National Infrastructure Bank, another boondoggle for taxpayers

National Taxpayers Union Foundation named the National Infrastructure Development Bank Act 2011 the Most Expensive Bill of the Week. Sadly, Texas has a State Infrastructure Bank that primarily loans money to toll entities in order to raise the cost of transportation through DOUBLE TAX TOLLS. These quasi governmental and hybridized public-private ventures caused the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mess. When TxDOT runs the State Infrastructure and loans out money to toll entities, they're not using the same lending standards private lenders would. So TxDOT props up loser toll projects and lends money the private sector wouldn't take the risk on (ie - toxic debt). So how does this serve the taxpayers exactly? It doesn't, it's a way to loan our money to irresponsible, unelected toll bureaucrats who make us pay back our own money through tolls, with INTEREST! What do you think about that government recycling program?

Most Expensive Bill of the Week

The Bill: H.R. 402, National Infrastructure Development Bank Act 2011


Annualized Cost: $5 billion ($25 billion over five years)

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) introduced H.R. 402 to establish a public bank, which "would supplement other federal infrastructure programs, and provide investment opportunities to create jobs, spur economic growth, and help build an infrastructure for the future." As a wholly-owned government corporation, such as the housing entity Fannie Mae, the bank's financing would be backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

The National Infrastructure Development Bank would issue bonds to eligible lenders, including regional, state, and local entities, as well as commercial banks. Funds would be directed to transportation, environmental, energy, and telecommunications projects, each requiring a different set of standards to be considered by the four committees within the bank.

The bill authorizes $5 billion for each of the next five years. Funds would serve as the base capital from which the bank would issue bonds. In the President's budget proposal, a similar bank was outlined at the same $5 billion annual cost but instead over six years.

Lawmakers push privatized toll roads, putting affordable travel out of reach

These articles show how out of touch our politicians are to the plight of every day Texans.

Lawmakers may like outsourcing the tax hikes to private companies, but taxpayers don't. When these deals mean paying 75 cents PER mile to access our PUBLIC roads, it's like adding $15.00 to every gallon of gas you buy! So when these lawmakers and so-called "fiscal conservatives" tell you they're balancing the budget WITHOUT raising taxes, you'll know they're lying to ya.

How many Texans can afford that? Even if you never take the road, you'll be paying for it. In the the last paragraph of the Statesman article below it says the 183 toll project in DFW will be 100% paid for by ALL Texans' gas taxes, yet they're still going to hand it over to Cintra or some private, for-profit toll road company (using a concession CDA or PPP) to collect the tolls (that will charge 75-80 per mile). If this doesn't tell you that this push to privatize and toll is NOT about a lack of money for roads, but rather a way to MAKE money for roads, then I don't know what would.

No Texan should have to pay a TOLL TAX (a DOUBLE TAX) to access a freeway that's ALREADY PAID FOR nor should a PUBLIC road that's paid for EVER be owned and operated by a private company! It's eminent domain for private gain and highway robbery. We're gettin' fleeced in broad daylight, Texas!

Then there's the toll collection problem. TxDOT has added up to 4000% administrative fees for pay by mail, for those who don't buy into the government TollTag system.

As an example of just what a taxpayer disaster it is to hand control of our public roads to private, foreign toll operators using CDAs, drivers on a road operated by Spain-based Cintra (who has won three Texas contracts already) in Canada receive their first bill totaling thousands of dollars in fines years after they supposedly took the tollway. The government has no power to step-in and protect motorists from runaway taxation nor disputed toll fines.

A 2009 article in the Toronto Star chronicles the nightmare:

"’We, as a government, have no control over that, as a result of the (Mike) Harris government's deal,’ to lease the toll road to a private consortium for 99 years and include a provision in the contract forcing the transportation ministry to deny new plates to anyone who doesn't pay the 407 whatever it demands, said Bradley.

“The 407 ‘negotiated a deal that was very favourable to them and they covered all the aspects of the deal that they would want,’ said Bradley.

“Many readers said they think the 407 deliberately holds back invoices on unpaid balances to allow interest charges to grow, but Bradley noted that it "is responsible for establishing its own business practices, and under its deal ... it has the right to set and collect tolls and administration fees and interest."

___________________________________________________________________________________

Link to Statesman article here.

Law would allow private tollway deals for MoPac, U.S. 183

Legislature warming to long-term leases with private companies after spurning the approach in 2007 session.

By Ben Wear

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Updated: 5:15 a.m. Thursday, March 24, 2011

Published: 7:41 p.m. Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Private toll road contracts, which fell out of legislative favor in 2007, are making a comeback this session.

And that includes at least the potential that two such projects in Austin, the MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) toll lanes and U.S. 183 in East Austin, could end up being financed, built and operated for decades by private firms.

State Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, who is carrying a bill that would allow such contracts on those two roads, said it is not necessarily an endorsement of that approach or an indication that the toll projects will end up in private hands.



"I want to make sure all of the tools are on the table," Watson said this week. "But it will be up to the local (metropolitan planning organization) to see if it gets used."
Right now, the local plan is for the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority, a toll agency that runs the 183-A tollway in Cedar Park, to build and operate the $248 million MoPac and $678 million U.S. 183 projects.

