paying my attorney $300 an hour. They asked me what elementary school I went to and what the physical address of my elementary school was — I’m 53 years old! The deposition was two inches thick.”

During the long fight, oil and gas employees entered his property on several occasions and left his gate open, allowing his cows to escape, Mitchell said.

Many months later, Mitchell still hadn’t received a court date. “Then my attorney said if I wanted my day in court, I’d probably spend another $100,000,” he said. “I never did get my day in court.”

Fort Worth resident Steve Doeung got his day in a Tarrant County court while fighting against the eminent domain seizure of his Carter Avenue residential property. Chesapeake Energy wanted to bury pipelines across residents’ front yards to transport gas from a nearby drill site. Doeung resisted and represented himself in court, squared off against Chesapeake’s team of lawyers, and did an admirable job of standing up to the experienced attorneys. But he prevailed only after Fort Worth City Council member Kathleen Hicks, State Sen. Wendy Davis, and others helped broker a deal to bury the pipeline alongside I-30 — the first time a gas-gathering pipeline has been allowed in a Texas Department of Transportation right-of-way.

Doeung became a lay expert on eminent domain during his fight, and he characterizes the
new bill as weak and mostly just political posturing.

“When I read it, I didn’t really see why they are doing this,” he said. “It doesn’t benefit us, it only reinforces the takings by private corporations. The bill starts out sounding good, but then it gives all these exceptions that take the meat out of it.”

For instance, an exception is made when a property is deemed as “blighted.” Determining whether a property is blighted can open a mass of legal loopholes.

“The list of exceptions goes on and on,” said Terri Hall, founder of the San Antonio-based grassroots Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF). “The language is so broad you can drive a Mack truck through it.”

Exceptions usually mean one thing: See you in court. “Whoever has the most high-priced lawyers will prevail, and you can bet it’s not the landowners,” Hall said.

The fact that the oil and gas industry lauds the bill speaks volumes, critics say.

“No wonder the pipeline association is so happy — [the bill] puts an exclamation point on the rights they already have,” Doeung said, referring to the Texas Pipeline Association, which supports the bill.

Pipeline companies have fought protracted legal battles with ruthless fervor when seeking property. So why would they support legislation allegedly designed to strengthen property rights?

“It’s an important bill for the landowner,” said the association’s director of governmental affairs, Thury Cannon. “There are really not any benefits for pipelines in that bill.”

He said the legislation gives landowners more protection and lengthens the process of eminent domain seizures. The association supports the bill because “it’s good business for every business to be a good neighbor,” he said.

Doeung, Mitchell, and others who have battled pipeline companies scoff heartily at the idea of pipeline operators appreciating a more level playing field for landowners.

Texas House members could amend the bill, but the pipeline association doesn’t want to see that.

“We hope the bill can go unamended through the process,” Cannon said. “The bill is a very delicate compromise between all interested parties, and it’s been so for a long time. We hope that all interested parties can stick to the agreement that is currently in Senate Bill 18.”

Melissa Cubria is an interested party, but she’s seeking amendments. Cubria, an advocate with the Texas Public Interest Research Group, said the bill doesn’t protect landowners.

“It’s a special-interest giveaway they cloaked in the guise of eminent domain reform,” she said. “They are actually representing the interests of oil and gas entities, private toll road investors, and developers. I’ve spoken to landowners, and they are furious.”

The current proposal is a watered-down version of the 2007 bill that Perry vetoed, which is the only reason he is trying to push it through so quickly now, Hall said.

“It won’t stop anything that’s he got on his agenda, such as privatizing a bunch of Texas highways,” she said. “They can still take your land in the name of public use and hand it over to a private entity for private gain. That’s why he’s willing to sign it.”

Other supporters include the Texas Farm Bureau, which opposed Perry in early legislative discussions on eminent domain. But that organization got what it wanted — compensation for diminished access after eminent domain is used to take property.

Activists such as Hall want more.

“What we’re about is protecting private property rights, not how do we get compensated fairly once a government entity has targeted your land for condemnation,” she said. “We’re trying to prevent wrongful taking in the first place.”

Bill Peacock, vice president of research at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Texas Public Policy Foundation, isn’t quite so dire in his description of the bill. But he too says the legislation needs amending to provide more protection for landowners and predicts that even with changes it will fall short of an ideal bill.

“I think it will pass the House as a better bill than what came out of the Senate,” he said. “If it passes with some improvements, I think we’d be about 60 to 70 percent of where we need to be in property rights protection.”

Estes, the Senate bill’s chief sponsor, is pleased that stakeholder groups as diverse as farmers, developers, ranchers, and oil and gas drillers are supporting the bill. He wants it to pass the House without changes.

“This is a giant step forward,” he said. “People from all sides of this issue have said, let’s get this passed and under our belt, and we’ll see where it goes from there.”

Critics say that “giant step forward” would actually be a step backward, passing weaker legislation than Perry vetoed four years ago.

“Make Perry sign that one,” Hall said.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

Texas Senate passes property rights bill
By TERRENCE STUTZ / Austin Bureau
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Published 09 February 2011 12:54 PM

AUSTIN — Legislation aimed at strengthening the rights of property owners in eminent domain cases in Texas won unanimous approval in the Senate on Wednesday.

The Senate approved a similar measure two years ago, but it fell victim to an impasse in the House that killed scores of bills in the final days of the last legislative session. It is expected to fare better in the House this year.

Sen. Craig Estes, author of the proposal, said his aim is to “restore balance” in the eminent domain process in which a government agency or other entity takes private property for a public purpose and compensates the landowner.

Despite previous changes in the law, Estes, a Wichita Falls Republican, said the “deck of cards is still stacked against private property owners” because the eminent domain process “does not always properly recognize the true value of a private landowner’s interest.”


The bill would allow the original landowner to repurchase the property if no progress toward public use of the land occurs within 10 years of when a government acquires it.
The senator said his bill and similar measures in recent years were prompted by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that sanctioned the use of eminent domain for economic development projects.

