CA Considers HOT Lanes

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> (Brent P) said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
> >Haven't you seen the future?
> >
> >Interstates 'leased'* to foreign corporations and you'll being paying
> >tolls for any lane you use. Seems they are getting people used to the
> >concept of these roads having a toll.
>
> I have no problem with this, provided that said foreign corporation
> also pays to BUILD the road.

When you use office space to generate revenue should you be obligated
to build it yourself or is renting an office OK?

> I'm even cool with it if the corporation
> sells bonds to finance road construction and pays the bonds off with
> toll revenue.

That's how the Skyway was built as well as the Indiana Toll Road as
well as toll roads in 18 other states (and perhaps even more). The
government sold bonds and retired them from toll revenues. Not a
single tax dollar was used for either project. That's why they are
TOLL ROADS!

> But using taxpayer money to build a freeway and then
> selling it to a private company for use as a toll road is bull****.

I agree - but then again, that's not what happened. It would be
valuable to get facts straight before twisting thy knickers, ya think?
Freeways are called freeways for a reason.

> I'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it!

As well as a reckless poster - gotta love the consistency.

"js" > wrote in message
oups.com...

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> (Brent P) said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
> >Haven't you seen the future?
> >
> >Interstates 'leased'* to foreign corporations and you'll being paying
> >tolls for any lane you use. Seems they are getting people used to the
> >concept of these roads having a toll.
>
> I have no problem with this, provided that said foreign corporation
> also pays to BUILD the road.

When you use office space to generate revenue should you be obligated
to build it yourself or is renting an office OK?

(my reply)

Fine, let the taxpayers ante up millions to build me an office building, and
then I'll rent it to whomever I goddamned well please. Ummmm, wait a minute
.. . .

In article .com>, js wrote:

> That's how the Skyway was built as well as the Indiana Toll Road as
> well as toll roads in 18 other states (and perhaps even more). The
> government sold bonds and retired them from toll revenues. Not a
> single tax dollar was used for either project. That's why they are
> TOLL ROADS!

Without government power the land would have never been taken to build
them in the first place. They were never to be for-profit businesses.

Also roads that have been paid for with taxes are going to be leased and
converted.

Land is going to be taken from citizens so corporations can build
for-profit roads as well. This is part of the fallout of the New London
decision. It's like China here now. A business wants your land so they
bribe government to take it from you and give it to them.

> I agree - but then again, that's not what happened.

That's what will be happening. See spp.gov and the rest of the plans in
TX.

> It would be
> valuable to get facts straight before twisting thy knickers, ya think?
> Freeways are called freeways for a reason.

Until they become toll roads. Or they just put a GPS transponder in your
car to track everywhere you drive so every road is a toll road.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article .com>, js
> wrote:
>
>> That's how the Skyway was built as well as the Indiana Toll Road as
>> well as toll roads in 18 other states (and perhaps even more). The
>> government sold bonds and retired them from toll revenues. Not a
>> single tax dollar was used for either project. That's why they are
>> TOLL ROADS!
>
> Without government power the land would have never been taken to build
> them in the first place. They were never to be for-profit businesses.
>

Not to mention, the original purpose of the interstate system was national
defense. We are leasing part of our DEFENSE infrastructure to foreign
interests. Remember the outcry recently when a major shipping port was
going to be leased to a foreign country? There is no difference, they are
both major national defense assets. -Dave

In article ews.net>, Mike T. wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article .com>, js
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's how the Skyway was built as well as the Indiana Toll Road as
>>> well as toll roads in 18 other states (and perhaps even more). The
>>> government sold bonds and retired them from toll revenues. Not a
>>> single tax dollar was used for either project. That's why they are
>>> TOLL ROADS!
>>
>> Without government power the land would have never been taken to build
>> them in the first place. They were never to be for-profit businesses.
>>
>
> Not to mention, the original purpose of the interstate system was national
> defense. We are leasing part of our DEFENSE infrastructure to foreign
> interests. Remember the outcry recently when a major shipping port was
> going to be leased to a foreign country? There is no difference, they are
> both major national defense assets. -Dave

Then you'll love the fact that they let the press die down and do it
anyway. And have handed over running ports and screening cargo
to a chinese military connected company. (That also runs the panama
canal and its ports on both sides)

http://www.jonesbahamas.com/?c=45&a=8207

"Some U.S. lawmakers and security experts have expressed concern about
the contract for Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. because American customs agents
will not be working with the screening equipment, designed to detect
smuggled radioactive materials. (See Business Section)

The Hong Kong company is in the final stages of being awarded a no-bid,
$6 million contract from the United States for screening at the Freeport
Container Port."