The Texas Department of Transportation would contribute $70 million in tax money to the MoPac project, which involves adding a fourth, tolled lane on each side between Lady Bird Lake and Parmer Lane, and $130 million to build express toll lanes and frontage roads on U.S. 183 between U.S. 290 in Northeast Austin and Texas 71 near the airport. The mobility authority, in theory, will raise the rest through borrowing.

But the authority's development plans in general were put on hold for at least two years when the 2008 credit crunch hit and it became difficult to borrow money. Carlos Lopez , TxDOT's Austin district engineer, said the ability to bring in the private sector would be an "insurance policy" if something goes awry with the TxDOT and mobility authority approach.

Watson's bill, which he filed March 11, has not yet been given a committee hearing. But four similar bills, allowing TxDOT to reach long-term leasing agreements with the private sector to build tollways in Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth, made a lightning-quick trip through the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee Wednesday .

All were approved unanimously and then channeled to the Senate's queue of uncontested legislation. Such bills are generally approved en masse by the Senate with no debate, meaning that the toll road bills in effect are almost surely halfway through their legislative journey. Similar bills are pending in the House, including one by state Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman , that lists a dozen tollway projects that would become eligible for what are generally called concession agreements.

The Austin-area roads, however, are not included in Phillips' legislation.

This renewed embrace of toll road concessions is a notable departure from 2007, when the public and lawmakers soured on the idea of private companies being in control for a half-century of tollways on the state highway system, and profiting from those leases. Such deals, particularly the participation in them of foreign companies, had become a high profile issue in the 2006 gubernatorial election, and the fervor continued into the new year and the legislative session.

The 2007 Legislature passed, and Gov. Rick Perry signed into law, a bill that put a moratorium on all but a handful of such potential deals. Authority for TxDOT to reach the long-term deals in general expired in September 2009, and the ability to reach agreements on the excepted roads from that 2007 law will die on Sept. 1 this year.

However, with state gas tax revenue stagnant and federal highways grants diminishing, TxDOT officials have said that sometime next year they will have no money available to approve construction of new road projects. That threat has lawmakers taking a fresh look at concessions, but on a case-by-case basis.

Anti-toll road activists on hand for the committee hearing Wednesday let legislators know that time has not diminished their distaste for private toll road agreements. Raising the gasoline tax would be a cheaper approach, said Don Dixon, a retired San Antonio mechanical engineer.

"We're going to these fringe processes" to fund highway construction, he said. "We're going to have a two-tier system: those who can afford to drive the toll roads, and those who can't."

Opponents were also disturbed that TxDOT planned to pour billions of public dollars into projects that likely will lead to private profits by operating companies, according to TxDOT figures. In one of the four projects named in the bills approved Wednesday, TxDOT would supply almost one-third of the $3.7 billion cost for the North Tarrant Express in the Fort Worth area. In another case, the Texas 183 managed lanes project, also in Dallas-Fort Worth, TxDOT would cover the entire $1.3 billion construction cost. The operator would, in theory, be responsible for only the operating and maintenance costs to follow.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Senate transportation panel boosts Dallas-area private toll projects


By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER

Transportation Writer

Dallas Morning News

Published 23 March 2011

The Senate transportation committee took steps Wednesday to speed the development of two major toll projects in North Texas, approving bills that will expand the state’s authority to partner with private firms to build toll roads.

The bills both passed unanimously in the committee, though they still must be passed by the full body and win acceptance in the House. If they become law, the Texas Department of Transportation will be permitted to partner with private firms to build a 28-mile stretch of Interstate 35E between Dallas and Denton and a 9.1-mile segment of State Highway 183 from Dallas through Irving.

The projects would add free lanes and new paid managed lanes. The roads would be financed with public and private funds. In return, the companies would be given rights to toll the paid lanes for decades.

Denton County Judge Mary Horn said privately financed toll roads are essential given that Texas roads funds are running short.

“We keep hearing the message loud and clear from constituents — do something now,” Horn said. “Leveraging private equity through a public-private partnership is the best and perhaps only way to address growing congestion before it worsens further.”

Terri Hall, a San Antonio activist who has spearheaded years of opposition to private toll roads, spoke out. “You remember the dust-up in 2007, and Texans haven’t changed their mind,” Hall said. “It’s public money for private profit, and the public hates it.”

The committee also heard a compromise bill that would significantly limit the late fees charged by the North Texas Tollway Authority, a practice that has left some frequent violators owing thousands of dollars for unpaid tolls.

If the bill passes, the NTTA would have to stop charging $25 for every unpaid toll transaction. Because a single invoice can easily have scores of transactions, the fees can quickly dwarf the original amount owed.

The bill would instead allow the NTTA to assess the $25 for only the first eight unpaid tolls per invoice. After that the bill’s $200-per-invoice cap would apply.

NTTA Executive Director Allen Clemson told senators he supported the bill, written by Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound.

Nelson initially filed a bill that would have capped late fees at $25 per invoice, a move that the NTTA said would cost it tens of millions of dollars each year.

Clemson vowed to work with Nelson at the time to craft a compromise.

Lawmakers mull bans on texting, cell phones while driving

Link to article here.