In 2009, Texas voters approved a constitutional amendment that prevents government agencies from seizing private property and turning it over to a private developer to increase the local tax base.

That amendment and a 2007 law put new restrictions on eminent domain, but property rights advocates contend that additional safeguards are needed. Some critics say Estes’ bill doesn’t go far enough because it will allow government entities to create private corporations that could condemn land, as has happened with some private toll roads.

“This legislation will benefit utility companies, the oil and gas industry, real estate developers and private toll road investors before it ever has the opportunity to work on behalf of the citizens and landowners of Texas,” said Melissa Cubria of Texas PIRG.

The eminent domain legislation was declared an emergency by Gov. Rick Perry, allowing it to be considered in the early weeks of the 2011 session. Perry came under criticism in 2007 when he vetoed a property rights bill that he said would lead to increased lawsuits in eminent domain cases.

Typically, when the property owner and governmental entity fail to agree on a price for the land, the entity files suit to condemn the property so it can be acquired. The owner has the right to a hearing before a court-appointed panel of three commissioners, who determine a fair price. A landowner still dissatisfied has the right to a trial.

Grecians protest high PPP toll taxes

Link to article here.

It's interesting to note that Greece has many public private partnership (PPP) toll roads (think: public money for private profits). It's certainly no coincidence then, that Goldman Sachs was the architect of Greece's financial collapse, nor that Goldman Sachs is a primary player in financing PPPs. The Texas Senate Transportation Committee has a hearing tomorrow to consider re-authorizing PPPs. Texans beware!

In Greece "I won't pay" anti-toll activists take over toll plazas, force gates

Posted on Mon, 2011-02-07, Toll Road News
 
In Greece mobs of activists have been taking control of toll plazas, raising gates and granting motorists free passage. From noon until around 3pm Sunday at many toll plazas around Greece toll road companies lost control of toll plaza operations to crowds of protesters, and direct action radicals.

Gates were apparently placed in the up position, toll collectors were frightened off and the traffic waved through the toll lanes without any tolls being taken.

This is the most radical action yet taken by a movement whose name is translated from Greek as "I won't pay, I won't pay."

It is unclear what proportion of toll plazas in the country were affected.

Most expressways in Greece have been financed by toll road companies under toll concessions or public-private partnerships (PPPs) with the national government. Some have a mix of public and private money spent on them.

The activists speak of an array of different grievances - against the concession contracts, against announced toll increases, against lack of competing free roads, against fuel taxes plus tolls, against tolls...

The direct action at the weekend was an escalation of activity by a 'national coordinating committee' that appeared to be aimed at overwhelming toll companies' security and to make any police counter-action difficult to mount.

There were protests at toll plazas in January.
Not just 'protest'

Local reports including news agency reports called yesterday's action "protests."

But to the extent the action went beyond display of banners, hand-out of leaflets and speechmaking, and involved action to seize control of toll operations it is more than "protest."

Words come to mind like trespass, obstruction, intimidation, incitement, criminal threatening, tortious interference with business, conspiracy, racketeering.

BACKGROUND: Data from ASECAP, the European toll association show there are 917km (573 miles) of toll expressway in Greece operated by seven concession companies. They operate 67 toll stations or toll plazas with 398 toll lanes of which 154 are electronic toll collection (ETC). There are 508k transponder accounts.

Average daily traffic is 573k of which 49k are heavy trucks, 525k light vehicles. Toll revenues last year were E550m or @1.35 US$743m.

Not much different in extent of tolling from Florida, Pennsylvania, California, or Texas. Not as big as New York or New Jersey, but bigger than Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Virginia.

http://www.asecap.com/english/stats-greece-en.html

NOTE: our Greek ain't the greatest, but we're trying to get more detail on this and will post it if we can get it - editor

TOLLROADSnews 2011-02-07

Malkin: PPPs are 'corporate welfare'

Link to article here.

Conservative Michelle Malkin blasts so-called "public private partnerships": "When businesses get in the government handout line, it’s not a 'public-private partnership.' It’s corporate welfare — and it stinks as much under Democrat administrations as it does under Republican ones."

Obama & the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Bad romance;
Update: Fruitcake and sweet talk; plus: O’s What You Must Do For Me moment

 
By Michelle Malkin  •  February 7, 2011 05:22 AM

Scroll for speech updates…


“Trust not their presents, nor admit the horse.” — from Virgil’s Aeneid, translated by John Dryden

Today, President Obama will address the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — the very same organization he slandered as a foreign money-funneling operation before the midterm election shellacking just three short months ago.

Desperate to goose up his administration’s abysmal jobs numbers, President Obama is on a public relations quest to create the appearance of “mending fences” and “easing tensions” with the Beltway business lobby — a lobby that should in no way be mistaken for representing the majority of American businesses and entrepreneurs.

I remind you again:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one of the staunchest promoters of amnesty and joined with the AFL-CIO/ACLU to oppose immigration enforcement measures. They oppose E-verify and sued Arizona over its employer sanctions law.

The Chamber supported TARP, the auto bailout, and the stimulus.

The Chamber is supporting a pro-Obamacare, pro-TARP, pro-card check, pro-stimulus, pro-amnesty Democrat in Arizona over his free-market GOP challenger.

 And the Chamber is now playing footsie with the AFL-CIO on a joint campaign to support increased government infrastructure spending — despite the massive Big Labor pay-offs embedded in these new pork-lined projects. (Refresher: Obama signed E.O. 13502, a union-friendly executive order in his first weeks in office, which essentially forces contractors who bid on large-scale public construction projects worth $25 million or more to submit to union representation for its employees. More here.)

While the White House pushes for a bonanza of new “public-private partnerships,” let me refresh your memories of some of the Democrats’ great ideas of “public-private partnerships”…

…taxpayer-funded black hole FANNIE MAE;

…Chicago’s shady Shorebank and its crony-supported successor, Urban Partnership Bank;

…the failed Chicago Olympics wealth distribution boondoggle;

…and the failed Richard Daley/Valerie Jarrett Chicago low-income housing boondoggle.