Brent P wrote:
> In article .com>, js wrote:
>
> > That's how the Skyway was built as well as the Indiana Toll Road as
> > well as toll roads in 18 other states (and perhaps even more). The
> > government sold bonds and retired them from toll revenues. Not a
> > single tax dollar was used for either project. That's why they are
> > TOLL ROADS!
>
> Without government power the land would have never been taken to build
> them in the first place. They were never to be for-profit businesses.

Actually, as funny as it may seem, they were intended to be a business
run by the government. The land, by the way, still belongs to the
"people". All Uncle Sam did was outsource the care and feeding of the
roads in exchange for a lump sum payment and the rights to the toll
revenues. Its a business transaction.

> Also roads that have been paid for with taxes are going to be leased and
> converted.

Name one.

> Land is going to be taken from citizens so corporations can build
> for-profit roads as well.

This isn't a question of condemnation - it is a question about
converting future revenue streams (tolls) into current revenue and
outsourcing the maintenance of toll roads.

> This is part of the fallout of the New London
> decision. It's like China here now. A business wants your land so they
> bribe government to take it from you and give it to them.

Sorry - not the argument put forward. We are talking about two
examples - The Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road. Stick to the
topic.

> > I agree - but then again, that's not what happened.
>
> That's what will be happening. See spp.gov and the rest of the plans in
> TX.

Huh? You might want to try that again.

> > It would be
> > valuable to get facts straight before twisting thy knickers, ya think?
> > Freeways are called freeways for a reason.
>
> Until they become toll roads. Or they just put a GPS transponder in your
> car to track everywhere you drive so every road is a toll road.

And you don't pay taxes to drive today?

js

In article . com>, js wrote:

> Actually, as funny as it may seem, they were intended to be a business
> run by the government.

Not for profit.

> The land, by the way, still belongs to the
> "people". All Uncle Sam did was outsource the care and feeding of the
> roads in exchange for a lump sum payment and the rights to the toll
> revenues. Its a business transaction.

You're only seeing it as phase one. It's going to get worse.

A 99 year lease is effective ownership. In TX, the terms were even
secret. Much of it was released under the freedom of information act.


>> Also roads that have been paid for with taxes are going to be leased and
>> converted.

> Name one.

See the spp map. So far proposals.

>> Land is going to be taken from citizens so corporations can build
>> for-profit roads as well.

> This isn't a question of condemnation - it is a question about
> converting future revenue streams (tolls) into current revenue and
> outsourcing the maintenance of toll roads.

Again, see the spp. They are planing to take huge amounts of land to
build the TTC which will be run and effectively owned by cintra.

>> This is part of the fallout of the New London
>> decision. It's like China here now. A business wants your land so they
>> bribe government to take it from you and give it to them.

> Sorry - not the argument put forward. We are talking about two
> examples - The Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road. Stick to the
> topic.

Um... The topic is wider. You don't get to narrow it. You replied to me,
I was discussing a wider topic. I am sticking to it.

>> > I agree - but then again, that's not what happened.

>> That's what will be happening. See spp.gov and the rest of the plans in
>> TX.

> Huh? You might want to try that again.

You might want to start keeping up with current events. Especially the
ones TV news doesn't let you know about.

>> > It would be
>> > valuable to get facts straight before twisting thy knickers, ya think?
>> > Freeways are called freeways for a reason.

>> Until they become toll roads. Or they just put a GPS transponder in your
>> car to track everywhere you drive so every road is a toll road.

> And you don't pay taxes to drive today?

