"The Texas State Supreme Court has made eminent domain a cheaper and faster option for governments to choose."

Texas supremes jeopardize our right to own property

February 7, 2007

Brent Connett
Amarillo Globe-News
Copyright 2007

AUSTIN - While the Texas Supreme Court is generally perceived to be conservative, the state's highest court literally has hit property owners where they live and work, making it too easy for the government to forcibly take homes and businesses through the power of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is government power in its rawest. Under no other doctrine - and where no crime has been committed - can government so directly limit or take away such an important individual liberty as the right to own property.

With two decisions, however, the Court has made eminent domain a cheaper and faster option for governments to choose.

In 1993, the Court ruled in the State vs. Schmidt case that "adequate compensation" required by the Texas Constitution in the eminent domain process does not include certain objective factors. The case centered on an Austin business property, a portion of which was being condemned for the expansion of Research Boulevard into a raised highway.

The Court, overturning 57 years of precedent, ruled that the owner, Robert Schmidt, was entitled to compensation only for the portion of the physical property he lost to the condemnation.

The Court said that Schmidt and other business owners are "not entitled to compensation for ... diversion of traffic, increased circuity of travel to property, lessened visibility to passersby, or inconvenience of construction activities."

The expansion of Highway 183 negatively impacted Schmidt's property in each of those four ways, but he was not compensated for those factors, which would be considered in a fair market transaction between two private parties. Schmidt's compensation was so grossly inadequate that he ultimately lost his commercial tenants.

In the State vs. Schmidt, the Supreme Court incorrectly valued fiscal conservatism over private property rights in an effort to make highway construction cheaper for governments, and ultimately, the taxpayers. When certain factors are excluded from "adequate compensation," however, the costs of a highway are no less. Instead, they are disproportionately borne by individuals such as Schmidt, who owned a business, contributed to the economy and paid taxes.

The Texas Department of Transportation took property on the cheap, but at a great expense to Robert Schmidt.

In 2004, the Court's Hubenak vs. San Jacinto Gas Transmission Company decision further damaged property rights by making eminent domain easier for governments.

State law, according to the Hubenak ruling, authorizes the initiation of condemnation proceedings only if the two parties are "unable to agree" on a purchase price.

Accordingly, the Court found that any offer by a political subdivision satisfied the law's intent.

If the landowner ignored or rejected the government's first offer, then the standard of "unable to agree" was met, thereby triggering condemnation proceedings.

Although untested in the courts, a government theoretically could offer to purchase a property for an absurdly low amount and then commence condemnation once the owner rejected that offer.

By removing the requirement for good faith negotiations with its Hubenak decision, the Texas Supreme Court tipped the balance further away from property rights to the benefit of government. In light of Hubenak, property owners are forced to fight condemnation in court instead of at the bargaining table.

The Schmidt decision made condemnation cheaper for governments, while Hubenak made fighting condemnation more expensive for property owners.

The arbitrary exclusion of certain measurable factors in "adequate compensation," per the Schmidt case, should be reversed by legislators.

Furthermore, truly adequate compensation demands that property owners be given a fair offer and the opportunity to negotiate, as would be the case in the private market.

These reforms would discourage units of government from making frivolous decisions about condemnations. In correcting these abuses of private property rights by the Texas Supreme Court, legislators can make eminent domain an expensive and arduous option for governments - to the benefit of all property owners.

Brent Connett is a policy analyst with the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute, based in Austin. He can be reached at brent@txccri.org.

© 2007 AMARILLO GLOBE-NEWS: www.amarillo.com

"In Mussolini's Italy, such ['public-private'] partnerships were called "consortia" and provided the economic foundation for his regime."

To the Editor:

Stop the great auction

February 6, 2007

Jack Kruell
The Valley Independent
Copyright 2007

Bank of America, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and numerous foreign banks/investment firms are interested in leasing the 537-mile Pennsylvania Turnpike.

The state is considering leasing to plug a $1.7 billion shortfall in transportation funding, the taxpayer-financed infrastructure is being sold to generate revenue for cash-strapped jurisdictions.

On a single day in June 2006, an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.8 billion to lease the Indiana toll road. An Australian company bought a 99-year lease on Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road from Austin to Seguin for 50 years.

Also, tolls from the U.S. side of the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor, Canada, go to a subsidiary of an Australian company which owns a bridge in Alabama and a 99-year lease on the eight-mile Chicago Skyway for $1.83 billion. The buyer was the same consortium -- Macquarie Infrastructure of Sidney, Australia, and Cintra Infraestructuras de Transport of Madrid, Spain -- that leased the Indiana toll road.

These selling/leasing deals could turn into ripoffs. As an example: Macquarie-Cintra could make $133 billion over the 75-year life of the Indiana toll road lease, which got Indiana $3.8 billion. In five to 10 years, all that money is gone and the tolls keep rising and the money keeps flowing into foreign coffers or large Wall Street investment groups.

The question is what gives government the authority to sell roads and bridges built with public money to anyone. This trend of selling is fueled by mismanaged jurisdictions that cannot tax enough revenue out of the people to provide services and keep vital infrastructure in good working order. Selling roads and bridges seems like a good idea because investors are willing to pay high prices for them and the money and be used to finance urgent public works projects and pay for improving the one in public domain.

Some think privatizing public infrastructure like roads, bridges, electric supply facilities, mass transit, ports, waterways, schools, prisons, etc. is a good idea because private enterprise is more efficient than government.

Let's question the intelligence of selling them. Number one, investment corporations are flush with record profits and cash as a result of free trade and globalization as the rank and file gets left behind.

Secondly, foreign interests -- as investment firms, foreign central banks and foreign royalty are buying up vital components of national infrastructure. It would seem the first order of national security would be to maintain domestic control over ports, waterways, roads and utilities. But instead Americans are prohibited from boarding an airplane with bottles of water.

There are not set qualifications for potential buyers, and most of the road leases/buyouts have non-compete in them which prohibits the seller from upgrading existing roads that would compete against their toll road, forcing cars and commercial truck traffic to use their toll roads at whatever tools they wish to charge.