While we feel for the families and friends who have lost loved ones due to texting while driving, data has shown that in areas where there are bans in place, accidents actually go up since people try to hide their phones and take their eyes further off the road by looking down. So a ban won't fix the problem.  We're certainly not for texting while driving. Perhaps a better approach is for the free market to crackdown. If insurance companies told policyholders they'd lose their insurance policies or had punitive penalties if they're involved in an accident that shows they were texting while driving, that might prevent texting while driving more effectively than these government bans have done. This is an education issue, not one for criminalization. Rep. Jose Menendez' bill would prohibit you from even touching your phone while driving. This is government overreach that seems like its more for writing a bunch of tickets than public safety. What's next? What about eating, adjusting or programming a GPS device, DVD player, or a stereo? All of these things distract drivers, too.

At some point, we need to educate and trust drivers to be responsible and minimize distractions while driving. We can't possibly pass a law against every type of driver distraction, and we should err on the side of liberty and freedom.

Texas lawmakers mull ban on texting while driving

By SOMMER INGRAM
The Associated Press

Updated: 1:22 p.m. Thursday, March 10, 2011

Published: 3:07 a.m. Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Legislation to ban texting while driving in Texas is gaining momentum in the state House, where Republicans and Democrats alike have pledged support.

Multiple texting while driving bills were left pending in the House Transportation Committee on Wednesday, but not before committee members heard heartfelt testimony from individuals who have lost loved ones to a texting and driving car wreck.

Lisa Chapa of Mission, Texas, talked about the harsh reality texting and driving brought into her family's life. Her sister died in a car accident in November and was texting at the time of the wreck.

"Texting and driving changed the course of my family's life," Chapa said. "It needs to have more severe consequences. Maybe one person will understand that this does happen — it happened to us, and it can happen to them."

Former House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, collapsed Wednesday morning while testifying on his bill that would make it against the law to read or send text messages and e-mails while driving. He quickly regained consciousness but was taken to the hospital for further observation.
Craddick said it's better to have one provision that would establish uniformity statewide rather than depending on individual cities to ban cell phone use. A first-time offender would have to pay a fine of up to $200.

Craddick's bill would be named the Alex Brown Memorial Act, in memory of a West Texas girl who died in a one-car accident while she was texting.

House members have put their support behind Craddick's bill, but Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio, also filed a more stringent bill to prohibit cell phone use unless a hands-free option is available.

Menendez said this would make it easier for police officers to enforce the law, since they wouldn't have to determine whether the person was texting or just holding a cell phone.

The legislation would exempt people who use a cell phone to call 911 while driving.

Terri Hall, member of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, said it's not the government's job to dictate what citizens can and can't do in their own cars. She argued that putting laws into place would cause more wrecks because people would try to hide their cell phone use, pulling their eyes even further from the road.

Joel Cooper, a research scientist with the Texas Transportation Institute, said this could be an unintended consequence, but the legislation is important in terms of changing attitudes toward texting and driving.

"This is a multi-tiered approach, and that has been shown to be effective," he said.

Some witnesses highlighted the dangers to bicyclists and riders of motorcycles. John Hildinger said his best friend was killed by someone texting while driving. His friend was on a motorcycle when he was killed.

"These individuals under the influence of their social lives are not intending to go out and kill someone, but it's not intentional actions we're talking about here," Hildinger said. "My best friend rode 52 years without a wreck, and then was killed by someone texting and driving."

Thirty states have already passed laws that ban texting and driving. In Texas, it's against the law to use a cell phone in a school zone, while people under the age of 18 can't use a phone at all while driving. Studies have shown that texting while driving is the equivalent of having a 1.6 blood alcohol level.

"The most impactful, the most profound legislation doesn't come from special interests or lobbyists," Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, said. "It comes from real people like we have here today."

Toll entities lobby against bill to remove tolls when road paid off

Link to article here.

Regional Mobility Authority lobbyist, Brian Cassidy, also testified against the bill. These entities are using YOUR money to lobby against the taxpayer for higher, PERPETUAL taxation. These are UN-elected boards, so it's taxation without representation to begin with. No more Un-Constitutional, Robin Hood wealth re-distribution. Tolls need to come off these roads when they're paid off as was promised to voters when the systems were initially financed (in areas where voters actually got to vote on the initial toll projects, DFW & Houston. All other areas of the state have been denied a vote on their toll roads, and now un-elected bureaucrats and lobbyists are lobbying for perpetual debt and taxation!).

NTTA chairman opposes bill to require toll roads to become free roads once bonds are paid

By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER - Transportation Writer - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - Published 09 March 2011
Dallas Morning News


The chairman of the North Texas Tollway Authority told Texas senators Wednesday that a bill to eliminate permanent toll roads would stop highway-building in North Texas.

“Tolling is the only way we are getting any roads built at this point in time,” Victor Vandergriff told the Senate transportation committee. “Funding from the state of Texas is not available for roads.”

His testimony came as the committee considered a bill by Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, that would require toll roads to become free roads once their bonds had been paid off.
That would put a stop to so-called system financing, the standard method that NTTA uses to fund new roads.

By pledging revenues from its entire system, the agency can secure more money and better terms than it could if it tried to persuade lenders to give money based only on the projected revenues from a new road.

Throughout its history, NTTA has taken profits from one road and used them to support debt on a new road. In doing so, it does not have to wait to build a new road until the traffic it would generate is sufficient by itself to support construction and operations.

Vandergriff said the Ogden bill could put at risk billions of dollars in roads that are under way and billions more that are planned in the near future.