Government is tracking my driving.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Mike T. said in
rec.autos.driving:
>
> "necromancer" > wrote in message
> th.net...
> > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Studeman said in
> > rec.autos.driving:
> >> What difference does it make if the firm leasing the lane is foreign or
> >> domestic as long as the bidding was proper and rent / taxes are paid
> >> the same as a domestic firm would do?
> >
> > IIRC, we are talking about roads built with tax payer funds being
> > "leased," - hell, a 99 year lease; let's call it what it is: "sold," -
> > to a foreign entity who will have free reign to gouge those same
> > taxpayers at will if they want to use the road. The alternative will be
> > substandard secondary roads that the taxpayers can't upgrade due to
> > clauses in the lease of the primary road, so effectively, they will
> > *have* to use the invader owned road.
> >
> >> You got something against foreigners or are you mad that domestic firms
> >> were too cheap to bid higher?
> >
> > And what if the company is later found to have ties to al-queda or
> > another similar organization?
>
> Good point. But you forgot to add: The Interstate system was originally
> constructed for national defense purposes. Wouldn't it be ironic if some of
> our primary DEFENSE infrastructure was controlled by Al-Queda??? -Dave

It would be irony writ very large. Unfortunately, with things the way
they have been the last dozen or so years, it is entirely conveivable to
me that what you mention above could be very well happening right now.

--

"There's not a shred of evidence that the jerries murdered anything
close to 7 million jooz. Another monstrous lie just like the 9-11
official story. "

-- Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 12/01/2004
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9oog5
Message-ID: >

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, js wrote:
>
> > Actually, as funny as it may seem, they were intended to be a business
> > run by the government.
>
> Not for profit.

Yeh, the government's never been real good at that - another reason to
let an expert do it. The government is in a lot of businesses, by the
way. They are in the real estate business, the entertainment business,
indirectly in the transportation business, the health insurance
business, the retirement planning business....and on and on....and none
of these ventures seems to make money - in fact, the government lost
about 400 Billion.

> > The land, by the way, still belongs to the
> > "people". All Uncle Sam did was outsource the care and feeding of the
> > roads in exchange for a lump sum payment and the rights to the toll
> > revenues. Its a business transaction.
>
> You're only seeing it as phase one. It's going to get worse.

Worse? How can it get worse? I see privatization of infrastructure as
a positive. The smaller the government the better.

> A 99 year lease is effective ownership.

No, it is a lease - plain and simple. It is not ownership. The leasee
cannot tear it up and move it. The terms of the lease are extremely
clear on this.

> In TX, the terms were even
> secret. Much of it was released under the freedom of information act.

Here's your opposition:

"The ATA wants a toll-free national highway system where funds to
finance highway improvement primarily come from highway user fees such
as the fuel tax."

The ATA represents the trucking industry.

Did you know that the majority of toll roads in Europe are leased to
private companies?

> >> Also roads that have been paid for with taxes are going to be leased and
> >> converted.
>
> > Name one.
>
> See the spp map. So far proposals.

You know, I looked for these and guess what - without the URL I've made
enough of an effort.
If you can't provide the link, then the data don't exist as far as I am
concerned.

> >> Land is going to be taken from citizens so corporations can build
> >> for-profit roads as well.
>
> > This isn't a question of condemnation - it is a question about
> > converting future revenue streams (tolls) into current revenue and
> > outsourcing the maintenance of toll roads.
>
> Again, see the spp. They are planing to take huge amounts of land to
> build the TTC which will be run and effectively owned by cintra.

TTC-35. - I get it. So, you would feel better if the State of Texas
built the road, maintained the road, and collected tolls on the road?
Is the problem you are having?

So, the state of Texas has decided to build a road. To do so, they are
hiring a contractor to build and operate it. The contractor will be
paid from a variety of sources including from future tolls.

What is your problem with this?

The concession stand at the state beach is leased by a taco vendor.
You have a problem with that?

> >> This is part of the fallout of the New London
> >> decision. It's like China here now. A business wants your land so they
> >> bribe government to take it from you and give it to them.
>
> > Sorry - not the argument put forward. We are talking about two
> > examples - The Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Toll Road. Stick to the
> > topic.
>
> Um... The topic is wider. You don't get to narrow it. You replied to me,
> I was discussing a wider topic. I am sticking to it.

Irrespective of the Connecticut decision, roads are "public" under the
law and eminent domain applies. So, the wider topic is not applicable.
Eminent domain is not at issue.

> >> > I agree - but then again, that's not what happened.
>
> >> That's what will be happening. See spp.gov and the rest of the plans in
> >> TX.
>
> > Huh? You might want to try that again.
>
> You might want to start keeping up with current events. Especially the
> ones TV news doesn't let you know about.