These firms are using the term "public-private partnership" as a description of nominally private corporate concerns that work closely with government. This is what we call corporatism -- government that has the power to tax, regulate, subsidize, control and ultimately destroy -- is invariably the senior partner. In Mussolini's Italy, such partnerships were called "consortia" and provided the economic foundation for his regime. In World War II, Germany had the industrial complex. Not that they both failed.

It is expected that the federal highway funds will dry up by 2010. With proper management by Pennsylvania, cost cutting and the elimination of money-losing services and projects, we can stop the great auction.

Jack Kruell

Belle Vernon


© 2007 The Tribune-Review Publishing Co.: www.pittsburghlive.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"This is not over until the taxpayers and the public say it's over."

281 fight to flare again

02/06/2007

Patrick Driscoll
San Antonio Express-News
Copyright 2007

Late Monday, Vic Boyer was polishing his three-minute argument, and Terri Hall was considering another e-mail blitz to remind people about tonight's toll-road hearing.

The two will deliver differing opinions on whether the Texas Department of Transportation should build 71/2 miles of toll lanes on U.S. 281 from Loop 1604 to Comal County.

The hearing is set for 7 p.m. in the main ballroom of the Alzafar Shrine Temple at 901 N. Loop 1604 West. A draft environmental assessment, drawings and charts will be on display starting a half-hour earlier.

This is Round Two in a raging debate over U.S. 281 toll plans. A lawsuit filed a year ago by environmentalists and toll critics stopped construction and forced TxDOT to redo its environmental study and take a closer look at impacts on water, wildlife, air pollution, noise and people.

TxDOT will present its new study tonight, which could last half an hour, and then people will line up to offer support or take their shots.
Blog
Move It!

"TxDOT is in for a battle," said Hall, who heads a toll critic group called San Antonio Toll Party. "This is not over until the taxpayers and the public say it's over."

Boyer, director of the San Antonio Mobility Coalition, a nonprofit group of government and road industry advocates, is just as serious.

"We see the toll lanes as the only way to get these projects built in a reasonable amount of time, unless there's some kind of miracle," he said.

The draft environmental study suggests building six to eight toll lanes with four to six lanes of free frontage roads, taking land from the west side of the highway to make it 400 feet wide, 500 feet at interchanges.

There would no significant impacts to people or nature, the study says.

Tolling the express lanes will allow the project to be finished more than 20 years sooner than it would by just relying on gas taxes, it states. In the short term, traffic on the frontage roads could flow better than rush-hour traffic does now on the existing highway lanes that would be replaced.

"With rapid and sustained economic and population growth in northern Bexar County — and with traffic counts effectively doubling every five years — we simply cannot afford to wait," Boyer said.

Hall says TxDOT could simply turn U.S. 281 into a freeway for 3 miles and add bridges at two key intersections, as planned several years ago.

"TxDOT's own original plan has identified funds, and this solution can be implemented in less time, using less money, with less construction time, and less development over the aquifer."

There are also concerns about motorists footing a bill for higher costs to build and operate the lanes as a tollway, profits collected by private companies that might lease the system, and possible agreements to limit improvements to free roads.

"Clearly, there are multiple problems with converting U.S. 281 into a tollway," Hall said.

The environmental study says just adding some lanes and bridges to U.S. 281 wouldn't do enough to solve traffic congestion or reduce dangers caused by driveways from businesses. The proposal calls for driveways to link to the frontage roads instead of the highway lanes.

The study estimates traffic would double by 2035 on the wider highway, going from 55,400 cars a day last year to 134,800 between Stone Oak Boulevard and Marshall Road. If nothing is done, the number of vehicles would go up to 73,000.

The study also says impacts to the amount and quality of water going into the Edwards Aquifer are expected to be minor. And though air pollution would get worse, it's expected to stay within acceptable limits. Noise would increase in places.

Officials would need another 82 acres of land for the tollway, including 53 acres of woodland, and would remove 19 businesses and a home. No direct impacts to wildlife are expected.

pdriscoll@express-news.net

© 2007 San Antonio Express-News: www.mysanantonio.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

Macquarie goes whole hog for Agribusiness Ventures

Mac Bank fund on the trail for rural property

February 05, 2007

By Jane Schulze
The Australian
Copyright 2007

IT has invested in airports, car parks, toll roads and media companies but now Macquarie Bank is hoping to buy huge chunks of Australia.

Macquarie has created the Macquarie Pastoral Fund, a wholesale fund it is now marketing to institutions through which it plans to buy between five and eight cattle or sheep stations.

MPF has also enlisted some of Australia's top station managers: former Colonial Agricultural Company chief Alan Hayes is its chief executive and David Taylor, owner of the Pooginook merino stud, is an independent director.

Macquarie Financial Services Group director Tim Hornibrook told Sky News Sunday Business that there were few investment opportunities in the rural sector. "And more and more people are looking for non-traditional investment opportunties and we believe this fits that criteria," he said.

Macquarie Pastoral is now raising $200 million from domestic and offshore institutions and plans to spend up to $1 billion on properties. The fees Macquarie will extract from managing the fund have not been disclosed but Mr Hornibrook said they were "comparable" to similar vehicles.

The fund might list on the stock market in five to eight years, which would make it the only listed rural property group apart from Australian Agricultural Company. But Mr Hornibrook said Macquarie Pastoral was different from AACo as the latter only focused on cattle.

"The whole strategy is to be large-scale and have diversification - diversification by regional area and therefore by climatic zones and diversification by product type," he said. "That underpins your returns and it reduces your volatility."

Macquarie is targeting stations along the east coast from the northern tip to northern Victoria.

But Mr Hornibrook denied properties would now be cheaper because of the drought. "I don't think good properties ever become cheaper," he said.

But Macquarie hopes to find cost savings from consolidating farms, especially from transport costs.

