CA Considers HOT Lanes

In article et>, necromancer wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>> Well just the feel I get is that the primary reasons are that they will lose
>> their land to a for-profit road and the road's purpose is unload ships in
>> mexico and then have mexican truckers drive the goods up to a customs
>> facility in Kansas city that is built with taxpayer funds that will be
>> the property of mexico.
>
> Just my dumb stupid curiosity, but *why* is this customs facility going
> to be in KC as opposed to on the border where it belongs?

I've never heard a good reason for it. The offical reason is to
"facilitate the movement of containers from the Far East through the
Mexican port at Lazaro Cardenas rather than the West Coast ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50730

> Sounds like
> almost 1000 miles (give or take) for a dirty bomb or other harmful
> materials/contraband to take a detour off this road.

They are going to use some sort of RFID tracibility supposedly to prevent
that.

In article >, Brent P wrote:
>>> mexico and then have mexican truckers drive the goods up to a customs
>>> facility in Kansas city that is built with taxpayer funds that will be
>>> the property of mexico.

>> Just my dumb stupid curiosity, but *why* is this customs facility going
>> to be in KC as opposed to on the border where it belongs?
>
> I've never heard a good reason for it. The offical reason is to
> "facilitate the movement of containers from the Far East through the
> Mexican port at Lazaro Cardenas rather than the West Coast ports of Los
> Angeles and Long Beach."
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50730

Just to add to that:

The more recent article that states that it will be mexican turf:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50918

And the smartport's website:
http://www.kcsmartport.com/

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, js wrote:
>
> >> Yes, and people have been fighting it.
> >
> > Good for them. Why are they against it? Is it because they don't see
> > the value in the road or is it because they don't want foreign
> > investment in Texas infrastructure?
>
> Well just the feel I get is that the primary reasons are that they will lose
> their land to a for-profit road

OK - so its this eminent domain thing. I have learned from your posts
that your concept of the law has its limitations so in an effort to be
as clear as possible - the road is a PUBLIC PROJECT for the public
good. Irrespective of the recent Supreme Court ruling, this is a legal
taking. It makes no difference that it is a BTO. It is NOT the same
as a strip mall or a highrise.

> and the road's purpose is unload ships in
> mexico

The roads purpose is to connect the southern and northern borders of
the US to facilitate the movement of goods and people. Its called
commerce.

> and then have mexican truckers drive the goods up to a customs
> facility in Kansas city

Makes a lot of sense - an inland port in Kansas is a solution to the
ever crowded ports on the US West Coast. The fact that the drivers
aren't US union members create a problem for you? Why?

> that is built with taxpayer funds that will be
> the property of mexico.

You've got this a little confused. Here's what the real story is. The
Smartports MAJOR purpose is as a US customs facility for INBOUND goods
from various parts of the world.

Included in this Smartport is an OUTBOUND facility intended for MEXICO
to prescreen US exports on there way to MEXICO. "Goods for export to
Mexico would be pre-screened for export here in Kansas City, and would
speed through the Mexico border entry points with
little or no further inspection." according to the experts (Robert
Bonner). This is a GOOD thing for US exporters, Brent. It promotes US
exports to Mexico. This past year, the US exported

The cost of the facility specific to the Mexican Customs pre-clearance
is being paid by a LOAN and it is nominal. The Kansas City city council
earlier this year earmarked $2.5 million in loans and $600,000 in
direct aid to SmartPort, which would build and own the inland customs
facility and sublet it to the Mexican government through agreements
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Mexican government would
get to use the facility rent free. The loans will be repaid from user
fees.

Is it the "property" of Mexico? No more than their consulate in
Washington DC or their regional Consulate on the corner of 16th and
Baltimore in KC. Not any more than the US Customs office at Toronto's
airport, or the US Consulate in Mexico City. This is international
commerce Brtent - no different than what has been going on for
centuries.

I am starting to get the impression that either you are baiting me by
posting these pejorative half truths (and if that's the case, you win)
or that you honestly believe the rhetoric that you read in blogdpots
and don't really care to (or are capable of) going further to determine
the real truth.

The reason why I say this is that I was able to, in a very short period
of time, to dissect your statement and pick out all the errors.

> >> But as anyone who has paid
> >> attention in recent years has seen, what the vast majority of people want
> >> doesn't really matter any more.

>
> > Did Texans lose the right to vote?
>
> Since you don't do politics, explaining the whole false choice thing and
> lying that is done in politics probably is a waste of time.

