I *hate* tollways, to the point that the common presence of them in a metro area would likely prevent me from moving there.
It really is a difficult issue. I'm not sure where I fall on it. Obviously planners in general are in favor of eminent domain, but it's reminiscent of the techniques used in an era of planning we'd mostly rather forget.
I feel like, ideally, tollways would subsidize public transportation, and thus be a healthy method of income-redistribution.
The gap between my ideals and reality: let me show you how big it is and how ignored my ideals are.
There's no way tollways can realistically subsidize public transportation. They can barely pay for themselves.
For new tollways, probably not. But in my fantasy, existing, overly congested highways would be priced to the extent that they would subsidize free, extensive public transit.
Wouldn't that be nice? I'm looking at you, I-35 corridor.
But in my fantasy, existing, overly congested highways would be priced to the extent that they would subsidize free, extensive public transit.
Oh, yeah, that's at least theoretically possible. Unlikely to happen in practice, but dare to dream.
The proposition looks good to me. It specifically prevents using eminent domain to seize property for non-public use. That is exactly the sort of abuse of eminent domain that big business Republicans have been pushing all over the country. Governments use eminent domain to get land for a privately owned, for profit mall.
The proposition would still allow governments to take property for public transportation (should by some miracle they actually decide to do so) because the property would be for public use. Ditto for creating parkland.
7: That's sort of how it looked to me, but liberal-ish institutions opposed it. Their arguments seemed flimsy and contradictory to me, though - some said it doesn't go far enough and has loopholes, others said it is too strict. I am prepared to believe that this has plenty of loopholes, though.
I am prepared to believe that this has plenty of loopholes, though.
If it doesn't, some lawyer will make some.
This is clearly one of a large set of state initiatives put forth as a backlash to the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London, which upheld the right of governments to use eminent domain for economic development even if that meant giving the land to a private developer. Texas was unlikely to do that anyway, so this probably won't change much in practice.
Although actually, I think some of those proposed tollways were going to be private, for-profit ventures, so maybe this will stop some of that. No big loss.
I'm generally opposed to the construction of new roads in my area, whether toll or free. Population isn't increasing and new roads simply make it easier for people to go suburban. Also, I'm fairly certain that PennDot is trying to kill me and that the Pittsburgh Department of Public Works is in a race with the Port Authority to see whether the roads or the bus and make my life more difficult.
I think this all ties into the whole Ron Paul NAFTA "Highway to Hell" hysteria. Not sure what other forces were arrayed, as you say not an issue that divides on current party lines.
I'm generally opposed to the construction of new roads.
rob
["End Construction!]
"The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union--complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union."
I don't really understand how someone dedicated to a small government could get all worked up over national sovereignty. Are you an individualist or a patriot? Do you want a minimal caretaker state, or a complex bureaucracy holding people and goods up at the border?
I know this really only shows that libertarians like Ron Paul aren't really interested in liberty. But it bothers me when the hypocrisy is transparent.
It's that kind of attitude that'll have us all using Ameros after the dollar is abolished, Rob. If they don't stick us all in the FEMA camps first.
3-6: My daily train commute across the Delaware River from New Jersey to Philadelphia gets a significant subsidy from the $4 per car tolls for crossing the bridges. Also the train takes the same bridge as the cars, and its's really cool when they're all stuck in traffic and we zoom along. At the other end of this most excellent state, bridge and tunnel car tolls subsidize the mass transit lines under the Hudson River.
I feel like, ideally, tollways would subsidize public transportation, and thus be a healthy method of income-redistribution.
Most of the Texas tollways were supposed to 'pay for themselves' and the various commecial entities involved kept right on charging after they were paid off. I think the big complaint is that it's fairly regrssive revenue to pay for the entire states tax structure, and the various commercial entities are milking it. The privates tollways would've been worse.
10: which upheld the right of governments to use eminent domain for economic development even if that meant giving the land to a private developer. Texas was unlikely to do that anyway, so this probably won't change much in practice.
Hrmm. The new Cowboys Stadium.
max
['It's good to have due process when you get engaged in eminent domain.']
I have to recuse myself, because privatized infrastructure, including toll roads, has been my bread and butter for a long time.
In Re Kelo: Sometimes the justices get ahold of some really good shit and come out with a whack decision (I'm looking at you, Dred Scott).
Just remember we are all serfs, taxed unto and even after death. If the gov't needs a little more juice for whatever reason, it has to come from somewhere.
The thing about Kelo is that principled conservatives ought to love it: the courts properly deferred to the political branches to decide what's a public purpose. Now if only there were some principled conservatives.
A fine point, NPH. Judicial restraint is to be commended. Legislators routinely write vague laws, to be implemented by the regulations of the bureaucrats. "Not what we intended" they scream from the gibbet, as the pitchforks gleam in the torchlight.
They don't scream "not what we intended," they scream "activist judges!"
13 - It's more likely tied into the backlash the TxDOT Trans-Texas Corridor plans mentioned; if I recall correctly, the Texas DOT, understanding their duty as being Build More Roads, hatched a scheme to convert a bunch of highways to toll roads to help pay for... new toll roads. People were pissed about it and it proved very unpopular, so Rick Perry had to back down for the time being.
19: Do you own Pittsburgh's water system? If so, why does my toilet bowl turn brown so quickly even if I don't use that toilet.
25: Some of us would have gone presidential for that query, Moby.
26: I suppose I should have used the Britta pitcher as my example. But still, we have what they say is harmless rust in our water. I'd blame the privatization except that it sucked before then.
21
The thing about Kelo is that principled conservatives ought to love it: the courts properly deferred to the political branches to decide what's a public purpose. Now if only there were some principled conservatives.
Actually I was just thinking the other day about what decisions I agreed with the liberal bloc in the Supreme Court on and Kelo came to mind.
Although I might be more generous than current law when it comes to the just compensation part.
In Moby's defense, I always crap in his (otherwise) unused toilet when I'm in that part of town. No public restrooms, yo.
Moby might want you to stop defending him.
|| Tryin' to remember some lyrics to type into google. Managed to start of with 'wh'. I got
white pagesDude! They stole my car too!
whole foods
whois
white house
whitney houston
whole foods locations
where the wild things are
wild pages reverse lookup
white house black market
white people stole my car
max
['Goddamn cracker motherfuckers. Always stealin' my shit.']
|>
21. The ED case should explain why the property could not be just bought or optionally assembled. Should just compensation be sufficient to raise an army to take back the contested property ?