"If you got breeding cattle or sheep on cheaper, more isolated country and then bring lighter animals down to fattening properties which are closer to the market ... at that point we can carry heavier animals shorter distances so that will reduce costs," he said.

Macquarie is following a "paddock to gate" strategy, so all marketing and export issues will be left to the buyers of the animals.

Mr Hornibrook said there was increasing demand for beef and sheep meat as there was a strong correlation between increasing disposable incomes and increasing red meat consumption.

"But the exciting thing to us is if you look at some of the statistics, by 2030 there will be 615 million new people in cities in India and China and by 2010 Asian imports of red meat should exceed our total production of cattle and make up 90 per cent of our sheep production," he said.

© 2007 The Australian. theaustralian.news.com.au

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"Just about the only people supporting eminent domain for private development are those who benefit from it: politicians, developers and planners."

Eminent domain is 'zero-sum gain'

2/4/07

Portsmouth NH Herald News
Copyright 2007

When the government uses eminent domain to take private property for private development projects, it "usually results in zero-sum gain and may actually hinder the area's development." That is the finding of an important new report released this month by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

In "The Taking of Prosperity," authors Thomas Garrett and Paul Rothstein write, "(The) taking of private property from one person and giving it to another for economic development ... is unlikely to create a net benefit to society. It is more likely to create economic inefficiencies and to reduce economic growth."

Demonstrating an understanding of markets that seems well beyond that of local government officials who abuse eminent domain for private gain, the report states, "When governments interfere in the private market, whether it be a market for apples, cars or property, the likely result is greater economic inefficiency and less economic growth. The reason is that even the most well-intentioned policymaker cannot comprehend or replicate the complex interactions of buyers and sellers that occur in free markets."

"In poll after poll conducted nationwide, as well as in testimony offered in state and federal legislatures, nearly all Americans are against eminent domain for private gain," said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition, a grassroots organization that brings together property owners and activists from across the nation to fight eminent domain abuse. "Just about the only people supporting eminent domain for private development are those who benefit from it: politicians, developers and planners."

Echoing that fact, Garrett and Rothstein state in their report, "Of course, there will be certain groups that do benefit from the taking of private property, such as developers, property managers and local politicians. Developers and property managers will gain income from developing the property. Many local politicians favor targeted economic development because of what they see as the immediate benefits from development, such as increased employment and tax revenue.

"These economic benefits also translate into political benefits for those politicians who pledge to improve local economic development," Garrett and Rothstein indicated. "Not realized, however, is that the supposed immediate and tangible benefits from taking private property for economic development are outweighed by the greater economic costs of government intervention in private markets."

The rich and politically powerful overwhelmingly profit from those benefits. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned in her dissent in the Kelo eminent domain case: "The beneficiaries (of eminent domain) are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

"What can governments do to promote economic development that yields positive economic growth?" the authors ask.

Garrett and Rothstein answer with a series of commonsense and proven public policy suggestions: "Rather than use eminent domain or other tools to target individual economic development projects, local governments should ask the fundamental question as to why the desired level of economic growth is not occurring in the local area without significant economic development incentives. For example, are taxes too high, thus creating a disincentive for business to locate to the local area? Do current regulations stifle business creation and expansion?

"All of the targeted economic development in the world will not compensate for a poor business environment," the authors write. "From a regional perspective, local governments should focus on creating a business environment conducive to risk-taking, entry and expansion rather than attempting targeted economic development through eminent domain or other means."

The authors warn, "Research has shown that without property rights, individuals will no longer face the incentive to make the best economic use of their property, be it a business or home, and economic growth will be limited. Potential residents and businesses may avoid communities that have a record of taking private property for economic development because of a greater uncertainty about losing their property to eminent domain."

The authors conclude, "Supporters of Kelo argue that using eminent domain for private development will spur economic growth. ... Economic theory certainly suggests that eminent domain used for private economic development will likely result in a zero-sum gain and may actually hinder economic development in the local areas, as well as the region, rather than help."

"Perhaps it is time for government officials to take an oath like doctors and promise to 'first, do no harm,'" said Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, which argued the Kelo eminent domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court and has been leading the way for eminent domain reform nationwide. "The Federal Reserve's report is groundbreaking. At best, the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul when it uses eminent domain for private development. At worst, this practice is actually stifling real private development - the very thing the government claims it seeks to create. This finding makes absolute sense and should be a warning sign to tax-hungry governments nationwide that consider abusing this power on behalf of land-hungry developers."

A recent example of a zero-sum taking of property from one owner only to hand it over to another (more influential) private party for his private gain occurred in Port Chester, N.Y., where that village took land owned by Bart Didden and gave it to a politically favored developer. Didden planned to construct a CVS pharmacy on the lot; the developer plans to put up a Walgreens pharmacy resulting in no new taxes for the city and only a private financial gain for the developer. Just recently, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up Didden's case.

So far, 34 states have adopted eminent domain reform in the wake of the Kelo decision. The U.S. Congress failed to pass federal legislation last year, but is expected to again consider the issue this session, as will other states that have not yet amended their laws.

To read the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis report, visit: www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2007/a/pages/prosperity.html

© 2007 Seacoast Media Group.: www.seacoastonline.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"It appears large interests can have all the friends they can afford, especially in Texas."

Editorials

The governor must be impeached

February 4, 2007

Paul D. Perry
Waxahachie Daily Light
Copyright 2007

The governor’s mandate of the HPV vaccine is indicative of a man who has lost touch with the citizens of our state.

As reported in DallasBlog.com, Merck’s Gardasil (HPV) vaccine already has been under fire nationally from the National Vaccine Information Center, which claims that “Merck’s clinical trials did not prove the human papillomavirus vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts is safe to give to young girls.” NVIC cites the trial studies as showing there were serious problems with adverse reaction to the shots: “Nearly 90 percent of Gardasil recipients ... followed-up for safety reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site. Pain and swelling at injection occurred in approximately 83 percent of Gardasil” recipients. A majority of the young women who received Gardasil complained about “serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis,” according to NVIC.