You had mentioned that it took a court order to get the specifics of
the Cinca-Zachary contract. You infered that there was something
underhanded in that contract that the parties prefered not to reveal.
Now that this contract is available to you, can you please cite what
part of the deal you believe they were trying to hide and why?

> > If the road is to be built regardless, the onl;y question that I am
> > interested in is how to fund it and how to manage it. I like the
> > approach proposed. UIt makes sense, it is efficient, and it has worked
> > elswhere across a variety of public sector service programs.
>
> Name them.

I did in another post -

There are BTO and DBO models across a wide variety of infrastructure
developments including wastewater and solid waste treatment facilities
in Seattle, Phoenix, and Atlanta. These BTOs are not unique to the US
either. The Sidney Australia's water system is a PPP.

Here's a book that describes all sorts of BOTs and derivations thereof
from around the world.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...47111992X.html

> > Well, not exactly. You used Wiki tio substantiate that the TCC-35
> > Cinca-Zachary road project is partially funded by taxes. It is not.
>
> I stated nothing of the sort. You create these things out of your mind.

This is the type of BS that doesn't serve you well or promote a dialog.

Reflect back on the statement you made:

"It works the later way... the taxpayers built it, either through taxes
or
tolls and then it's 'leased' to a private, foreign corporation.

(See chicago skyway, Indiana toll roads, and the new texas toll roads
to
be given to a foreign corporation, via the SPP) "

Yes - you did.

>I
> am refering to the entire TTC scope and I didn't say the other money came
> from taxes.

The Cinco-Zachary tollroad is NOT being paid for with taxpayer dollrs.
Period.

Recap - you don't like the road - period. You think eminent domain is
the reason others don't.

The rest of the arguments you pose are based on a fallacy and that
makes them invalid.

Play some more?

Try data, not blogspots.

js

Brent P wrote:
> In article et>, necromancer wrote:
> > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
> > rec.autos.driving:
> >> Well just the feel I get is that the primary reasons are that they will lose
> >> their land to a for-profit road and the road's purpose is unload ships in
> >> mexico and then have mexican truckers drive the goods up to a customs
> >> facility in Kansas city that is built with taxpayer funds that will be
> >> the property of mexico.
> >
> > Just my dumb stupid curiosity, but *why* is this customs facility going
> > to be in KC as opposed to on the border where it belongs?
>
> I've never heard a good reason for it. The offical reason is to
> "facilitate the movement of containers from the Far East through the
> Mexican port at Lazaro Cardenas rather than the West Coast ports of Los
> Angeles and Long Beach."
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50730
>
> > Sounds like
> > almost 1000 miles (give or take) for a dirty bomb or other harmful
> > materials/contraband to take a detour off this road.
>
> They are going to use some sort of RFID tracibility supposedly to prevent
> that.

Perhaps if you would have explored the information provided a bit
closer you would have found that what they intend to do far exceeds
what is currently done at the Port of Long Beach.

Perhaps you advocate real time personal inspection of every one of the
357 million containers that enter the US every year? Are you
volunteering to do this or perhaps you would like to pay for it?
Ideally I suppose we can just close the ports and build a big wall
around the US. That would keep the riff raff out.

js

In article . com>, js wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>, js wrote:
>>
>> >> Yes, and people have been fighting it.
>> >
>> > Good for them. Why are they against it? Is it because they don't see
>> > the value in the road or is it because they don't want foreign
>> > investment in Texas infrastructure?
>>
>> Well just the feel I get is that the primary reasons are that they will lose
>> their land to a for-profit road
>
> OK - so its this eminent domain thing. I have learned from your posts
> that your concept of the law has its limitations so in an effort to be
> as clear as possible - the road is a PUBLIC PROJECT for the public
> good. Irrespective of the recent Supreme Court ruling, this is a legal
> taking. It makes no difference that it is a BTO. It is NOT the same
> as a strip mall or a highrise.

Again, the road itself is not the only thing in the project. THey are
also taking land to either side of the road for hotels, gas stations,
and other businesses.

>> and the road's purpose is unload ships in
>> mexico

> The roads purpose is to connect the southern and northern borders of
> the US to facilitate the movement of goods and people. Its called
> commerce.

Well my globalist friend, when you have to compete wage wise with someone
in china or mexico and have to live here on their salary your thinking
may very well change and quick.

>> and then have mexican truckers drive the goods up to a customs
>> facility in Kansas city

> Makes a lot of sense - an inland port in Kansas is a solution to the
> ever crowded ports on the US West Coast. The fact that the drivers
> aren't US union members create a problem for you? Why?