This isn’t about letting the best ideas and businesses thrive. It’s about picking winners and losers. It’s about “managing” competition and engineering political outcomes under the guise of stimulating the economy. As I noted last April when the command-and-controller-in-chief lectured businesses that “at some point you have made enough money,” we are dealing with a president who presumes to know when you have earned “enough,” who believes that only those who provide what he deems “good” products and services should “keep on making it,” and who has determined that the role of American entrepreneurs is not to pursue their own self-interest, but to fulfill their “core” responsibility as dutiful growers of the collective economy.

What’s in it for the statist businesses that go along for the ride with Obama and his team of corruptocrats?

Like they say in the Windy City: It’s all about the boodle.

In Chicago politics, there’s an old term for the publicly-subsidized pay-offs meted out to the corruptocrats’ friends and special interests: Boodle.

In the age of Obama, “reform” is all about the boodle. So it was with the stimulus. And the massive national service expansion. And the health care bill. And so it is with the financial “reform” bill…In front of the cameras, the Democrats will lambaste the greedy, Wall Street money. Behind the scenes, they’re pocketing Wall Street campaign donations and working out deals.

Goo-goo “reform” has always entailed wealth redistribution under the guise of public service (or “social justice” or “media justice” or “innovation” or whatever the euphemism of the day is). The goodies can take the form of exclusive union-only contracts or p.c. bailouts or waivers for favors.

When businesses get in the government handout line, it’s not a “public-private partnership.”

It’s corporate welfare — and it stinks as much under Democrat administrations as it does under Republican ones.

It goes without saying that American entrepreneurs should be beware of White House business-bashers bearing gifts.

But so, too, should taxpayers beware of Washington business-boosters wearing false free-market facades.

***

Update: Obama gets a warm welcome at the Chamber. Coos that he strolled over from the White House to the Chamber headquarters “in the interest of being neighborly.” Jokes: “Maybe if we’d have brought over a fruitcake, we’d have gotten off to a better start.”

This from the man who threatened: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

After some obligatory sweet talk, Obama launches into his What You Can Do For me lecture, calling on businesses to help America (translation: help Obama’s poll/jobs numbers).

After obligatory talk about reorganizing government for efficiencies, the President says “not all regulations are bad” (translation: his regulations are good) and then defends Obamacare.

After defending job-killing, innovation-strangling, tax-hiking federal health care takeover, Obama then exhorts companies to invest, invest, invest, innovate, invest, invest.

Obama gets applause: “Now is the time to invest in America.”

Translation: Now is the time to line up and lobby me for your handout, waiver, and boodle.

Eminent domain bill on fast track, but doesn't solve Kelo

Link to article here.

Once again, our lawmakers are trying to convince Texans they've protected landowners from Kelo-type eminent domain abuses, where the government takes a person's private property under the pretext of a "public use" then hands it to another private entity for private gain (under the pretext of "economic development"). SB 18 that's being fast-tracked (perhaps in part to prevent public scrutiny and normal debate) does NOTHING to solve Kelo abuses since it still allows a private entity to benefit from the deal as long as these entities can steal your land under the auspices of a "public use," like road projects where TxDOT can condemn your land and hand it over to a private, foreign toll operator, ie - Cintra, for the next 50 years! The bill also fails to protect landowners from either a governmental or private entity taking your land for anything either considers "blight." What the government considers blight is a developer's dream!

Insist on REAL eminent domain reform, not settling for more crumbs. If existing law truly restricts eminent domain by private entities to "public uses" then why does SB 18 also have such a restriction? Wouldn't that be redundant? It's in there because current law doesn't restrict eminent domain to a "public use," and it appears in this bill so as to bring in yet new loophole (Texas Public Policy Foundation cites one of them below) in the name of "reform." Call your lawmakers today and demand GENUINE protection from Kelo!

Fast-tracked Texas bill would empower homeowners against eminent domain

Posted Sunday, Feb. 06, 2011

By Dave Montgomery

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

AUSTIN -- After years of conflict, the Texas Legislature could be heading toward a long-sought resolution on property rights with a carefully stitched compromise supported by Gov. Rick Perry, key lawmakers and major interest groups.

The eminent domain measure -- which strengthens protections for property owners -- is expected to be considered by the state Senate as early as Tuesday. Passage seems virtually certain since more than two-thirds of the chamber's 31 members have signed on as co-authors.

Perry put the legislation on a fast track by declaring it an emergency item that lawmakers are required to consider during the session's first 60 days. Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, is chief author of the Senate bill, SB18, and Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, is author of the House bill, HB279.

Proponents have fashioned a delicate coalition from a broad range of interest groups, some of whom were once on opposing sides. The Texas Farm Bureau is enthusiastically backing the measure. Other interest groups, such as pipelines and cities, harbor concerns about the bill but say they are at least begrudgingly on board, recognizing that it's probably the best deal they can get.
"Every word in there has been carefully crafted," said Estes, whose district includes Parker, Wise, and parts of Denton and Collin counties. "Nobody is 100 percent happy, which means it's a pretty good bill."

Accordingly, Estes said he will fight any amendment to ward off even the slightest change that could unravel the compromise.

"I don't care if your amendment turns lead into gold. It's not going to happen if I can help it," Estes said. "Any bill can be made better, but when you have all the major interest groups on board, let's don't let perfection get in the way of something that's good for Texas."

Tarrant co-sponsors

Estes' bipartisan roster of Senate co-authors includes all three senators who represent parts of Tarrant County -- Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound; Chris Harris, R-Arlington; and Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth. Harris said he has been working with Estes on the bill for four years "and I am ready for it to finally become law."

The timetable in the House won't be determined until after Speaker Joe Straus appoints committees -- possibly this week -- but Geren predicts that the measure "has a very good chance" at passage.

"This bill provides protection for Texas landowners, and there are a lot of people that will support that protection," Geren said.