This vaccine is very questionable and has not been in use long enough for there to be a comfort factor with many parents. What will it do to growing bodies long term? I am not opposed to vaccines in general, but the governor can count me as a one dissatisfied constituent on this one.
At best this move is irresponsible, at worst, it reeks of the odor of quid pro quo like some of the governor’s other moves. Why was the legislature circumvented by the executive in this case? The legislature had just now convened and had not had time to even visit the vaccine issue in full. A rational person should ask the question, just what was promised to the governor here?

Will big pharma dollars now back the governor’s future aspirations? A vice presidential nomination seems to be being talked about in Austin. The taxpayer- and property owner-hostile, foreign profiteer-backed Trans-Texas Corridor also comes to mind; Cintra-Zachary would no doubt love to keep the governor on the friends list. Why is it necessary to legislate away normal state and federal constitutional protections to build a road, Guv? It appears large interests can have all the friends they can afford, especially in Texas.

While the governor’s picked committee on appraisal reform came forward with a few decent suggestions concerning spending limitation, the overall report was at best anemic. They did not address the imbalances in the appeal process, for instance. In meetings all over the state I hear taxpayers suggest moving lesser dollar appeals to the JP courts. The governor’s committee proposal suggesting the appointment of Central Appraisal District representatives by the district judges and calling them “taxpayer representatives” would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. All over the state, Texans called for at least some members of both Appraisal and Appeals Boards to be popularly elected. I know that some members of the committee were people of good will, but a reasonable person could wonder how stacked the committee was with the governor’s own cronies.

The arrogance over the vaccine issue seals it. The governor must be impeached.

I wish we didn’t share a last name.

Paul D. Perry is a resident of Ellis County and former Ellis County Justice of the Peace for Pct. 4.

© 2007 The Daily Light: www.waxahachiedailylight.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

“You are going to listen to us or we are going to start on March 2 figuring out how to throw you out.”

Bill: Kill the TTC

February 4, 2007

By JOANN LIVINGSTON, Managing Editor
Waxahatchie Daily Light
Copyright 2007

A San Antonio-area lawmaker has filed a bill to kill the Trans-Texas Corridor.

State Rep. David Leibowitz, D-Helotes, told Waco-based KWTX that the massive toll road project would “destroy rural Texas as we know it.”

State Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, whose district includes Ellis and Hill counties, both of which would be impacted by the proposed toll road, said he would be supportive of the measure.

“I support efforts to get more control over TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) and the Trans-Texas Corridor,” Pitts said. “The Trans-Texas Corridor will have enormous effects on this area and the people who live here, and too often it seems like this agency isn’t listening to the concerns people are expressing about the project.”

Although the project is much favored by Republican Gov. Rick Perry, the Trans-Texas Corridor is specifically identified in the state Republican Party’s platform as in need of repeal.

“Because there are issues of confiscation of private land, state and national sovereignty and other similar concerns, we urge the repeal of the Trans-Texas Corridor legislation,” the 2006 platform reads.

Leibowitz filed House Bill 857 on Jan. 25. The two-term lawmaker also has filed HB719, which would restrict TxDOT from turning a state highway into a toll road and would also prevent the state agency from transferring a state highway to a private entity for the purpose of letting it become a toll road.

Both bills are pending committee assignment.

“Texas is growing and our transportation system must grow, too,” said Joe Krier, Texans for Safe Reliable Transportation chairman, in a September 2006 press release. “Good roads positively impact all aspects of our lives. Texans should know that the alternative to not building the Trans-Texas Corridor is more gridlock, outrageously higher gas taxes and solutions that will take years longer to deliver. Opponents of the Trans-Texas Corridor offer no meaningful solutions.”

According to the pro-Trans-Texas Corridor organization’s Web site, 75 percent of Texans directly depend upon Interstate 35 for goods and services, and 45 percent of all Texans live within 50 miles of the roadway.

Perry announced his signature $184 billion mega-highway plan in 2002, with TxDOT holding more than 50 public hearings last year relating to the pending environmental impact statement for the TTC-portion.

The vast majority of people speaking at the hearings - including the ones in Ellis County - did so in protest of the project, which critics have said will remove hundreds of thousands of acres - much of it rural farm and ranch land - off of the tax rolls.

A coalition of anti-Trans-Texas Corridor groups and individuals, including David and Linda Stall of Corridor Watch, recently met in Austin.

“It’s not about transportation, it’s about revenue,” David Stall said. “We didn’t ask for it. We need better roads and we need better transportation (but) the TTC is not about doing any of those things. It’s about generating revenue.”

March 2 protest set

The coalition has called for a rally in Austin on March 2 that organizers hope will draw at least 100,000 people to march up Congress Avenue to the steps of the state Capitol.

“If we don’t babysit our elected officials, they’ll do some bad things,” said Sal Costello, founder of People for Efficient Transportation and TTC-critic.

Former land commissioner candidate and East Texas cattle rancher Hank Gilbert agrees.“We put them there, we can take them out,” he said. “We’ve been complacent too long.”

Gilbert points out that the TTC is the first leg of a proposed national system of roadways that would criss-cross the United States while connecting into Mexico and Canada.

“This thing started here and to save the country, we kill the darn thing here,” he said, saying his hope is for the March 2 rally - which is being deliberately held on Texas Independence Day - to increase people’s involvement while also getting state officials’ attention.

“You are going to listen to us or we are going to start on March 2 figuring out how to throw you out,” he said.

Perry’s transportation plan would include concrete and rail corridors snaking around the state and stretching as wide as 1,200 feet in some areas, with enough room for cars, trucks, trains, pipelines and utility cables.

If the corridor is 1,200 feet wide in some areas as planned, a farmer could lose as much as 146 acres per mile, estimates the Texas Farm Bureau, which adopted a resolution in 2004 opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor.

E-mail JoAnn at editor@waxahachiedailylight.com

© 2007 The Daily Light: www.waxahachiedailylight.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"When they advocate in their own documents that a position of stealth should be adopted...That's rather extraordinary."