It's not a big deal in states outside of Texas - and when I go to
SPP.gov, this is how the website is described:

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the
safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious
security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to
terrorism yet open to trade.

The anti-TTC-35 rhetoric has nothing to do with who owns the road but
rather who will be on it. At least you could have been a bit more
honest about this.

> >> > It would be
> >> > valuable to get facts straight before twisting thy knickers, ya think?
> >> > Freeways are called freeways for a reason.
>
> >> Until they become toll roads. Or they just put a GPS transponder in your
> >> car to track everywhere you drive so every road is a toll road.
>
> > And you don't pay taxes to drive today?
>
> Government is tracking my driving.

No, the toll authority is tracking where your car is driving. Another
reason to privatize. Atr least then it will take a court order to get
your driving records.

Until you come to grips with your own biases, perhaps we should suspend
this discussion.

js

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), js said in
rec.autos.driving:
>
> Brent P wrote:
> > In article . com>, js wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, as funny as it may seem, they were intended to be a business
> > > run by the government.
> >
> > Not for profit.
>
> Yeh, the government's never been real good at that - another reason to
> let an expert do it. The government is in a lot of businesses, by the
> way. They are in the real estate business, the entertainment business,
> indirectly in the transportation business, the health insurance
> business, the retirement planning business....and on and on....and none
> of these ventures seems to make money - in fact, the government lost
> about 400 Billion.

And do you think that allowing foreign entities do the work instead is
better how?

> > > The land, by the way, still belongs to the
> > > "people". All Uncle Sam did was outsource the care and feeding of the
> > > roads in exchange for a lump sum payment and the rights to the toll
> > > revenues. Its a business transaction.
> >
> > You're only seeing it as phase one. It's going to get worse.
>
> Worse? How can it get worse?

And if Spain is taken over by groups hostile to the US and the company
is nationalized?

> I see privatization of infrastructure as
> a positive. The smaller the government the better.

Not with infrastructure that is vital to the wellbeing of our economy
and the security of our nation.

> > A 99 year lease is effective ownership.
>
> No, it is a lease - plain and simple. It is not ownership. The leasee
> cannot tear it up and move it. The terms of the lease are extremely
> clear on this.

No, but they can make using the road (or the route in general)
burdensome for the average citizen through restrictions on use and/or
higher tolls.

> TTC-35. - I get it. So, you would feel better if the State of Texas
> built the road, maintained the road, and collected tolls on the road?

Yes, I would. Then it is being run by Americans for the benefit of
Americans and not foreigers for the benefit of God knows who.

> Is the problem you are having?
>
> So, the state of Texas has decided to build a road. To do so, they are
> hiring a contractor to build and operate it. The contractor will be
> paid from a variety of sources including from future tolls.
>
> What is your problem with this?

The fact that it is going to be operated by a foreign entity with the
profits going to foreign investors who are not necessairly friendly to
We The People of the United States. Its bad enough that we are held
dependent on these people for our energy needs. Now you want them to
take over our roads too?

Has any investigation into the owners and investors of this company been
done? And what's to say that a group like al-queda (or a front company)
won't try to acquire this company (and the lease) in the future. I'm
sure that bin Laden and his people would just love an unimpeded route
straight into the heart of the USA.

> The concession stand at the state beach is leased by a taco vendor.
> You have a problem with that?

Irrelevant. The taco stand is not vital to our economy and security.

> Irrespective of the Connecticut decision, roads are "public" under the
> law and eminent domain applies. So, the wider topic is not applicable.
> Eminent domain is not at issue.

Wait untill the foreigners want to bulldoze your house for a "public,"
road.

> The anti-TTC-35 rhetoric has nothing to do with who owns the road but
> rather who will be on it. At least you could have been a bit more
> honest about this.

Its about both. This road is being built to allow foreign nations
(primairly mexico) to flood our markets and put American companies out
of business and then to drag the USA down to third world status.

> No, the toll authority is tracking where your car is driving. Another
> reason to privatize. Atr least then it will take a court order to get
> your driving records.
>
> Until you come to grips with your own biases, perhaps we should suspend
> this discussion.

Agreed. You are too blind to see what is happening.

--
"Look down on me, you will see a fool.
Look up at me, you will see your lord.
Look straight at me, you will see yourself."
- Charles Manson