 “It could also chill the bond markets,” he added.

 Anti-toll advocates embraced the Ogden bill.

“This is my kind of bill,” said Terri Hall of Texas TURF, a grassroots organization that has been fighting toll roads, especially private toll roads. “We are totally opposed to system financing.”

Vandergriff admitted he agreed philosophically with the Ogden proposal. He recalled that his father, former Tarrant County Judge Tom Vandergriff, lobbied to create Texas’ first toll road in 1953 and, 24 years later, urged lawmakers to retire the tolls on what is now Interstate 30. He died Dec. 30.

“He spoke clearly about the dangers of tolling or system financing, and of his fears that it would be a drug that the state and Metroplex would continue” to rely on, Vandergriff said.

But he said passage of the bill would essentially stop road-building in North Texas, where nearly all major projects have been toll roads, many relying on system financing.

Hall noted that the Texas Constitution forbids “monopolies and perpetuities,” two words she said describe toll authorities.

________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

Toll tax: Bill would make road charges perishable

Ben Wear: Getting There

 
Published: 9:41 p.m. Sunday, March 13, 2011

In Texas, tollways, like diamonds, are forever.

State Sen. Steve Ogden would prefer something a little less permanent.

Ogden, a College Station Republican whose district includes Williamson County, is carrying a bill this legislative session that would require tolls on any Texas turnpike to disappear once debt incurred to build that particular road has been paid back. The bill, as even Ogden admitted, has little chance of passing.

"There's too much money involved," said Ogden, who as Senate Finance Committee chairman is in charge of writing the state's $160 billion budget.

But the legislation's precarious prospects don't mean it isn't noteworthy. Ogden, through his bill, is addressing a broader, key question: When does a toll, instead of being a user fee, become merely a stealth tax?

Ogden said that time came in 2003 and he's as much to blame as anyone.

"Today is Ash Wednesday," Ogden said last week when he presented Senate Bill 363 to a committee, "and I'm here to atone for my sins. To make sure that the innocent don't pay for the guilty. And to make sure we have truth in taxation."

Ogden eight years ago was the Senate sponsor of a massive transportation bill that greatly expanded the power of the state and of local toll authorities to build turnpikes, charge tolls on them in perpetuity and use profits from one tollway to help build other roads, including, at least in theory, free roads.

None of this was an accident.

That legislation, carried in the House by then-state Rep. Mike Krusee, a Williamson County Republican and close ally of Gov. Rick Perry, was based on the premise that the Legislature had no taste for raising the state's 20-cents-a-gallon gas tax. Therefore, the only way going forward to pay for roads had to be tolls, with the excess revenue becoming an "economic engine" for expanding the transportation network. And toll charges, officials said, would continue even after each tollway's original cost had been paid off.

Time has borne out that premise about the state gas tax. The levy, last raised by lawmakers in 1991, remains 20 cents a gallon (there's an additional 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gasoline tax), and toll roads have sprouted all over the eastern half of Texas.

The Austin area, which in 2003 had no tollways, now has five, and a sixth under construction.

Profits from one of those roads, 183-A in Cedar Park, will serve as what amounts to collateral when the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority attempts soon to borrow several hundred million dollars for the U.S. 290 East tollway in Northeast Austin.

Ogden says that's just wrong, that folks in Cedar Park are being "taxed" to pay for a road more than a dozen miles away that they will seldom use. Similarly, four of the Texas Department of Transportation's Austin-area tollways — Loop 1, Texas 45 North, Texas 45 Southeast and Texas 130 — function as a system, with their money pooled. The heavy traffic on Texas 45 North in Round Rock is basically propping up the much lighter use of Texas 130 near Mustang Ridge.

"We continue to run this state basically on hidden taxes," Ogden told that committee last week.

Ogden's bill, aside from snuffing tolls on a paid-off road, would not allow surplus revenue from one road to be used for another road.

Here's the problem, though: A toll road's costs don't end when its bonds are paid off.

There are still annual maintenance costs, the day-to-day expense of collecting and processing the tolls, and the big hit of major reconstruction every 40 years or so.

And another, larger problem: That stagnant gas tax will produce declining revenue as cars become more fuel-efficient, and what it generates now is already inadequate to build new roads and maintain the ones in place.

Ogden is carrying separate legislation, a potential constitutional amendment, that would allow the gas tax to rise by up to 5 cents a gallon. Each cent now raises about $150 million a year.

The extra gas tax money could be used to make debt payments for tollway bonds issued since 2003 (under that bill Ogden carried) — now about $270 million a year and likely to be nearly $410 million annually by 2013 — freeing up existing gas tax money to build or repair roads.

From road advocates' point of view, the worst-case scenario would be for Ogden's first bill to pass, making toll roads all but impossible to finance, and his second measure to die, meaning no extra gas taxes.

If neither becomes law — the most likely scenario — we get the status quo: taxes in sheep's clothing and, over time, increasing traffic congestion.

If any legislators are looking for something to give up for Lent, magical thinking about transportation finance might be a good candidate.

________________________________________________________________
Link to article here.

Senate considers bill to require tolls be removed once debts are paid; NTTA chairman says he's 'conflicted,' but insists NTTA must keep tolls on roads


Michael Lindenberger/Reporter - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - Wed., Mar. 9, 2011
Dallas Morning News

What if Texas required that every toll road become a free road once tollpayers pay enough to retire the debt required to build the road in the first place? After all that's what happened on Interstate 30, which began as tolled highway and became a free one 24 years later when the state removed the tolls.