Watchdog Worried About U.S. Meetings With Canada, Mexico

February 02, 2007

By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com
Copyright 2007

A government watchdog is calling for more transparency in talks between U.S., Canadian and Mexican officials who are discussing a "vision of North America" that some critics worry are the first step toward a North American Union.

Judicial Watch this week released documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request that include U.S. officials' notes from the North American Forum, a September 2006 meeting with Canadian and Mexican officials that explored ways to create "genuine partnerships."

That meeting followed the March 2005 creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which the U.S. government calls a "trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing."

Several points of discussion at the September meeting worried Judicial Watch, most notably a note in one set of documents referring to "evolution by stealth." The discussions also touched on integration of energy supply, easing immigration among the three countries and closing the "income gap" between Mexico and the U.S. and Canada.

"I don't know that there's an appreciation or an understanding that this is what the American government is busy spending its time doing," Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch's director of research and investigation, told Cybercast News Service.

"I think it's curious ... when they advocate in their own documents that a position of stealth should be adopted in trying to integrate the three countries," Farrell said. "That's rather extraordinary."

The group released documents from the meeting, including some handwritten notes taken by participant Deborah Bolton, a political advisor for U.S. Northern Command. Also included in the notes is a paper by Robert Pastor, the director of American University's Center for North American Studies.

"Our purpose is to build a greater sense of being a part of North America," Pastor wrote. "We do not want to displace the pride each of us feels in our countries, but rather to supplement that with a feeling of being North American."

Pastor recommended some questions for discussion including, "Should a new transportation corridor be designed and built between Canada and Mexico?" and "Should there be a North American Passport to facilitate travel within the three countries?"

Those kinds of proposals worry some conservatives, who fear that increased cooperation with its North American neighbors will harm United States sovereignty and lead to the creation of a North American version of the European Union.

According to Pastor, those critics have "nothing to fear," because he said none of the countries are taking the discussions seriously.

"There's a conspiratorial mood among certain groups out there that are trying to make it sound like as if this conference was more than just a conference, that somehow or other it set the agenda for the three governments," he told Cybercast News Service.

"I wish that were the case, frankly, that the three governments would take seriously some of the issues that were being discussed, but none of them are."

Pastor said that "those who are fearful that somehow this conference is creating a vast new agenda have nothing to fear. Those who are hopeful that we may approach our neighbors in more constructive ways have more reason to be frustrated."

He said the secrecy surrounding the meetings was a "mistake" and that he favored issuing a statement and report on the discussions, "but the three leaders who organized it thought that it would be a more productive discussion if the participants were not quoted and could express their views without fear of being distorted."

Pastor is also an author of the Council of Foreign Relations' May 2005 report called "Building a North American Community." The report is at the center of critics' fears that the goal of the SPP and North American Forum is a political union.

"The global challenges faced by North America cannot be met solely through unilateral or bilateral efforts or existing patterns of cooperation," the report states. "They require deepened cooperation based on the principle ... that 'our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary."

Supporters of the report's recommendations point to the fact that it says a North American community "should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or union, such as those in Europe."

© 2007 Cybercast News Service: www.cnsnews.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"When government argues that its most basic roles would be better handled by a private enterprise, then the competence of those in office is indicted"

The leasing of toll roads to private operators defies common sense

2/2/07

Charles Paolino
New Brunswick Home News Tribune, NJ
Copyright 2007

I have one reservation about this plan to pay off state debt by leasing or otherwise turning over control of the toll roads to a private operator: It doesn't make sense.

Or is it wrong to apply that standard?

I realize this is a complicated proposition whose details are beyond my capacity to understand, but shouldn't even complicated matters be required to withstand the test of common sense? Indulge me in this.

These highways are now operated by an authority that is a creature of the state; they are supposed to generate enough revenue to pay the cost of operating them and to amortize any debt.

The authority — whose existence is justified in part on the grounds that it protects the state's own borrowing power — also insulates the operation of the toll roads from direct accountability to voters.

If the highways were leased to a private operator, that scenario would change. The private operator would have to raise more revenue than it takes to operate the roads, because the private operator would have to make a profit — without even considering the billions of dollars it would have paid to the state for the lease. Indeed, annual toll increases limited by the rate of inflation would be built into the program. And the operation of the toll roads would be further insulated from direct accountability to voters.

As it is, even the appointed authorities — when there were two — were very conservative about raising tolls on the turnpike and the parkway, and yet they kept them among the best maintained highways in the state.

How is it possible that a private operator could run the highways at the same level without significantly increasing the tolls? And, being one more step further removed from voters, what incentive would the operator have to keep the tolls stable?

Considering the perennial sentiment in New Jersey that the tolls should be removed altogether — a sentiment I don't agree with — I would expect motorists to be wary of a proposal that seems destined to preserve the tolls ad infinitum and raise them each year.

The reason highways are operated by government in the first place is that they are among the most fundamental public services. Governments should be able to operate them in the most cost-efficient manner, because government's only goal is to provide for the public's need.

When government argues that one of its most basic roles would be better handled by a private enterprise, when government finds itself financially embarrassed and wants to solve its problem in the short term by abandoning one of its most basic responsibilities for the long term — and with a solution that defies common sense — then the competence of those in office is indicted.

When private businesses experience financial crises they respond by reducing their workforce and consolidating operations. I've experienced this more than once; it isn't done with smoke and mirrors, it's done by finding real savings.

That happens in every industry, but not in government.

Instead of ceding control of some of the state's most critical assets, the Legislature and the administration should calculate what reduction in spending is needed in order to satisfy its debts, and then follow the painful path of the private sector and make those cuts.

Charles Paolino is executive editor of the Home News Tribune. (732) 565-7210. E-mail: cpaolino@thnt.com.

