Here is an account by TURF’s Terri Hall of Lobby Day on March 3. Lobby Day goals included killing the Trans-Texas Corridor for good and strengthening eminent domain protections.
Grassroots Lobby Day a success!
Written by Terri Hall
Wednesday, 04 March 2009
Concerned citizens took the time off work in difficult economic times and traveled hundreds of miles from all over the state (DFW, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and everywhere in between were represented) to make their voices heard as part of TURF's Lobby Day. From wanting to raid public employee retirement funds to finance risky toll projects, and to hand over our highway system to foreign toll operators, to allowing the conversion of existing freeways into tollways and looking the other way when our reckless highway department engages in lobbying with taxpayer money, TEXANS are STANDING-UP and demanding that these irresponsible practices come to an END!
We started with a press conference on the East Capitol steps with 6 other organizations who shared the same message: Slow down TxDOT and spend the stimulus funds wisely, including NO STIMULUS FUNDS FOR TOLL ROADS! Projects aren't necessarily being chosen based on priority or even where the people and congestion are, but on anything they can conjure up as "shovel ready," including playing politics with the final list.
We had a great crowd, catchy homemade signs, and got national press coverage!Then it was off to the House gallery to learn about the proceedings in that chamber and to be introduced from the House floor by Representative Ruth Jones McClendon. Next,TURF supporters met one on one with their representatives to share the Citizens Agenda below:Citizens’ Toll Road/Eminent Domain Reform Agenda
* A Sunset Bill that provides real reform of TxDOT like abolishing Transportation Commission and replacing with single ELECTED Commissioner and Legislative Oversight Committee;
* Stop any and all conversions of freeway lanes into toll lanes
* Affordable transportation funding like raising or indexing the gas tax and ending diversions from the gas tax so that the funds are used strictly for transportation purposes;
* End privatization of our PUBLIC infrastructure through Public Private Partnership (PPPs known as CDAs in TX) * Prevent pension fund investment in risky PPPs;
* Local control and decision-making, so that any toll road projects are planned and voted on regionally;
* Real eminent domain reform (that provides just compensation including for diminished access to property, such as HB 2006 that was passed by the Texas legislature in 2007, but vetoed by Gov. Perry)
* Protecting unique and sensitive environments, such as the Blackland Prairies, Edwards Aquifer
We also delivered the TURF Edition of Truth Be Tolled to EVERY legislator as well as our Toll Road/CDA Fact Sheet highlighting the problems with widespread tolling and handing over our infrastructure to private, foreign companies.
We finished up with a mini workshop on the legislative process, or Legislation 101, and heard from some key lawmakers: House Transportation Committee Chair Joe Pickett, and from the offices of Speaker Joe Straus and Rep. David Leibowitz. This session emphasized the need for vigilant public involvement in the legislative process, particularly as watchdogs at the committee level.
Feedback for the day was positive and the overall consensus was that Lobby Day proved helpful in learning about the process.Concerned citizens can stay informed with important action items through TURF's Grassroots Action Center.
OTHER REPORTS ON THE DAY
The Star-Telegram covered Lobby Day at
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1237098.html
“The daylong lobbying mission was organized by several transportation watchdog groups . . . [they] demanded that lawmakers clamp down on the Texas Department of Transportation and scrap any vestiges of Gov. Rick Perry’s Trans-Texas Corridor, which originally called for a $184 billion network of toll roads.”
From the American-Statesman:
http://www.statesman.com/search/content/region/legislature/stories/03/04/0304stimulus.html
LINDA CURTIS, INDEPENDENT TEXANS
Called it “our home run in the press yesterday . . .
(click here for News 8 coverage ) at the lobby day and press conference organized by TURF, Citizen's Transportation Coalition and various members of Texas Alliance for Reform (including Independent Texans) .”
Showing posts with label public-private partnerships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public-private partnerships. Show all posts
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Another hint that the transportation powers that be want to get their hands on the Obama stimulus funds
Today's Statesman has an op-ed by Emil Henry, identified as assistant secretary of the Treasury from 2005 to 2007. The piece is called "Why the right can get behind an infrastructure program."
Several of his comments raise red flags. Why has this commentary come out now? Why is he advising some sort of new partnership between "conservatives" who may not have supported Obama and those who are now in a position to hand out the goodies of the stimulus funds?
