"Highway users and the vast majority of citizens recognize that privatizing public highways is a bad idea."

Toll Road plan gets mixed D.C. reviews

Daniels' project draws attack from highway users, praise from Pennsylvania governor

February 10, 2007

By Maureen Groppe
The Indianapolis Star Washington Bureau
Copyright 2007

WASHINGTON -- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels either inspires other governors with innovative policies, or he rides roughshod over his constituents with a transportation plan bad for the public.

Both opinions of Daniels' performance were put forward Friday in Washington.

At a news conference, a coalition of groups representing truckers and other highway users raised a red flag about the trend of leasing or selling public roads and expressed concern the federal government is overzealously pushing that approach.

The group also released a poll it said shows most Hoosiers disapprove of the state's leasing of the Indiana Toll Road.

"Highway users and the vast majority of citizens recognize that privatizing public highways is a bad idea," said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association. "Unfortunately, this administration is a lot like what Governor Mitch Daniels was . . . in kind of leading the parade for this."

Spencer said Daniels' attitude toward his constituents' objections was that they "weren't smart enough to recognize a good deal when they saw it."

A foreign consortium paid $3.8 billion to the state to operate the Indiana Toll Road for 75 years.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell had a different view of that deal when he and Daniels spoke to reporters after participating in a transportation summit organized by the White House for state transportation leaders.

"We're all beneficiaries of Governor Daniels' courage and vision," Rendell said. Pennsylvania has sought to interest investors in leasing the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Pennsylvania already has the eighth-highest gas tax in the nation and doesn't want to raise the tax by the amount needed to meet the state's infrastructure needs, he said.

The coalition of highway users -- which also includes AAA, the American Trucking Associations, the American Highway Users Alliance, the National Association of Truck Stop Operators and the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association -- said they wouldn't rule out all public-private projects. But the groups' representatives said they're worried that the leasing or selling of roads is being seen in Washington and the states as the main solution to funding the nation's growing transportation needs.

"Leasing our highways is essentially a dismantling of the nation's interstate highway network," said Bill Graves, president and chief executive officer of the American Trucking Associations.
A House transportation panel plans to hold a hearing next week on the topic.

"For the Bush administration, the rush to promote public-private partnerships is based in ideology, not a critical evaluation of how public-private partnerships might help meet the goal of an improved, integrated national transportation system and further the public interest," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who heads the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

DeFazio and Daniels clashed last year when Daniels testified before Congress about Major Moves. Daniels said Friday that DeFazio is a "left-wing extremist on this."

Contact Star Washington Bureau reporter Maureen Groppe at (202) 906-8118 or at mgroppe@gns.gannett.com.

© 2007 The Indianapolis Star: www.indystar.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"The rush to promote public-private partnerships is based in ideology, not a critical evaluation.. "

Highway Users Form Coalition to Oppose Toll-Road Privatization

2/9/2007

By Transport Topics
American Trucking Associations, Inc.
Copyright 2007

Several groups representing truckers and motorists said Friday they have banded together to combat a growing trend toward the privatization or leasing of existing toll facilities to private investors.

The groups include American Trucking Associations, the American Automobile Association, the American Highway Users Alliance, the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.

Americans for a Strong National Highway Network was formed “to advance the rights of American motorists to travel on safe, reliable public roads; maintain a robust national highway network for the efficient transport of goods and the military; and to hold government accountable for ensuring financing is transparent, motivated by public good, and dedicated to transportation purposes,” the alliance said in a statement.

Following last year’s deal to privatize the Indiana Toll Road for $3.8 billion, several Northeast states, including Pennsylvania, have also been considering privatizing their toll roads. (Click here for previous coverage.)

“The sale or lease of existing toll facilities generates revenue at great expense to taxpayers and the trucking industry and carries potential negative impacts on highway safety, security and the motoring public,” said ATA President Bill Graves.

“We must consider the long-term impact privatization will have on our nation’s transportation system and explore all available financing options to ensure that the government is motivated by public good and transportation purposes,” he said.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, said, “For the Bush administration, the rush to promote public-private partnerships is based in ideology, not a critical evaluation of how public-private partnerships might help meet the goal of an improved, integrated national transportation system and further the public interest.”

For more information click: www.truckline.com

© 2007 American Trucking Associations, Inc.: www.ttnews.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"Fed-up commuters could take another route, but there aren’t any."

Editorial:

The roads not taken don’t exist

Feb 8, 2007

The Washington DC Examiner
Copyright 2007

WASHINGTON - There are two toll roads in Northern Virginia. The Dulles Toll Road is publicly owned and the Dulles Greenway is privately owned, but the differences end there. Tolls on both will soon increase significantly, and there’s not much trapped commuters can do about it.