The legislation is virtually identical to an earlier bill by Estes that passed the Senate 31-0 in 2009 but died in the House in the session's closing days. Perry's emergency declaration is designed to get it through the Legislature early enough to avoid a replay of 2009, supporters say.

Under eminent domain, government entities and certain legally authorized private entities such as pipeline companies, railroads and utilities are empowered to acquire property for public use after fairly compensating the owners. Some say Texas has hundreds, perhaps thousands, of condemning entities.

If the property owner and entity fail to agree on a price, the entity can file suit to condemn -- acquire -- the property. But the property owner first has the right to a hearing before a three-member commission that determines the amount of compensation. If property owners are dissatisfied with the award, they have a right to a trial before a judge or jury and can appeal.

Eminent domain has stoked disputes over property rights and government power since the founding of the Republic. In Texas, modern-day property-rights battles have been evident in disputes over pipelines in the Barnett Shale and in Perry's now-dead Trans-Texas Corridor project, which encroached on a half-million acres of farmland.

Perry came under fire from property-rights advocates in 2006 for vetoing an eminent domain bill that he said went too far in expanding property owner damages, creating what he said was "a financial windfall for condemnation lawyers" at taxpayers' expense.

Perry's two principal opponents in his race for re-election last year -- Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison and Democrat Bill White -- also accused Perry of trampling on property rights by pushing the Trans-Texas Corridor, which would have created a multibillion-dollar network of toll roads and highways.

On the fast track

But Perry has seemingly pushed past much of the criticism with strong property-rights messages during the past two sessions, including his pledge to fast-track legislation this year. The 450,000-member Texas Farm Bureau, which endorsed Hutchison over Perry in the Republican primary -- partly because of bitterness over the Trans-Texas Corridor -- now praises Perry for his commitment to the Estes-Geren legislation.

The legislation is the state's latest response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London in 2005, which permitted the use of eminent domain for economic development. A 2007 law and a state constitutional amendment passed by Texas voters in 2009 restricted eminent domain acquisitions to only those involving public use. But property-rights advocates say those measures went only so far in protecting landowners.

"We would like to set the bar a little higher," Estes said. "In my opinion, the deck is stacked against the property owner."

The bill lays out procedures that supporters say levels a playing field that has been tilted toward acquiring entities. One key provision would enable landowners to buy back property if it isn't used for the intended public purpose in 10 years, although the Texas Public Policy Foundation says the provision contains loopholes that could still allow condemning entities to hold on to the property.

Wallace: Privatization myth sold as truth

Link to article here.

Myth Sold as Truth: Privatization

Posted Friday, Feb. 04, 2011

By Ed Wallace

Special to the Star-Telegram

"There is little doubt [Morgan Stanley Infrastructures Partners] will recoup their investment in a relatively short period of time." - Investment Banker Dennis Enright, discussing the privatization of Chicago's parking meters in the New York Times

The public is so deluged with Big Myths that it's almost impossible to deal with all of them - much less disprove the untruths they're built on. That's probably the idea. These Big Myth premises, successfully foisted onto a gullible public incapable of critical thinking, serve only to enlarge the wealth of those spreading the disinformation.

Privatization of publicly owned assets, sold to us wrapped in the shiny myth that "private companies can always do the job better than inefficient governments" is one of the most effective sales job. It is quickly altering the lives and draining the pocketbooks of all Americans.

First, maybe it's true that private industry is more efficient at some things than government is. But it is equally true that these companies are not buying public assets for anything as altruistic as lowering the costs of using these assets for the public good. They have little incentive to provide more efficient services; the reason they buy the assets that we all paid for is a simple investment/profit motive. Once the new owners control the asset, their only mission statement reads, "To maximize investors' return on their investment."

Your Taxes at Work-In India

This really struck home a week ago. ABC News did a story about Florida's privatizing its food stamp operations to J.P Morgan - which in turn contracted a call center in India to process the claims. Imagine that. Florida gives taxpayers' money to J.P. Morgan, which to make a greater profit uses that money to hire people in India, putting Floridians out of a job. Then out-of-work Floridians have to call India to get approved for food stamps. Now that's ironic.

The best place to see how privatization really affects average Americans may be in Chicago. Like many cities, Chicago has had a hard time living within its budgetary means, even while collecting one of America's highest city sales taxes: 10.25 percent. So two years ago Chicago decided to sell the city's parking meters.

According to Associated Content, William Blair is a close associate of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Selling off the city's 36,000 parking meters to a private investment group was his idea, but Blair also was instrumental in getting Daley to sell off the city-owned downtown parking garages back in 2006. And for his clever suggestions for taking revenue-producing, publicly owned assets and privatizing them (and for being a member of Daley's Kitchen Cabinet), Blair has received payments totaling $6.5 million.

Analysis After the Sale

Morgan Stanley eventually took majority ownership of the city's parking meters for 75 years, in exchange for a one-time payment to Chicago of just under $1.2 billion. According to Chicago Sun Times political columnist Carol Marin, almost immediately the cost of using a parking meter inside the Loop jumped to 28 quarters ($7) for a two-hour period.

But quickly increasing the cost of parking wasn't the only pain inflicted by the new owners. Many parking meters couldn't handle that much loose change in one day, and once full the meters would accept no more change; anyone who parked by one was doing so illegally. Yes, the number of parking tickets jumped so much they had to stop writing them while new meters that would accept credit cards were installed. Even more interesting is that LAZ Parking - also owned by Morgan Stanley - was responsible for collecting the coins out of the meters and issuing the parking tickets.

The meters were set to demand payment 24 hours a day and seven days a week, ending the free parking that enticed many families to downtown Chicago on Sundays.

Chicago's Inspector General analyzed the deal only after it was done; and on June 1, 2009, his report on the sale said officially that Chicago had gotten the short end of the stick. The report faulted William Blair's calculations of the 36,000 parking meters' present and future value: they were worth not a mere $1.2 billion, but more in the neighborhood of $2 billion. Seems Blair wrote the entire report from the investors' perspective, not from that of the real owners, the people of Chicago. The Inspector General concluded that the entire deal was "dubious."