On Wednesday, the Senate transportation committee took testimony on a bill by Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, that would require toll roads to become free road once their bonds had paid off.

"This is my kind of bill," said Terri Hall of Texas TURF, a grassroots organization that has been fighting toll roads, and especially private toll roads, since at least the furor over the Trans Texas Corridor. "We are totally opposed to system financing."

There's a problem, however. The North Texas Tollway Authority was created with so-called system financing in mind. Typically, when it borrows to build a road, it pledges the whole system, which gives it access to more funds and better terms than would be available to it if tried to convince lenders to give it money based on only the projected revenues from the new road alone.

Throughout its history, NTTA has taken the profits off one road, and used to support debt on a new road. That way it needn't wait to build a new road until the traffic it would generate would be sufficient by itself to support its construction and operations.

To put it another way, both the SH 161 toll road in Dallas and Southwest Parkway in Tarrant County rely on system financing, as NTTA pledged revenues from its existing operations to boost the amount it could borrow on both projects. To win the SH 121 project, too, NTTA has to borrow about $5 billion -- an amount it could never have borrowed if it had pledged only the revenues it will collect on SH 121 itself. It instead pledged its whole system.

NTTA chairman Victor Vandergriff testified against the bill Wednesday, saying that it could put at risk billions of dollars in roads that are underway , and billions more that are planned in the near future.

"I agree philosophically with what Sen. Ogden has proposed," Vandergriff said, recalling that his father, former Tarrant County Judge and Arlington Mayor Tom Vandergriff, had lobbied to both create Texas's first toll road in 1953 and, 24 years later, lobbied lawmakers again to retire the tolls. He died Dec. 30 after enduring Alzheimer's disease.

"He spoke clearly about the dangers of tolling or system financing, and of his fears that it would be a drug that the state and Metroplex would continue to (rely on)," Vandergriff said. "Certainly in the fog of the last few years of his life, he never could forget that his son had become the chairman of the toll authority. It wasn't exactly the legacy he had wanted to leave."

But Vandergriff said Ogden's bill would essentially stop road-building in North Texas, where nearly all of the major projects have been toll roads, and many of them have relied on so-called system financing. "It could also chill the bond markets," he added.

"In the Metroplex, we have 102 miles under tolls and another 430 under construction. That's just what the NTTA is doing and if you can add managed lanes (built by the state and private partners) on top of that. We have been aggressive to move to meet transportation needs and fight congestion. Tolling is the only way we are getting any roads built at this point in time. Funding from the state of Texas is not available for roads."

From Hall's perspective, though, Vandergriff should listen to his father. She noted that the Texas constitution forbids "monopolies and perpetuities," two words she said describes toll authorities.

Kansas officials say Keystone pipeline too costly

Link to article here.

More on the Keystone pipeline below. Kansas officials say it's too costly. See related article about how Texans are fighting the piepline here.

Canada pipeline deal too costly, officials in Kansas say

By David Goldstein, MCTFebruary 15, 2011
Calgary Herald
 
 

 
TransCanada's Keystone pipeline carries oil from Alberta to Oklahoma and Illinois. A second pipeline would extend to refineries on the Gulf coast in Texas.

Photograph by: Los Angeles Times, TransCanada Corp.

WASHINGTON — Crude oil from western Canada began flowing through a controversial pipeline in Kansas last week.

Supporters say that construction of the Keystone Pipeline - which flows down through the Dakotas and Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma - provided an economic boon, producing money and jobs.

But in Kansas, local officials along the pipeline's path think that the state sold them out - unnecessarily - to get the pipeline. Because of an exemption the state gave the company that owns it - Alberta-based TransCanada - the local officials won't see a dime in property taxes from the project for a decade, a loss they estimate at $50 million in public revenue.

"If we had that pipeline on the tax rolls this year, we could have cut our levy by 30 to 40 per cent," said Dan Holub, a county commissioner in Marion County, Kan. "Rural counties don't have much of a tax base and a whole bunch of expenses. We've got 1,600 miles of road. People have got to be able to get to them."

Supporters of the pipeline deal counter that the company will owe taxes for 90 years after the abatement expires. They said the project also would help the state's shrunken oil industry.

But questions persist about whether TransCanada used the power of eminent domain improperly.

It used eminent domain to obtain an easement through Greg Roles' 160 acres of wheat and soybeans in Clay Center, Kan. He resisted TransCanada's $15,000 offer and now is suing the company in a case that could end up before the Kansas Supreme Court on appeal after he lost in district court.

 

"I'm the only guy who has tried to stand in front of them," he said. "I know I'm the only guy in Kansas. This deal just isn't right. Where are our elected officials?"

The debate is likely to intensify.

TransCanada plans to use its Kansas pipeline as a pivotal piece in a new, $7 billion, nearly 1,700-mile project to transport heavy oil from Canadian tar sands to refineries in Texas. If it's approved, it could carry up to 500,000 barrels a day, doubling the amount of oil that TransCanada brings in overall.

The massive undertaking has galvanized opponents, who argue that safety and the environment would be at risk.