You're doing politics. The 'commerce' is the typical one-way commerence
designed to crush the middle class of the USA and reduce us to the serf
classes of China, Mexico, etc by direct wage competi

>> that is built with taxpayer funds that will be
>> the property of mexico.

> You've got this a little confused. Here's what the real story is. The
> Smartports MAJOR purpose is as a US customs facility for INBOUND goods
> from various parts of the world.

I already pointed you to the real story. To get mexico to participate the
land and facility they will use is to be their property and built by the
USA.

> Is it the "property" of Mexico? No more than their consulate in
> Washington DC or their regional Consulate on the corner of 16th and
> Baltimore in KC. Not any more than the US Customs office at Toronto's
> airport, or the US Consulate in Mexico City. This is international
> commerce Brtent - no different than what has been going on for
> centuries.

No, it's not. It's a set up dictated by appointed commitees that the
people of the three nations have no control over, no recourse to. It's a
faceless burcracy designed to run things for the elite.

> I am starting to get the impression that either you are baiting me by
> posting these pejorative half truths (and if that's the case, you win)
> or that you honestly believe the rhetoric that you read in blogdpots
> and don't really care to (or are capable of) going further to determine
> the real truth.

I've been extremely paitent with you, thinking you merely naive. Now
you're showing that in fact you are in fact a globalist who thinks that
this economic regionalizing of the world, the end of national soverignity
is somehow a good thing. It's not a good thing for the people of the USA.
The rest of the world isn't being brought up to our standards of
individual liberty, we are being brought down to their level of
corruption and tyranny. Elites ruling over a serf class.

> The reason why I say this is that I was able to, in a very short period
> of time, to dissect your statement and pick out all the errors.

You haven't shown any thing. You half look at something through your rose
colored glasses and accept whatever government tells you.

>> >> But as anyone who has paid
>> >> attention in recent years has seen, what the vast majority of people want
>> >> doesn't really matter any more.

>> > Did Texans lose the right to vote?

>> Since you don't do politics, explaining the whole false choice thing and
>> lying that is done in politics probably is a waste of time.

> You had mentioned that it took a court order to get the specifics of
> the Cinca-Zachary contract. You infered that there was something
> underhanded in that contract that the parties prefered not to reveal.
> Now that this contract is available to you, can you please cite what
> part of the deal you believe they were trying to hide and why?

I haven't read it. When and if I do I am sure to find other objections.
However my objection is that it wasn't out in the open from the get go.
My statement was they acted to hide it. You have this annoying habbit of
extending what I write. I wrote they acted to hide it from the people.
They did, they obviously felt they had reason to. I haven't had the
chance to read it in detail to try and figure out why. I don't need to
know why to pass on the fact that they tried to hold it secret. The fact
it wasn't out in the open from the get go is the problem as I see it.

> The Cinco-Zachary tollroad is NOT being paid for with taxpayer dollrs.
> Period.

You are really straining to try and create arguments for me.

> Recap - you don't like the road - period. You think eminent domain is
> the reason others don't.

I know it is -one- reason.

> The rest of the arguments you pose are based on a fallacy and that
> makes them invalid.

Wooo.... sweeping invalidation based on your creative piecing and sound
biting. I am not in the mood for usenet games when it comes to what is
happening to this nation. The economic, military, and government
mechanisms to reduce us to a serf class serving a wealthy minorty that
controls everything are being put into place. But you won't see it even
after they put a chip in you.

> Play some more?

Play like you? Creating strawmen and knocking them down? No.

> Try data, not blogspots.

You have nothing but rose colored classes. And I see you are playing
shoot the messenger.

In article . com>, js wrote:

>> > Sounds like
>> > almost 1000 miles (give or take) for a dirty bomb or other harmful
>> > materials/contraband to take a detour off this road.

>> They are going to use some sort of RFID tracibility supposedly to prevent
>> that.

> Perhaps if you would have explored the information provided a bit
> closer you would have found that what they intend to do far exceeds
> what is currently done at the Port of Long Beach.

I didn't make a statement wether it was 'better' or 'worse' than the
present inspection system. I made a statement regarding how it would
work to answer the question posed. That's it. You're good at building
these arguments you place on me and knocking them down.

> Perhaps you advocate real time personal inspection of every one of the
> 357 million containers that enter the US every year? Are you
> volunteering to do this or perhaps you would like to pay for it?
> Ideally I suppose we can just close the ports and build a big wall
> around the US. That would keep the riff raff out.

Perhaps you advocate using technology from the greys, the aliens the CIA
has built underground bases for to track all goods crossing borders?