It should be noted that Daley's friend Blair wasn't the only one who profited by suggesting and promoting this deal. The Mayor's former spokeswoman, Avis LaVelle, emerged from it with a new job - spokeswoman for Morgan Stanley's parking meter entity.

The Modern Highwaymen

By November the New York Times had shown the deal to numerous financial experts, who unanimously said, "Chicago could have made out much better in the long run had it just kept the meters."

Here's the net effect of that sale. Parking meter rates have quadrupled, and that was just in the first year after the sale went through. The lease still has 74 years to run. Chicago drivers are (and their great-grandkids will be) paying through the nose for the sins of those voters elected to govern the city's finances wisely.

Meanwhile, just a few miles away in Indiana, the state's major toll road was privatized a few years back. According to The Times of Northwest Indiana, "A combination of toll increases ... have [sic] marked the Toll Road's first three and a half years under private operation." That comment came out of a column published a year ago, reminding readers that tolls would increase by another 8.2 percent last summer. The rationale? The recession lowered the number of drivers using the toll road, so keeping profits constant meant that everyone still using it had to pay more.

And when summer came, it brought another surprise for the users of the Indiana Toll Road: a lawsuit against its new owner, ITR Concession, brought by a woman whose accident she blamed on their highway's poorly maintained condition.

The merits of her lawsuit notwithstanding, it's interesting that ITR Concession tried to get the lawsuit thrown out under the legal concept of government immunity from such legal actions. Really. A private, for-profit company buys up a publicly owned highway and then wants the same protection against lawsuits that government enjoys.

Principles vs. Profiteering

When Charlie Wilson left his job as head of General Motors in the early 50s to become our Secretary of Defense in the Eisenhower Cabinet, he had to divest of his stock in GM over conflict of interest rules. It cost Wilson over a million dollars in tax liabilities to accept the President's offer. But Wilson, like so many other wealthy Americans in those days doing public service after a long and successful business career, paid the price willingly.

Wilson said that America had been so good to him that giving back to the country that gave him everything was the right thing to do, including service to the country as a public servant. The long and impressive list of car men in this country who did the same thing for the betterment of America includes men like Big Bill Knudsen. He too lost millions when he left GM to run our weapons procurement during World War II.

Yet, in the early 70s - just two decades after Charlie Wilson forfeited millions to do public service at the end of his career - the system changed and no one noticed. Suddenly everyone was doing their so-called public service early in their careers, then jumping ship to private industry and making the big bucks because they were "government connected."

For example, look at the political career of Donald Rumsfeld in the 70s. After he left government he made a fortune in private industry because of his political connections, then returned to Washington. Open Secrets put his 2004 net worth at between $64 and $210 million. Being White House Chief of Staff in the Ford Administration just didn't pay that kind of money.

Government as a Business Piggybank

So, if you wonder why we pay so much for electricity, or why so many toll roads are now being built, or why no one in authority can put sanity back into the commodities markets - leaving us to pay far more for food and energy than market conditions justify - it's not just the Democrats' or the Republicans' fault. And it's not because we don't pay enough in taxes to offset our deficits.

It's because the political system now is geared toward insiders' using their influence to take over government's duties and responsibilities (parking meters, highways or even basic legislation) for their own or their clients' financial gain.

The reason so many publicly owned assets are being sold is not that private industry is more efficient than government. It's because repeating that Big Myth is a sure fire way to get the public to sign off on deals that any intelligent person can see don't serve citizens' long-term economic interest. In fact, typically it only takes months for the taxpayer to realize just how costly these deals will be.

Then again, we're a long way from the days of Ike and businessmen who felt it was their duty to serve our country. But they made their fortunes first, and often gave a great deal of it back in order to serve the country they loved so much.

© 2010 Ed Wallace

Ed Wallace has received the Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, given by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA, and is a member of the American Historical Association. He reviews new cars every Friday morning at 7:15 on Fox Four's Good Day, frequently contributes articles to BusinessWeek Online and hosts the top-rated talk show, Wheels, 8:00 to 1:00 Saturdays on 570 KLIF. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; access all of Ed's work at his Web site, www.insideautomotive.com.

TxDOT has money for road to nowhere, but not congested Hwy 290

Link to article here. The comments to this article are spot on! So TxDOT can come up with $425 million for the Grand "Porkway," a greenfield project to nowhere to benefit developers and ExxonMobil (in the district of the new Senate Transportation Committee Chairman, Tommy Williams), but can't fix the highly congested Hwy 290 without making Texans pay extra toll taxes "cuz we're out of money to fix our roads"? Yeah right, and I'm the Queen of England...these misplaced priorities are so obvious to anyone with a pulse. It's this sort of lunacy that has caused the public to mistrust the highway dept and the elected officials who allow this abuse of public funds to continue.

Grand Parkway work may end up in state's hands

Commissioners considering asking agency to take over building

By CHRIS MORAN
HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Jan. 7, 2011, 10:19PM
 
 
Commissioners Court will consider on Tuesday issuing a challenge to the state to start building a Grand Parkway
 
segment in western Harris County by the end of year and to reimburse the county for the millions it has already spent on the project.

Harris County took control of the project about 15 months ago in the belief that the Texas Department of Transportation did not have the money to build it, and that the county could come to an agreement with the state over how toll collections would be used.

Things have changed since then. First, County Judge Ed Emmett said, the Texas Transportation Commission has notified him informally that it expects to have $425 million available for the project this year.

Second, the county has not come to an agreement with the state on the use of toll revenues. The state has insisted that all toll revenue collected on the Parkway (also known as State Highway 99) needs to be spent on the Parkway itself.

The county wants to keep all the money collected on Harris County segments of the road in the county to pay for drainage projects, connector roads and other necessities the Parkway creates.
At a Transportation Commission meeting last week, Commissioner Ned Holmes said, "I think one of the challenges that Harris County faces is expending funds in counties that are not Harris County."