Henry says:
"Party leaders are giving voice to historically underemphasized concerns such as the impact of airport, seaport and roadway congestion on productivity. . . . Barack Obama has indicated his intention to make infrastructure spending a central tenet of his economic plan and may even promote establishing a stand-alone agency in the form of the National Infrastructure Bank.
[Hope there will be sufficient safeguards against TxDOT looting this Bank.]
"By investing in the reduction of air, automotive and rail congestion . . . we will increase productivity and foster competitiveness.
[He offers no proof of this congestion that is decreasing productivity.]
"The nation also lacks high-speed rail."
[Again, no proof that the nation needs high-speed rail. Recent studies have shown that in most locations, high-speed rail is not the most efficient transportation method.]
"Investment in public transit, energy-efficient buildings, renewable energy and the systems required to implement roadway congestion pricing . . ."
[This means tolling your highways and charging you to enter a certain part of town, among other things.]
"Conservatives know that the private sector is better than the government at designing, building, operating and financing infrastructure." [Oh really. I don't think this is a given at all.] "This, combined with the magnitude of the spending required, means government will have to tap private capital and expertise. Conservatives can supply leadership in private-sector participation, encourage public-private partnerships and help ensure that central planning and prioritization are rooted in clinical cost-benefit analysis, not politics.
[Sure, there were no politics in the Gov. Perry, TxDOT, Cintra schemes, where consultants moved around revolving door style.]
When an opinion like Henry's appears, we can wonder if these thoughts occurred to the author just out of the blue. What prompted this column at this time? Is the author a disinterested expert wanting what is best for the country, or is he perhaps connected with some entity who would profit from stimulus funds being directed to the public-private partnerships advocated by TxDOT, such as its joint efforts with Cintra? Could this author be on some board or be acting as a consultant?
If this commentary is part of an organized effort to put the federal stimulus funds into the hands of those whose schemes were being thwarted by efforts by citizens at the state level and by current economic realities, we need to be aware of this and to let those in charge of the stimulus funds not to fall for this.
See the entire column at
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/12/09/1209henry_edit.html
Several of his comments raise red flags. Why has this commentary come out now? Why is he advising some sort of new partnership between "conservatives" who may not have supported Obama and those who are now in a position to hand out the goodies of the stimulus funds?
Henry says:
"Party leaders are giving voice to historically underemphasized concerns such as the impact of airport, seaport and roadway congestion on productivity. . . . Barack Obama has indicated his intention to make infrastructure spending a central tenet of his economic plan and may even promote establishing a stand-alone agency in the form of the National Infrastructure Bank.
[Hope there will be sufficient safeguards against TxDOT looting this Bank.]
"By investing in the reduction of air, automotive and rail congestion . . . we will increase productivity and foster competitiveness.
[He offers no proof of this congestion that is decreasing productivity.]
"The nation also lacks high-speed rail."
[Again, no proof that the nation needs high-speed rail. Recent studies have shown that in most locations, high-speed rail is not the most efficient transportation method.]
"Investment in public transit, energy-efficient buildings, renewable energy and the systems required to implement roadway congestion pricing . . ."
[This means tolling your highways and charging you to enter a certain part of town, among other things.]
"Conservatives know that the private sector is better than the government at designing, building, operating and financing infrastructure." [Oh really. I don't think this is a given at all.] "This, combined with the magnitude of the spending required, means government will have to tap private capital and expertise. Conservatives can supply leadership in private-sector participation, encourage public-private partnerships and help ensure that central planning and prioritization are rooted in clinical cost-benefit analysis, not politics.
[Sure, there were no politics in the Gov. Perry, TxDOT, Cintra schemes, where consultants moved around revolving door style.]
When an opinion like Henry's appears, we can wonder if these thoughts occurred to the author just out of the blue. What prompted this column at this time? Is the author a disinterested expert wanting what is best for the country, or is he perhaps connected with some entity who would profit from stimulus funds being directed to the public-private partnerships advocated by TxDOT, such as its joint efforts with Cintra? Could this author be on some board or be acting as a consultant?
If this commentary is part of an organized effort to put the federal stimulus funds into the hands of those whose schemes were being thwarted by efforts by citizens at the state level and by current economic realities, we need to be aware of this and to let those in charge of the stimulus funds not to fall for this.
See the entire column at
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/12/09/1209henry_edit.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