© 2007 Home News Tribune: www.thnt.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

Gov. Perry makes another 'booty call' for public pirates

Perry weighs odds on selling lottery

Sale could raise money for health care, research

Friday, February 02, 2007

By Laylan Copelin, Ken Herman
Austin American-Statesman
Copyright 2007

Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday that his State of the State address on Tuesday would include a plan to fully privatize the Texas Lottery by selling it to private interests.

Perry said such a sale would raise substantial funds that could be used for health care and research.

Other states, including Illinois and Indiana, are looking into the concept, which allows a state to collect a large lump sum to replace future lottery revenue.

The proposal is likely to be controversial because the state's track record of turning over state services, whether welfare programs or toll roads, to national and international corporations has been criticized by some as either not working or a poor bargain.

Perry mentioned his plan at the end of an interview with the American-Statesman's Washington bureau.

Robert Black, the governor's press secretary, declined to elaborate on Perry's comments or explain how the sale would work.

Two of the states that are considering selling their lotteries — Illinois and Indiana — are inviting bids. Illinois hopes to receive as much as $10 billion in exchange for giving up all revenue and profit from the monopoly for 75 years, according to news reports. Indiana is expecting to raise more than $1 billion up front and annual payments of $200 million, according to The New York Times.

The sale of Illinois lottery, according to news reports, could be the biggest in the country — unless Texas puts its game up for sale.

While the Illinois lottery had profits of about $630 million last year, according to The New York Times, the Texas Lottery contributed $1 billion in profits last year to state finances.

Voters approved the establishment of the lottery in 1992, but profits have fluctuated. After a decade-long slump, lottery sales last year finally topped its 1997 record, primarily because of new games with scratch-off tickets.

Suzii Paynter, a gambling opponent with the Christian Life Commission, said she would have to study Perry's proposal before taking a position. But she said the timing seemed odd.

"With a $14 billion surplus," she said, "it sees like the last thing we need is a huge infusion of cash."

State officials have said all but $2.5 billion of that $14 billion is committed already.

But there are other considerations besides money.

Many public officials argue that the state should not be in the gambling business. Selling the lottery would remove Texas from that role.

Then again, public lotteries arose because of scandals in privately run lotteries.

Also, the state might lose control over where lottery tickets are sold and how aggressively it is marketed. The state restricts marketing it considers objectionable.

Even if the state tried to require the lottery buyer to follow current state guidelines, the buyer later could lobby to relax the rules.

It's unclear how selling the lottery would affect ongoing efforts by the gaming industry to persuade the Legislature to approve casino gambling or slot machines at dog and race tracks.

Lawmakers are concerned whether expanding gambling opportunities would hurt or help lottery sales.

Perry has had an on-again, off-again position toward the expansion of gambling.

In 2004, when Mike Toomey was his chief of staff, Perry supported video lottery terminals (slot machines) at race tracks as a way of helping pay for public education. His conservative base objected, however, and Perry retreated.

Toomey is now one of an army of lobbyists pushing gambling expansion. Toomey favors the video lottery terminals, or VTLs, for his clients, while competing interests are working for casino gambling.

Just prior to the start of this legislative session, Perry said he opposes casino gambling, but he said state lawmakers might support slots at racetracks if that helped the state to rein in similar, illegal games known as eight-liners.

"I share with my friends who are proponents of VLTs that their time may have passed because with a budget surplus, there's less pressure on these members to look for new sources of revenue," Perry said.

© 2007 Austin American-Statesman: www. statesman.com


The Texas Lottery reported more than $3.77 billion in sales in the 2006 fiscal year, the highest amount in its 14-year history. Those sales resulted in a contribution of $1 billion to the Foundation School Fund, which supports public education in Texas. --(2/2/07) © 2007 The Associated Press: www.ap.org


To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"TXDoT is finding that sailing the Corridor Seas is not as smooth as it once was, with few remaining friendly ports of call. "

Editorial

Another revolution is now brewing at the local and grass-roots level in Texas.

February 2, 2007

Don Garrett
Citizens for a Better Waller County (CBWC)
Copyright 2007

Truth is universal--even in Texas when it comes to public transportation.

The truth is beginning to rise to the surface from the sea of rhetoric that has been created by Governor Rick Perry and TXDoT Commissioner Rick Williamson regarding toll roads and foreign investment. TXDoT is finding that sailing the Corridor Seas is not as smooth as it once was, with few remaining friendly ports of call.

Initially, the truth was relative to them as our own state elected officials were asleep at the wheel and did not study the alternatives that lay at their feet. It was a one sided argument from the “get-go”: Perry and Williamson were right and the citizens were wrong.

In 2002, Gov. Perry gave an ultimatum to TXDoT to come up with a comprehensive plan to relieve our cities congestion, despite the fact that in 1999 TXDoT had already put together a thorough transportation plan. Within 6 months of Gov. Perry’s mandate, a plan was orchestrated which included spending over $184 billion dollars, paving over 8,000 miles of toll roads and seizing over a million acres of private Texas land, without so much as a feasibility study. Nor were there any detailed financial models showing a best case/worst case scenario.

What Texans did get was a tall tale about congestion relief with all the bells, whistles, and accolades that seem to follow pork barrel legislation. And when citizens became concerned and questions were asked, there was a general lack of response.

Texans are still awaiting those answers. Meanwhile, the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) proponents threw luncheons and dinner parties for the Alliance for I-69 Texas organization where they preached to the choir and patted each other on the back as if to say, “Let them eat cake”. That attitude started a revolution once and it appears that another revolution is now brewing at the local and grass-roots level in Texas.

Congratulations Governor. 39% of the popular vote indicates you do not have the carte blanche you once had. Your actions on the Trans-Texas Corridors have polarized the State Republican Party and have given rise to a new Independent Party. Our State senators, representatives, county judges, county commissioners, and other local elected officials are now listening to their constituents specifically about the issues of tolls and the potential abuse of eminent domain powers.