The Commissioners Court agenda item proposes that the county waive its right to build local Grand Parkway segments, handing it back to the state.

Emmett said that is good news because it will allow Harris County to focus on other projects.

"Hopefully that will free us to build a much better Hempstead Tollway," Emmett said, a proposed 18-mile road parallel to 290 to ease commuter congestion.

For motorists, the most notable difference between the state and the county building the Grand Parkway might be the uniform the toll collectors wear.

But the county pushed for and received the right to build the local Parkway segments after a controversy over TxDOT's highway-building plans that included the possibility of foreign corporations building state toll roads and controlling the money collected on those roads. The state has since pulled back from such plans.

"It is possible that the commission could commit some funding for Segment E in 2011," said TxDOT spokeswoman Karen Amacker, if the county decides to give the Parkway project back to the state.

"We do believe that it is an important high-priority project, not just for the Houston area but for the entire state," she said.

The advocacy group Citizens Transportation Coalition continues to oppose the Parkway, regardless of its builder, on the grounds that it is unnecessary and will exact environmental damage on the area.

Coalition Chairwoman Robin Holzer said she was pleased to hear Emmett raise the prospect of more attention to the Hempstead Tollway.

"We need the county to build transportation options for people in the 290 corridor between 610 and Cypress long before they waste any more money in the Katy Prairie," she said. "Segment E of the Grand Parkway is entirely about subsidizing access for a handful of suburban home builders."

Parkway boosters say the road will bring economic development.

At the commission meeting, Holmes also said it is his understanding that ExxonMobil's consideration of land it owns near the Woodlands as a possible North American headquarters is contingent upon completion of the Harris County segments of the Parkway.

________________________________________________________

Some of the comments posted to this article...

house567

8:13 PM on January 10, 2011

"We need the county to build transportation options for people in the 290 corridor between 610 and Cypress long before they waste any more money in the Katy Prairie," she said. "Segment E of the Grand Parkway is entirely about subsidizing access for a handful of suburban home builders." Robin Holzer
You got that right Robin!

harr1234

1:21 PM on January 8, 2011

We need to invest in rail and bus transportation not more roads and definitely not toll roads. Where is the insight here. These corrupted county and state officials cannot ween themselves clear of these road projects. There is just to much kick back money from William Brothers road construction.
Hey Emmett how much is William Brothers paying you for the contract. Oh I forgot that is top secret information.

rodeorider

7:50 AM on January 8, 2011

Isn't it convenient that the Comical hides comments until users log in? We wouldn't want web page visitors actually *read* what people think about toll roads in Houston!

GFBrown2

2:47 AM on January 8, 2011

NO MORE TOLL ROADS!!!! Commuter Rail in the Hempstead rail easement would be a far better idea.
Contact HC Commissioner's Court every way you can and help demand it.

 

Coolingwater911

5:43 PM on January 7, 2011

Another waste of Money

Goldenangel

5:12 PM on January 7, 2011

Then you would have to have two toll road stickers on your window. Harris County & the State. Fix 290 & I-10 first. NO MORE TAXATION!

lostntheburbs

3:49 PM on January 7, 2011

How about some heavy rail (that would be mass transportation)? It is plain lunacy to see so many people communting into Houston, specifically one person, one car. If done correctly, kept clean and policed, it would not turn into metro. I would not want the metro authority associated with it at all.
Last, the reason why rail is not wanted is because the "wrong element" could live in the burbs. Folks, get over it. Put a rail station at every park and ride, make them top of the line, security officers on every train. They run one way in the morning and one way in the evening. The trains depart at 30 min intervals. In order to ride, one would have to purchase a particular plan. Everyone has a card or rail i.d. No more traffic, no more ridiculous highway projects that ensnarl trafic worse.

_____________________________________________________

Letters to Editor re: TxDOT misplaced priorities for the Grand Pkwy...

Letters: TxDOT and its costly ways

HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Feb. 3, 2011, 10:42PM

 
Odd priorities

Regarding "State highway fund crisis: are we there yet? (Page B1, Sunday), the photo in the article captured well both storm clouds and the congestion on the U.S. 290 freeway.

Why is the Texas Department of Transportation so thrilled to fund the Grand Parkway project ("Grand Parkway may end up in state's hands," Page B1, Jan. 8) now that the Harris County Toll Road Authority has withdrawn? More importantly, why is TxDOT funding the Grand Parkway project and thereby delaying the finance-starved 290 corridor expansion project?

The net result will be a shiny new and little-used Grand Parkway segment and an underfunded, delayed and insignificant expansion of 290.

Do you remember the no-capacity-added, complete rebuild of Loop 610 between Interstate 10 and U.S. 59? The southbound 610 exit to 59 still backs up, creating congestion for miles sometimes — as it has been doing for 40 years.

What is the economic and congestion imperative for spending hard-earned tax funds on the Grand Parkway? I bet the road committees from both the tea party and progressives could find a lot of common ground on this.

Bill Ware, Houston

Critical needs

TxDOT is not in a crisis when it pursues funding for over $5 billion for the proposed Grand Parkway over funding the critical widening of U.S. 290 and Hempstead Highway, which would get thousands of Houstonians from home to work and back again.

TxDOT proposes the waste of over $425 million for the Grand Parkway's Segment E, a road to nowhere across the Katy Prairie, while residents sit in traffic on 290 and steam.

The birds surely won't benefit from this scenario, but the developers will laugh all the way to the bank.

Developer subsidies with our money in a time of scarcity? That dog won't hunt anymore with taxpayers.

Brandt Mannchen, Houston

Borrowing

New construction costs - where there is no existing roadway - of a six-lane highway in suburban areas will cost about $5 million per mile. In urban areas, upwards of $10 million per mile.

Based on the story, the U.S. 290 corridor will cost over $60 million per mile. The crisis is not too little money; rather, too much money is being borrowed and spent irresponsibly.