I grow tired of your strawman games.

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, js wrote:


>... have to compete wage wise with someone in china or mexico

>... designed to crush the middle class of the USA and reduce us to the serf
> classes of China, Mexico, etc by direct wage competi

> dictated by appointed commitees

> It's not a good thing for the people of the USA...we are being brought down...corruption and tyranny. Elites ruling over a serf class.

> I haven't read it. When and if I do I am sure to find other objections.

> The economic, military, and government
> mechanisms to reduce us to a serf class serving a wealthy minorty

I think I found a communist, yep, I did, I did.

plonk

js

In article . com>, js wrote:
>
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>, js wrote:
>
>
>>... have to compete wage wise with someone in china or mexico
>
>>... designed to crush the middle class of the USA and reduce us to the serf
>> classes of China, Mexico, etc by direct wage competi
>
>> dictated by appointed commitees
>
>> It's not a good thing for the people of the USA...we are being brought down...corruption and tyranny. Elites ruling over a serf class.
>
>> I haven't read it. When and if I do I am sure to find other objections.
>
>> The economic, military, and government
>> mechanisms to reduce us to a serf class serving a wealthy minorty

> I think I found a communist, yep, I did, I did.

You don't even know what a communist is. Communism is having a serf class
serving a wealthy minority, that's how communist nations work. See:
China, USSR, etc. Communism just uses different excuses to get the people
to back it only to be surprised when it's put in.

Those mechanisms are being set up in the USA using a variety of reasons
to get trusting people to back them. Everything from the terrorists are
going to get us to that it is good for business. When you wake up and
see what has happened, don't blame me. I warned you.

The question I ask, is if something is good for individual liberty.

> plonk

Your choice.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in
rec.autos.driving:
> Those mechanisms are being set up in the USA using a variety of reasons
> to get trusting people to back them. Everything from the terrorists are
> going to get us to that it is good for business.

To you are a racist, bigot, xenophobe etc.... I think that's what "js,"
is trying to say with out actually saying it. Like comments like this:
""These" people? You mean investors with different surnames and
addresses than you?" and the name calling: "nefosucker," and
"Necromaniac," when someone refuses to be swayed to his side
(ref: . com>
.com> and
. com> ) just like
certain other elements in our soceity (esp. in the universities), which
has earned him a big plonk to my killfile.

> When you wake up and see what has happened, don't blame me.
> I warned you.

We tried, Brent. Either he is one of them, or he is a fool. You know,
looking back over the posts, its rather scary to see that we have
someone here that makes Aunt Judy look rational and even more
frightening that I actually agree with Aunt Judy in its one reply in
this thread.

--
"The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson

In article et>, necromancer wrote:

> To you are a racist, bigot, xenophobe etc.... I think that's what "js,"
> is trying to say with out actually saying it.

Most certainly. But it's what people are taught. It's part of how real
issues are avoided, they are cast into some simplistic notion to get
people not to question. If we question the wisdom of having our labor
market flooded with illegal aliens we're called 'racists' to avoid
that tough and meaningful question.

If we question the wisdom of big business, we are called communists. If
we question the means of environmentalists we are called 'corporate
whores'.

If the people in the USA are going to remain free more people need to get
beyond that surface nonsense and actually note where a policy takes us
with regards to our liberty.

A prime example was on the c(r)ook county ballot this past election:

"For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall
the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale,
delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber
rifles?"

They want to frame anyone who defends their right to be armed as the
founders indended us to be as being against the health and safety of
children. And the majority buys into this nonsense.

(And before anyone peeps up, it is clear if you read the documents of the
time that the people were to be armed in manner like the military. I
forget the exact wording, but it even accounted for technological
advance. Also remember, the militia is the people. Not some government
controlled thing like the guard. BTW, if you caught wind of the
john warner defense act note that the president is now allowed to take
the state guard units and command them as he sees fit without
notification to the state's governors.)

> We tried, Brent. Either he is one of them, or he is a fool. You know,
> looking back over the posts, its rather scary to see that we have
> someone here that makes Aunt Judy look rational and even more
> frightening that I actually agree with Aunt Judy in its one reply in
> this thread.

I missed the post (on purpose) but occasionally it does have a random
lucid momement.

It's scary how government is acting now. I've always stated that
replacing Rs with Ds and Ds with Rs is not effective. But this last
time... holy crap. Day after the election they are lining up with the agenda
as is without any plan to undo the damage that's been done in recent
years. Not even any lip service to stopping any of it, but rather
advancing more of it.