It’s ironic that the private citizens now know more about toll roads, foreign consortiums such as Cintra Concessiones de Infraestruturas de transporte, AKA, Cintra and Macquarie Infrastructure Group, AKA MIG, and the abuses that follow the CDA’s (comprehensive development agreements) than many of our elected officials. The citizens owe much gratitude to grass roots organizations throughout the state such as the San Antonio Toll Party, Corridorwatch.com, Backlands Coalition, Texas Toll Party, Austin Toll Party, and Independent Texans for bringing these issues out in the public. Something Governor Perry and Rick Williamson had hoped would not happen.

We now anxiously await TXDoT’s release of the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement which is a Phase I Environmental Study) for the I-69 portion of the Trans-Texas Corridor. This will narrow the path to a 4 mile wide area of focus where the quarter mile wide corridor may eventually lay within the borders of Waller County. It is now time to organize our thoughts and plans for action.

However, many questions must still be answered: Will our elected officials hold steadfast in the 80th legislature and truly represent their constituents or crater to the power structure wheeled by Speaker Tom Craddick, Gov. Perry, and the TTC pork barrel opportunists in Austin?

Most importantly, will we, the citizens, hold to the truth and keep to the facts to give our elected officials the tools they need to chip away at the plans for a quarter mile wide boondoggle, to be built and operated by a foreign company, the scope of which has never been seen anywhere? Texans have a real chance to bring this legislature back to the people, but that means being an active part in this legislature.

It is imperative that you contact your representatives and let them know your personal thoughts on the TTC. Give them the facts that they need as you can bet that they will be hearing only one side of the story from the Governor’s office. And tell them you will be there to spread the word about their agenda.

We need to maintain pressure and stay informed so that we can impact impending legislation. Contact organizations like Citizens for a Better Waller County for more information. Thirty-nine percent of the popular vote - we must show Gov. Perry that there’s not too much to celebrate from that….

Note: Don Garrett is the acting president for the Citizens for a Better Waller County (CBWC). Citizens for a better Waller County is a grassroots, non-partisan organization that exists to “promote the protection and wise use of Waller County’s natural and rural resources to ensure the healthy quality of life for all residents”.


© 2007 Citizens for a Better Waller County: www.wallercountycitizens.org

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

TXDoT pays $1.5 million to D.C. lobbyists

Democrats rip state agency for hiring D.C. lobbyists

Feb. 2, 2007

By MICHELLE MITTELSTADT
Washington Bureau
Houston Chronicle
Copyright 2007

WASHINGTON — The dispute between Democrats and Texas Gov. Rick Perry over the hiring of Washington lobbyists for the state appeared to have ended last month when the governor canceled the controversial contracts.

But Democrats' anger has returned with their discovery that the Texas Department of Transportation has engaged its own lobbyists to advance the agency's interests in Washington.

TxDOT will pay more than $1.5 million in lobbying fees during a 13-month period that began in December.

The contracts, at $117,692 a month, are almost five times the cost of those that Republican Perry canceled in January with two well-connected Republican firms after an outcry in last year's campaign from Democrats and gubernatorial rival Carole Keeton Strayhorn, a Republican who ran as an independent.

"Obviously, that's ridiculous that they would pay $1.5 million for five lobbyists in Washington, D.C.," state Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, said Thursday. "It just really is an outrage."

Dunnam questioned whether other state agencies have hired lobbyists. It's traditional for universities and cities to hire lobbyists but less common for state agencies.

A Houston Chronicle review of several state agencies that have significant dealings with the federal government found no other outside lobbying contracts.

Fight for gas tax funds

The Department of Transportation defends the contracts as necessary to the state's years-long campaign to bring back more of the gasoline taxes paid by Texas motorists into the federal Highway Trust Fund. The state gets 92 cents for every dollar it pays into the trust fund while some other states get well more than they contribute.

"Our position is: Until we receive all the gas tax funds that Texans send to Washington we are going to need to have every voice we can get to help us," said TxDOT spokesman Randall Dillard. The department has "not hidden the fact that we use federal consultants."

Democrats on Capitol Hill said, however, they learned of the existence of the TxDOT lobbying contracts only last week when two of the lobbyists — former Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro and William K. Moore of the lobbying firm ViaNovo — visited their offices.

The pair's longstanding Democratic ties did not mollify Texas Democrats who were dispatched by voters to Washington to represent the state's interests and who contend it's a waste of taxpayer money to hire lobbying firms.

"I like Garry Mauro, but I don't need Garry Mauro to talk to me about Texas transportation issues," said U.S. Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston.

Green was one of the most outspoken critics of the now-canceled contracts with Republican-connected lobbying firms.

Mauro lost the 1998 gubernatorial race to George W. Bush, and Moore was for years a Democratic congressional aide and campaign strategist.

Dillard said the current $1.5 million TxDOT contracts cover a deal with Rodman Co. worth slightly more than $1 million and $461,500 to be split among four subcontractors hired by Rodman — Mauro, ViaNovo, Chad Bradley & Associates and the Federalist Group.

Significant increase

The contracts are a significant increase over the department's prior two-year contract, for $850,000, with Association Strategies and two subcontractors, the Federalist Group and Chad Bradley & Associates.

The Federalist Group has proven most controversial to the Democrats because one of its lobbyists made sizable contributions to Republicans, including for an unsuccessful challenge to U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, the lone Texas Democrat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

The contracts canceled by Perry, worth a total of $25,000 a month, were with the Federalist Group and Cassidy & Associates, which had ties to former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Dunnam, the state representative from Waco, this week wrote Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Ric Williamson asking for copies of all documents involving the Federalist Group and other lobbyists hired by TxDOT.

Spokesmen for the Texas Education Agency, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs and the Texas Workforce Commission said that rather than use lobbyists, they relied on the Texas Office of State-Federal Relations, a taxpayer-funded agency that reports to the governor.

The General Land Office signed a $24,000 contract with a Washington law firm for research of federal activities, not lobbying, spokesman Jim Suydam said.

The governor has significant sway over TxDOT because he appoints all five members of the Texas Transportation Commission that oversees the department.