Mike Stanton, Bellaire

Murchison: Texas' spending spree

Link to article here. When state spending has nearly TRIPLED over the last 20 years, and with Republicans who claim to be fiscal "conservatives" in control for at least 10 years of that time period, it's INEXCUSABLE to now claim there's a road funding "crisis" that will require massive new tax increases (particularly tolls) in order to "bailout" politicians who have squandered our hard-earned taxes on everything BUT roads.

Texas Spending Spree — “We’re Just a Bit Short.”

By Bill Murchison
Texas Insider
January 28, 2011

Texas Insider Report: DALLAS, Texas – There’s nothing more odd in politics than telling the truth: which is why so many Texans, not to mention Americans, fail to recognize the truth when they hear it.  Truths such as, “Folks, we’re out of money.”  

In Texas, unlike some other places, we’re not completely out, you know — just a bit short.

But even in Texas, revenues and spending expectations aren’t rising at the same pace.  Everybody with a checkbook knows the story—except that in political circles it appears to be the polite or the expected thing to fuzz up the discussion; to say, for instance well, it’s “their” fault (“their” having come to connote the folks in the other party).
 
That might or might not be the truth.  It changes the conversation at least.  The argument ceases, for a time, to be, what do we do now?  It becomes, how fast can we throw out the bums who made the bad choices before they make things worse by cutting the “wrong” programs or not raising taxes on the “right” bad guys?
 
What often is lost in the discussion are the facts; e.g., Texas’ state government spending from all the funds at its disposal rose nearly 300 percent between 1990 and 2010.

At the same time population was growing just 115.5 percent.

In other words, spending as a percent of the population nearly tripled in 20 years.  Health and human services spending rose 406 percent during the period, education spending 276 percent.
 
Sounds like some people in Austin got carried away with the taxpayers’ money they thought they had to spend.  It’s the sort of truth that can be hard to own up to when the money finally runs low.

On the other hand, owning up is where recovery starts—moral recovery as well as economic recovery.
 
The topic in Texas (and in other places) this year is responsibility and doing what has to be done.   Which, we hope you don’t mind our saying, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but.

Today’s TexByte was written by the Institute for Policy Innovation Research Fellow Bill Murchison

State leaders say highway funding crisis looms

For more on Rick Perry's legacy of unsustainable road debt, go here.

Texas on road to highway crisis

Debt to top construction funds.

By Gary Scharrer
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published: 12:00 a.m., Saturday, January 29, 2011

AUSTIN — Texas soon will be shelling out more per year to pay back money it borrowed for road construction than it spends from its quickly vanishing pile of cash to build new highways.

Legislative leaders characterize the state's transportation funding as a crisis. But most Texans are unaware of its severity and must be educated, they say, before the state can find new ways to finance new roads.

The gasoline tax pays for road maintenance and construction, but has not increased in 20 years. Gas tax revenue peaked in 2008 and likely will decline as vehicles become more fuel-efficient.

“It's not a crisis until everybody agrees that it's a crisis. Right now, people who don't understand it are saying, ‘You're crying wolf,'” said House Transportation Committee Chairman Joe Pickett, D-El Paso. “Yes, it's a crisis.”


Read the rest of the story here: http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Texas-on-roadto-highway-crisis-984511.php#ixzz1CZrPcbFW

SH 130 to become new I-35, existing I-35 could be tolled

For all of you still scratching your heads thinking, "I thought Rick Perry said it was against the law to toll existing roads," it's time to WAKE-UP! As we've been shouting from the rooftops for the last six years, Perry made sure there are LOOPHOLES in the law that allow them to, indeed, convert your FREE roads into TOLL roads. Never believe a politician, especially when running for re-election.

Go to TURF's toll glossary and read the loopholes for yourself under HB 2702 passed in 2005. Loopholes notwithstanding, this half-baked plan to toll existing I-35 and convert the tollway SH 130 into I-35 would require even greater overreach by converting free lanes on I-35 into toll lanes without leaving the same number of free lanes that exist today.

So if this makes your blood boil, do something about it. Call your state legislators TODAY and tell them NO to tolls on I-35 or ANY existing Texas FREEway! They're in session and will pass important legislation that can either fix the loopholes and STOP the conversion of our Texas highways into tollways or make them worse. Without YOUR involvement, it will most surely be the latter!

Link to article below here.

Could Texas 130 become the new I-35?

Review of I-35 suggests shifting interstate designation east; move would have significant hurdles

By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Published: 8:51 p.m. Friday, Jan. 28, 2011

A state-commissioned study of Interstate 35 released late this week includes a number of eye-popping, expensive and politically problematic suggestions for relieving traffic on the clogged main vein of Texas transportation.

The most startling: Remove the interstate designation from I-35 between Georgetown and Buda and instead slap that label on the eastern loop formed by the tollway twins Texas 130 and Texas 45 Southeast . Those two roads, which run from north of Georgetown to south of Austin, would have their tolls removed.


Then, posits the 122-page draft report, one of the existing lanes on each side of the "old" I-35 through Central Texas would become a "managed" lane with tolls that would fluctuate in cost depending on the traffic load.

I-35 through that 44-mile section generally has three lanes per side now, although there are sections in Central Austin that have four going north and four going south.

The toll revenue from what is now I-35 could be used to replace at least some of the revenue from the still lightly used Texas 130 and Texas 45 Southeast, providing a portion of the debt service on the more than $2 billion in bonds used to build the Texas 130, Texas 45 North and Loop 1 tollways. In addition, the study theorizes that much of the truck traffic clogging Central Austin on I-35 would move to the eastern loop.

That loop is about 12 miles longer than the straighter route that I-35 now cuts through Central Texas. And some of those trucks now on I-35 have loads to drop off or pick up in Austin and thus might be unlikely to take the loop.

The report, which was prepared by community leaders up and down the I-35 corridor throughout Texas, is advisory in nature only and will obligate neither the Texas Department of Transportation nor another part of Texas government to carry out its recommendations.

Mike Heiligenstein , executive director of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, called the costs of the report's suggestions "daunting." But he applauded the authors for regarding I-35 and Texas 130 as part of a system.