In Nebraska, for instance, where the proposed pipeline would be built to connect to the Kansas portion, it would run beneath the Ogallala Aquifer, a huge, shallow water table that provides drinking water for about 2 million people in eight states.

The Kansas pipeline can move 156,000 barrels of oil from northern Alberta to a refinery in Cushing, Okla., by way of several Canadian provinces and several states.

The new project would construct a pipeline to carry Canadian crude south through six states, including Kansas, to Texas. It also would pass through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and Oklahoma.

The company claims that it would create about 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs and add $20 billion to the U.S. economy.

The project also would "improve U.S. energy security and reduce dependence on foreign oil from the Middle East and Venezuela," Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer, said in a recent statement.

That's backed up by a recent report by a private energy consultant for the Department of Energy, which says that Canadian crude oil and reduced demand "could essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports longer term."

But the report also points out that if Canadian suppliers export oil to Asia from Canada's west coast, "more Middle East crude moves into the USA."

Further, it notes that with so many pipelines bringing crude across the border already, TransCanada's new pipeline, if it's approved, might not be needed for years.

Approval of a cross-border permit will be up to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Several members of Congress urged her in a letter last summer to go slowly with her decision, which is expected by spring after the State Department looks at the pipeline's environmental impact. Others lawmakers wrote in support of the project.

The Environmental Protection Agency said the State Department's original report last year was "unduly narrow" because it didn't fully look at oil spill response plans, safety issues and greenhouse gas concerns.

If the administration signs off on the pipeline, it would inadvertently be aiding two of President Barack Obama's arch political foes: David and Charles Koch, who own Koch Industries.

The Wichita-based oil giant is the second largest privately held company in the U.S., with annual revenues estimated at about $100 billion.

The Kochs have bankrolled conservative efforts and candidates who oppose Obama and the Democratic Party's environmental policies. According to Solve Climate news, an energy and climate online news service, the Koch brothers would stand to gain from the project because their company controls nearly a quarter of all tar sands crude oil that's imported into the U.S.

Extracting oil from tar sands and liquefying it enough so it will move through a pipeline is an energy-intensive process that adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Getting it out of the ground involves clear-cutting forests, leaving a wasteland that oil companies say they will restore. Some scientists say that rivers also become polluted.

"From start to finish, this a dirty project," said Stephanie Cole, a spokeswoman for the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club. "Forests in Canada are being destroyed, and increased reliance on fossil fuels will accelerate global warming."

The Energy Department report concludes that building a new pipeline wouldn't have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

In Kansas, debates over the environment have taken a backseat to the five-year-old dispute over TransCanada's tax break for the existing pipeline. It remains a source of conflicting stories and continuing bitterness.

Kansas legislators say that granting the 10-year property tax moratorium was crucial to getting the pipeline.

"I got a letter from TransCanada that says clearly that the incentive was one of the considerations to coming to Kansas," said Republican state Senator Jay Emler, who's now the majority leader.

TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha said that it wasn't. He said the company didn't "originate this tax abatement issue. We weren't part of that discussion. We were already in the process of finalizing our proposed route" for the pipeline.

Republican state Rep. Carl Holmes, who led the moratorium effort, declined to talk about the negotiations that led to the deal or the dispute. He said the tax abatement was designed to aid the state's oil business.

"We had 20 refineries 25 years ago," he said. "Now we're down to three. You want to drive; you've got to have gasoline."

NTTA fights toll fee reduction

Link to article here.

Should it surprise us that the North Texas Tollway Authority is using tax money to fight efforts to reduce the toll transaction "fees" paid by drivers? It's their way of punishing drivers for not buying into the big daddy government toll tag tracking system.

NTTA pushing back against bills that would sharply reduce fees on unpaid tolls


By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER -  - Transportation Writer - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. -
Dallas Morning News
Published 03 March 2011

North Texas Tollway Authority officials are pushing back against legislation filed in the Texas Senate and the Texas House that would dramatically reduce fees it can impose on drivers who fail to pay their tolls.

NTTA collects millions of dollars in fees each year from drivers who ignore bills for at least 75 days, and has insisted that its practice of attaching a $25 fee for every unpaid toll transaction is both necessary and required by state law.

Last year, a review by the NTTA board failed to end the practice, despite opposition by board member Victor Vandergriff, who has since become chairman. And the authority has defended the practice in federal court against ongoing claims by four customers who say the fees are unconstitutional.

All that could change if legislation filed by Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound , and Rep. Diane Patrick, R-Arlington, succeeds in Austin.


The bills, which are identical, would require NTTA to send one notice each month containing all the unpaid tolls a customer has incurred that month. NTTA would be permitted to add just a single $25 fee to the invoice, and give customers 30 days to pay the past-due amount.

Customers who don’t pay within that time could be guilty of a traffic violation, and subject to a court-imposed fine of up to $250. They would be liable for only one violation for failure to pay all the tolls incurred in a single month.

A spokeswoman for Nelson said the senator was unavailable to comment on the bill Thursday.

NTTA government relations director Carrie Rogers told board members Thursday that she had made clear to Nelson that the bill as written would threaten the “integrity of our system.”

Her boss, executive director Allen Clemson, said in a subsequent interview that the legislation as written would cost NTTA about $20 million annually.