Perry spokesman Robert Black said the Department of Transportation contracts were signed at the department's discretion and that Perry had nothing to do with them.

But Black also defended the contracts: "The fact of the matter is the transportation bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., is incredibly extensive and to have people on the ground who can traverse that bureaucratic maze is highly valuable."

michelle.mittelstadt@chron.com

© 2007 Houston Chronicle: www.chron.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

Eckels: "... had conversations with a New York firm and international investment banking firms."

Harris County judge could leave office early

Feb. 1, 2007

By KRISTEN MACK
Houston Chronicle
Copyright 2007

Harris County Judge Robert Eckels said Wednesday he is mulling offers from the private sector and can't rule out walking away from the four-year term he just won in November.

An early resignation would create a political whirlwind in county government, where officials serve without term limits and open seats are rare.

"In the last 90 days I've had conversations with a New York firm and international investment banking firms," Eckels said, saying he often has been approached by lobbying and law firms interested in hiring him.

"I have had more serious discussions than in the past. They are more concrete."

He is contemplating those offers, he said, but it is premature to talk about who he is "visiting with."

"I don't have to decide today. But I don't rule out anything," said Eckels, who was in Los Angeles on business. "I wouldn't do anything until I knew the county was in good shape and I had a chance to visit with my colleagues. I'm not looking for something else to do."

Either way, Eckels said he will make a decision sooner rather than later. He has been county judge since 1995.

Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt talked to Eckels Tuesday. Bettencourt declined to divulge the particulars of their conversation, but said his fellow Republican gave him the sense that he was seriously weighing other options.

"There's no doubt Robert is considering doing something else," Bettencourt said.

"He's already served 12 years in this job. There comes a time when everyone has to decide what difference they can make and whether they are ready for the next phase of their lives."

The county judge and four commissioners comprise Commissioners Court, the overall governing body in Texas counties.

If Eckels stepped down, it could create a political standoff, since the commissioners, who would be charged with appointing someone to serve until the next general election, are split 2-2 along party lines.

"The constitution doesn't allow offices to be vacant. Eckels will still serve until his successor is appointed and qualified," County Attorney Mike Stafford said. That also means that Eckels, a Republican, potentially could break a partisan tie in appointing his successor.

Possible successors mentioned in political circles include Bettencourt, District Clerk Charles Bacarisse, Commissioner Jerry Eversole and businessman Ned Holmes, all Republicans.

"From all indications, it seems he's decided he's found something better and is resigning. This is real," said Harris County Commissioner Steve Radack, who frequently has butted heads with Eckels though both are Republicans.

Radack said he has spoken to several people who have direct knowledge about Eckels' intentions. "He hasn't talked to me about it and I wouldn't expect him to," Radack said. "We aren't big political buddies. We're not even little ones."

Other commissioners were more circumspect, though all said they had heard rumors about Eckels' plans. Commissioner Sylvia Garcia said she had not spoken to Eckels. Eversole and Commissioner El Franco Lee said they had.

"This is no bigger than any other overtures that have been made. He wanted to have a chance to evaluate it," Lee said. "It sounds like he's interested in what they are saying. He's been down this road so many times."

Eckels' salary is $141,552. He has the potential to make several times that in the private sector, which would value his knowledge of government and contacts in politics and business.

Eckels, a lawyer, formerly served in the state House.

The judge pointed out that he would have to resign before the expiration of his term anyway if he became a candidate for one of the several statewide offices up for election in 2010.

Eckels has eyed statewide offices for several years. He also was mentioned as a potential contender for the congressional seat vacated by former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay last year.

Chronicle reporter Bill Murphy contributed to this report.

kristen.mack@chron.com

© 2007 Houston Chronicle: www.chron.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

Peters: DOT will aggressively support the development of the Corridors of the Future

Secretary Peters Advances Plans to Reduce Congestion on the Nation’s Busiest Highways

Announces Semi-Finalists in Corridors of the Future Program

February 1, 2007

Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Department of Transportation
Copyright 2007

Ambitious, forward-leaning plans to reduce traffic tie-ups on several of the nation’s busiest highways are one step closer to becoming a reality as a short list of interstate corridors under the Corridors of the Future program was announced today by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters.

Peters said that the Department is using this national congestion relief effort “to fight back against the traffic that is choking our major roads.” She said the Corridors of the Future effort is a progressive approach that includes transportation planning across state lines in ways that reduce congestion and preserve the efficient flow of goods and commerce across America. She went on to caution that “if we don’t act today, our economy will be facing a standstill in the future.”

The Department is advancing 14 of 38 proposals located on eight major transportation corridors including: I-95 between Florida and Maine; I-15 in southern California and Nevada; I-80/94 and I-90 linking Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan; I-5 in California, Washington and Oregon; I-70 from Missouri to Ohio; I-69 from Texas to Michigan; I-80 in Nevada and California; and I-10 from California to Florida.

The proposals currently include various combinations of expanded highway capacity, truck-only lanes, increased freight and passenger rail development, and extensive use of innovative technologies to keep traffic moving and improve overall safety. Peters said the applicants “exhibited creativity and innovation in their initial proposals to reduce congestion.” She indicated that the Department looks forward to the next phase of the program in which these ideas will be further developed and refined.

The 14 projects were selected based on the potential of each to reduce congestion on the eight corridors of national and regional significance using innovative financing and project delivery techniques. She noted that the Department will select up to five Corridors of the Future in the summer of 2007.

Peters said the Department will aggressively support the development of the Corridors of the Future by accelerating permitting schedules, identifying new financing options, and promoting innovative project delivery methods to “move these projects from the drawing board to completion faster than ever before.”

The Corridors of the Future program is one element of DOT’s six-point National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America’s Transportation Network launched in May 2006. The overall national congestion initiative is focused on reducing traffic on highways, relieving freight bottlenecks, and reducing flight delays.

Contact: Brian Turmail
Tel.: (202) 366-4570

© 2007 U.S. Department of Transportation: www.dot.gov

To search TTC News Archives click HERE