"In the past we've looked at the two as separate and distinct, as two roads that have nothing to do with each other," Heiligenstein said.

As for putting tolls on an existing lane of I-35, Heiligenstein said that alternatively, he could support adding a tolled lane from Round Rock to San Marcos. No free lanes would be lost under that scenario.

State law requires that if tolls are put on an existing road, that lane or lanes must be replaced by newly constructed free lanes nearby. Carrying out the I-35/130 swap might require at least two elections, as well as changes in state law and federal action.

Bob Daigh , Williamson County's infrastructure director and a member of the 20-member committee that produced the report, said its departure from conventional thinking should be considered a virtue.

"It's time we look to try out-of-the-box, innovative solutions to address our congestion short-term and long-term," said Daigh, TxDOT's Austin district engineer from 2003 to 2009 .

The report also suggests that an extension of Texas 130 currently under construction and due for completion in late 2012 , a 40-mile stretch from Mustang Ridge south of Austin-Bergstrom International Airport to Interstate 10 near Seguin , would likewise have its tolls removed. However, that road is being built and would be operated under a 50-year agreement with TxDOT by a private consortium that hopes to reap profits over the decades from the road. Making the road free would require addressing that situation.

The report, partly the result of 20 public forums held in communities along I-35 throughout the state, recommends widening the existing part of Texas 130 and Texas 45 Southeast from their current four lanes to six as part of making them the new I-35. And it recommends that the state invest heavily in passenger and freight rail, in part to take traffic off of I-35.

The report says a cost estimate to do all this "cannot be determined at this time." It recommends that the Legislature, through a constitutional amendment requiring approval by the public, authorize using gas tax revenue for rail projects. The Texas Constitution stipulates that the tax money as well as some vehicle-related fees be spent only on highways.

"Such arbitrary statutory barriers should be systematically removed to allow all transportation modes to compete fairly," the report says.

The authors acknowledge that their recommendations face some tall hurdles.

"Many complex legal and policy changes would need to occur, the initial (Texas) 130 project bonding would need to be revisited, federal approval would be needed for the interstate redesignations, environmental studies may have to be completed, and public consensus would need to be achieved at several of these milestones," the report says.

In general, the report says that addressing the I-35 situation and achieving the many changes suggested — including building a commuter rail line between Georgetown and San Antonio — would require $487 billion by 2030. But projected revenue is $155 billion , the report says, leaving a $332 billion gap. That represents about 40 years of TxDOT's $8 billion annual budget.

The report's authors decided in the end that it was not their charge to address how this extra money would be raised.

"We have taken it as a foregone conclusion that existing funding mechanisms are not sufficient to meet the staggering needs of this fast-growing state," the report says. "That challenge can only be addressed by the Texas Legislature and the United States Congress."

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.; 445-3698

Interstate 35 and Texas 130 
by the numbers

24,000:Daily truck traffic on I-35 through Central Texas in 2007

7:The percentage of trucks on I-35 that had local business in 2005

2,200:Daily truck traffic on Texas 130 in 2009

Source: Texas Department of Transportation. 
Numbers are latest figures available.

Example of eminent domain for 'blight'

Link to article here.

The egregious eminent domain takings case below is an example of what Rick Perry and the Texas legislature have in mind for Texas in SB 18, the eminent domain bill Perry wants rushed through as an "emergency" to throw a bone to his oil & gas and developer cronies. Here's our early analysis of the draft of the bill. Here are two stories about eminent domain by another name in Texas here and here. Is it any wonder Perry added "pipelines" to the definition of public use in SB 18?

Scranton authority loses eminent domain case to Lackawanna Avenue property owners

BY JEREMY G. BURTON (STAFF WRITER)
Published: January 21, 2011
Times Tribune

Two downtown Scranton property owners have won a nearly five-year court battle to prevent the city's redevelopment authority from seizing their buildings by eminent domain.
Lackawanna County Judge Robert A. Mazzoni ruled on Thursday that the Scranton Redevelopment Authority "arbitrarily" tried to condemn the properties of Giovanni Piccolino, who owns Buona Pizza at 504 Lackawanna Ave., and Stanley Stadolny, who owns 506 Lackawanna.

The fight over those parcels had fueled a political controversy over the 500 block of Lackawanna Avenue, where a $29 million renovation project was championed by Mayor Chris Doherty, the SRA and developer Donald Rinaldi.

Mr. Piccolino and Tom Moran, owner of nearby Coney Island Texas Lunch, asserted they were left out of the project, while city officials said the businesses had rejected a chance to join.

In August 2006, the SRA moved to take Mr. Piccolino's and Mr. Stadolny's lots, arguing they were blighted.

Judge Mazzoni, however, upheld the defendants' objections that the SRA ignored state law and lacked the power to condemn the two properties.

An ecstatic Mr. Piccolino said the prolonged court proceedings had forced his pizzeria into limbo, unable to renovate, secure loans or invest in itself. He promised "bigger and better" things for Buona Pizza, and he lashed out at city officials.

"If they just left us alone, we could've remodeled ourselves, or they could have included us," said Mr. Piccolino, who was a candidate for city council in 2007.

Mr. Doherty and William Lazor, chairman of the SRA, said lawyers must review the judge's decision before deciding whether to appeal, but both still believe eminent domain was the right move in retrospect.

The mayor did say, though, that the issue may be irrelevant by now, since the "Renaissance at 500" project is virtually complete.

"I'm happy with what came out of the 500 block," he said.

The attorney for Mr. Piccolino and Mr. Stadolny, Boyd Hughes, said the SRA had no grounds for appeal and the authority attempted to "totally sidestep" the law.

According to Mr. Hughes - a former SRA solicitor and now the solicitor for city council - the SRA will be required to reimburse the defendants' legal costs.


Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/business/scranton-authority-loses-eminent-domain-case-to-lackawanna-avenue-property-owners-1.1093423#ixzz1BvzSm067

Subcategories

Eminent Domain

Video

Page 61 of 103

Latest News

Latest Press Releases