Most NTTA customers use a TollTag, and therefore pay their tolls in advance. But for those who do not, the only way to pay their tolls is to have their license plate photographed as they pass through checkpoints. Once a driver has incurred 30 toll transactions, or 30 days pass, NTTA sends the owner of the car a bill for just those transactions.

If they aren’t paid within 45 days, the authority attaches an $8.25 fee to each of what might be dozens of unpaid transactions on a single unpaid invoice. If the owner fails to pay within another 30 days, the account is sent to collections and each one of those fees roughly triples, to $25.

Some customers have reported fines of hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars as a result of the way NTTA levees the fines per transaction.

That would change if the legislation becomes law, but Clemson said NTTA has more to worry about with the legislation than just the lost revenue it now collects. Only 8 percent of the authority’s 500 million annual transactions are unpaid, he said. That’s due in part, he said, to the strong deterrent provided by the stiff penalties.

Knowing that failure to pay a month’s worth of tolls only brings a $25 fine might encourage customers who pay their bills not to do so, he said.

“If we were to make changes and see that slipping from 92 percent to 90, or 85, then we would have problems,” Clemson said.

Vandergriff voted last year against keeping the basic fee structure in place. He lost 8-1, but he too said he’s concerned that Nelson’s legislation could have unintended consequences. Any lost revenues would have to be made up, he said, and if collections were to fall over time, it would be drivers who do pay who would suffer.

“We’d eventually be in the position of having to raise our rates,” he said. “And to me, asking people who already pay their tolls to absorb higher rates to cover those who don’t would be just as tragic as assessing the fees in the way that we already do.”

As result, he said the authority will continue to work with Nelson and Patrick aiming for a compromise bill, one that might include, for instance, lower fees but also a provision that unpaid toll balances would have to be paid before a driver could renew his or her vehicle registration.

Meanwhile, Vandergriff urged colleagues to take note that bills targeting NTTA practices are accumulating in Austin. Whether or not they ultimately pass, the lesson should be clear, he said.

“There are a lot of eyes watching us. And there is a lot of chatter in Austin, chatter that is being backed up by legislative activity,” he said.

Both bills have been referred to committee and await a second reading.

SB 366: Would require toll roads to revert to free state roads once debt associated with their construction is paid off.

HB 593: Would empower the state auditor to audit NTTA as if it were a state department.

HB 1577: Would subject NTTA to review by the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission before the 2013 session.

Texans fight TransCanada over Keystone pipeline

Link to article here. Another tarsands oil pipeline is part of the Trans Texas Corridor known as Ports to Plains. The original TTC concept involved pipelines of all types. But as you'll read, tarsands oil pipelines wreak havoc at a new level when they bust (due to the high pressure required to transport it) and contaminate aquifers. This Keystone pipeline is a Trans Texas Corridor style takings...it's eminent domain for private gain. See related article about how Kansas officials say the pipeline is too costly here.

Texas activists ready to fight over $7bn oil pipeline in the home of black gold

US landowners along the proposed route – from Alberta to the Gulf coast – accuse oil firm TransCanada of bullying

By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian UK, March 2, 2011

In an earlier life, David Daniel jumped through fire and performed a motorcycle stunt called the Wheel of Death. For his second act, he picked a fight with a $7bn oil pipeline set to run through Texas.

He is not doing badly for a man taking on big oil in the home of black gold. Growing opposition to a Canadian project to pump crude from tar sands in Alberta across six American states to the Gulf coast could force the Obama administration to reconsider – and possibly delay – the project.

The grassroots rebellion will come to Washington on 9 March, just as the state department is due to decide whether to grant final approval to the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline. If it orders additional environmental or safety reviews it would force a delay in the construction start date, now set for the end of the year.

But a delay could also be forced by activists along the proposed pipeline route through Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas. About 750 landowners have refused to allow the company, TransCanada Corp, on their land, setting the stage for court battles over compulsory purchase.
It's more than Daniel expected when he began posting "stop the pipeline" signs on roads near his rural east Texas home. "Normally people are so used to pipelines that they don't think twice about it," said Daniel, a carpenter who gave up his life as a stuntman six years ago when he settled on 20 acres near Winnsboro. "Everybody has a pipeline running through their yard, or will have one eventually, so it is kind of the accepted standard," he said. "There is a mindset of apathy."

But last year Americans began to pay more attention to the potential for oil and gas disasters. In addition to the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, a natural gas explosion killed six people and destroyed 35 homes in California, and a pipeline leak spewed 1m gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo river in Michigan. That pipeline was owned by another Alberta firm.

Then there were the environmental consequences associated with tar sands crude, which has a far higher carbon footprint than other sources. Its exploitation has turned Canada into the villain of international climate change negotiations.

National environmental organisations said the project jeopardised Obama's commitment to a clean energy future.

Activists are worried about the dangers of pumping gritty, thick crude at high temperature and pressure through a pipeline with walls less than half an inch thick across vital sources of groundwater.

A report by a coalition of environmental organisations said piping oil from the tar sands was inherently more risky than other pipelines. The pipeline crosses one of the world's largest aquifers in Nebraska, which provides drinking water to eight states and irrigates about a third of the farmland in the midwest. Daniel's stretch of Texas, meanwhile, is rich in lakes that locals fear could be contaminated if there is a leak.

But environmental concerns alone did not turn Daniel's neighbours against the pipeline. They claim that bullying did.