The 57,000 drivers who use the 14.5-mile Greenway each day already pay $2.70 one way, no matter how far they drive. If Toll Road Investors Partnership II gets approval from the State Corporation Commission, tolls will go up to $4.80 by 2012, making the Greenway one of the most expensive toll roads in the nation. TRIP II was a consortium partially owned by Middleburg matron Magalen Ohrstrom Bryant. Her late brother, George Ohrstrom Jr., founded the Piedmont Environmental Council, which doesn’t like roads messing up its “viewshed.”

Two weeks after the Loudoun Board of Supervisors voted to oppose the Greenway toll hike, former Sterling Supervisor Roger Zurn reminded state commissioners that when the Greenway was approved in 1992, TRIP II promised it would be an affordable alternative to already clogged Route 7 — and the $1.75 toll would rise only to cover maintenance costs. The deal guaranteed Greenway investors a “reasonable” rate of return, but it’s certainly not reasonable to expect commuters to make up for the road’s first 10 years of operating losses in just five years.

Congressman Frank Wolf, R-Va., called the proposed Greenway toll hike “nothing more than highway robbery.” Not exactly. The Greenway is a private road. In theory, anyway, drivers who don’t want to pay 34 cents a mile (compared to 6 cents on the New Jersey Turnpike), can go another way. The reality is more complicated. The public road system was already inadequate when the Greenway was approved — and that was before 100,000 more people moved into Loudoun County. But the commonwealth has failed to add additional road capacity even in one of the nation’s fastest growing exurbs.

For real highway robbery, look to the 16-mile Dulles Toll Road. Taxpayers were told back in 1984 that the tolls would be eliminated once the bonds sold to finance the public project were paid off. Instead, the toll road was turned into a giant ATM, used to fund everything but transportation.

VDOT recently agreed to turn over the Dulles Toll Road to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority this spring. MWAA wants to use the toll road’s $28 million annual revenue to pay for a Metrorail extension to Dulles International Airport, and has already announced plans to raise tolls to pay for it. How high they will go is anybody’s guess. MWAA could make the proposed Greenway toll hike look like a bargain, and if the public doesn’t like it, too bad. MWAA is an unelected body and only five of its 13 members are from Virginia. Not only is MWAA not accountable to the public, it doesn’t even think it has to respond to Freedom of Information requests, as Examiner reporter William Flook recently discovered.

Fed-up commuters could take another route, but there aren’t any.

© 2007 The Washington DC Examiner: www.examiner.com

To search TTC News Archives click HERE

"Any wonder why TxDOT has lost all credibility with the people?"

Toll foes show up in force at hearing

2/07/2007

Patrick Driscoll
San Antonio Express-News
Copyright 2007

Toll critics weren't allowed to set up a table to greet crowds coming into a public hearing Tuesday for a proposed U.S. 281 tollway, but once inside they made their point.

When Joe Krier, president of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, got up to explain how tolls could fund twice as many miles of express lanes in half the time, letting motorists pay if they want to avoid worsening traffic congestion, boos laced the applause that followed.

When toll critic Terri Hall, leader of the San Antonio Toll Party, addressed the hearing to say that gas tax money can pay for what's needed on U.S. 281 and warned how foreign companies would suck million of dollars in profits from motorists, many in the crowd stood to cheer.

And there were a lot of people to make noise.

The Texas Department of Transportation, which held the hearing in the main ballroom of the Alzafar Shrine Temple to get input on its draft environmental assessment for the project, counted 652 people, far more than in attendance at most other local public hearings.

Almost one in 10 who showed signed up to speak.

Dave Ramos said it's amazing that TxDOT's environmental study of the 7.5-mile project, ranging from 10 to 20 lanes from Loop 1604 to Borgfeld Road, indicates there would be no significant impacts to people or the environment.

"Any wonder why TxDOT has lost all credibility with the people?" he said.

Steve Grau, speaking for the Greater Chamber of Commerce, said toll lanes also will take traffic off free access roads that would replace existing highway lanes, helping relieve gridlock and make travel safer for everyone.

"Most of all, toll lanes do not require state or local tax increases," he said.

Louis Raiborn said toll lanes are for well-off drivers.

"The thing is, you can't be a poor person and expect to get on a toll road," he said. "We don't need toll roads here. We don't need them anywhere in Texas."

The environmental study, which now heads to federal officials for a yea or nay later this year, suggests building six to eight toll lanes plus frontage roads and other lanes, taking land from the west side of the highway to make it 400 feet wide — 500 feet at interchanges.

By tolling the express lanes, the project can 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 access roads could flow better than rush-hour traffic does now on the existing highway lanes that would be replaced.

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 while 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

"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