Locals in east Texas accuse TransCanada's agents of threatening them with compulsory purchase and of dismissing their concerns about safety in case of a leak.

"They just laid some papers down on the table and said: 'Read these papers. We have eminent domain.' That scared me nearly to death," said Susan Scott, who blames her heart attack on the stress.

Daniel said the company did not bother to notify him when it sent the first survey team to his property in 2008. A neighbour told him outsiders had been on his land. He found surveyors' stakes with flags reading PL. "My heart was just falling," he said. "I knew that meant pipeline."

The anger spread to Tea Party conservatives, the local chapter of Hawks – which stands for Handguns Are Worth Keeping Sacred – and even those who owed their fortunes to oil. "I had nothing against it at first," said Eleanor Fairchild. Her late husband headed international exploration for Hunt oil, and she has an abandoned pipeline on her 300 acres of land, which is wooded with oak, pine and sweetgum trees and fed by its own springs.

"It was later I found out about the pollution and I got involved with this environmental stuff. They don't tell you it is not a regular pipeline, or that the pipeline is so thin, or that the grit going down there is going to wear out the pipeline."

Fairchild said she got angry when TransCanada's lawyers told her she had no choice but to agree on their terms.

TransCanada says it has reached agreements for nearly 90% of the route. "Whenever you build a project, especially a project of this size, you know not everybody will agree with you," said a spokesman, Shawn Howard. He said the pipeline would be the safest ever built, with 16,000 sensors to detect the first sign of a leak.

But opposition may be gaining momentum. "Nobody likes it when somebody comes and says you are going to sell to us, like it or not," said Harlan Hentges, an Oklahoma lawyer representing families suing TransCanada. "The Canadian executives have been a little bit tone deaf."

He said he knows of about a dozen landowners in Oklahoma who are challenging TransCanada's claim, as a foreign corporation, to be expropriating land in the national interest. In Nebraska, 21 members of Congress have signed a petition calling on the Obama administration to re-route the pipeline away from its aquifer. In South Dakota, the state legislature is considering a bill that would compel corporations to obtain all the necessary permits before they start trying to obtain rights to privately held land.

Activists like Daniel hope the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, will be forced to rethink her support for the project.

The Environmental Protection Agency rejected TransCanada's draft environmental study of the project last July. Daniel and other activists now hope the state department will order further studies on the safety of transporting gritty crude, the potential damage to groundwater from a leak, and emergency response plans.

He doesn't yet dare to hope that the pipeline will be halted. But he is ready to use skills he picked up as a stuntman.

If the state department signs off the pipeline, Daniel says, he will build a platform in an elm on his land and live on it. "If I am in it, they can't cut the tree down."

Florida toll booth incident creates a police state

Link to article here.

POLICE STATE, USA

Drivers detained for paying tolls with U.S. currency

Motorist uncovers state scheme to collect personal information

Posted: March 06, 2011
4:53 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study uncovers dangers of privatizing infrastructure

Link to article here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TxDOT sinks deep into debt to pay for roads

Link to article here.

Texas Transportation Department going into debt to pay for road work

Posted Sunday, Feb. 27, 2011

By Gordon Dickson / Star-Telegram

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of alternative financing tools used in Texas:

Proposition 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposition 14

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

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

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

Texas Mobility Fund

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

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

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

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

Pass-through financing

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

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

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

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

Reinvestment zones

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

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

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

Link to article here.

Texas 130 toll break unlikely to move many truckers

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

By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interstate drivers probably will not perceive a difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

Texas Transportation Commission votes to lower truck tolls

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

The Trucker Staff

2/24/2011

 

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

The new lower toll rates go into effect March 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paxton: Make Transportation Funding a Priority

Make Transportation Funding a Priority

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

By State Rep. Ken Paxton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grand Pkwy design to begin

Link to article here.

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

Grand Parkway gets green light for design work

But no funding authorized, and foes not swayed

By NOLAN HICKS

Houston Chronicle
AUSTIN BUREAU

Feb. 25, 2011, 5:39AM

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

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

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

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


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

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

Suburban sprawl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dates back 3 decades

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

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

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

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

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

Strip mall owner tries to oust neighbor using eminent domain

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

Stop Rick Caruso’s land grab in Glendale

By
Larry Gilbert
– February 15, 2011



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

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

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

Federal money for roads goes unused

Link to article here.

Federal money for local road projects unused and collecting dust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Absolutely not," Laughter stated.

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

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

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

Corinth pressed on I-35E widening

County says project funding hinges on cities’ endorsement

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

By Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe / Staff Writer
Denton Record Chronicle

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA to study hazards of fracking

Link to article here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critics of SB 18 get noticed

Link to article here.

Too Imminent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other grassroots organizers are echoing that sentiment.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Activists such as Hall want more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Make Perry sign that one,” Hall said.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Link to article here.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Grecians protest high PPP toll taxes

Link to article here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOLLROADSnews 2011-02-07

Malkin: PPPs are 'corporate welfare'

Link to article here.

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

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

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

Scroll for speech updates…


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

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

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

I remind you again:

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

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

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

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

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

…taxpayer-funded black hole FANNIE MAE;

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

…the failed Chicago Olympics wealth distribution boondoggle;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subcategories

Eminent Domain

Climate Policy

Page 60 of 102

Latest News

Latest Press Releases