tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post113927297160090294..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1139360926056740612006-02-07T20:08:00.000-05:002006-02-07T20:08:00.000-05:00Even without the enactment of the pending legislation, Gov. Daniels has the authority to privatize the toll road under the Public-Private Agreements Act. He deliberately chose to make the legislature a part of the process--it would not stop the legislature from at any point in the future blocking a privatization effort. The Illinois legislature, for example, several years ago passed a law that prevented the Governor from privatizing prisons after it learned that he was considering such an idea. Nothing would stop the legislature from blocking further privatization in the future.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1139360460433287202006-02-07T20:01:00.000-05:002006-02-07T20:01:00.000-05:00The Toll Road lease may be a good idea -- the net present value of $3.85 billion is significantly more than the same revenues spread out over time.<BR/><BR/>Yet the Major Moves bill is bigger than the lease. Major Moves shifts all of the authority for public/private partnerships into the hands of the State Executive -- meaning absolutely no meaningfullegislative oversight. The bill provides the Governor with a blank check to privatize any INDOT road or bridge project, including I69. <BR/><BR/>eliminating constitutional checks and balances over decisions effecting public infrastructure is simply unacceptable. If any Governor or legislature wants to argue the merits of any public/private partnership it should be with full public disclosure with full checks and balances in place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1139347592038254402006-02-07T16:26:00.000-05:002006-02-07T16:26:00.000-05:00Marti,<BR/><BR/>The 130,000 construction jobs refers to the work created by the various highway construction projects the state will undertake with, in part, the $3.4 billion the private contractor pays for the lease over the next 10 years. Without the lease, those same projects will be stetched over many years in the future, if they ever happen at all--meaning the jobs will come and go as the state works on them over the next 20-30 years. By doing all the projects at once over a 10-year building plan, those jobs will materialize in a compressed period of time--meaning workers won't be transitioning from one project to another over a period of many years--so theoretically, far more jobs are created in the short term. I hope that makes sense. You can't really compare the actual number of jobs created under the two different approaches unless you know for certain when the projects will occur without the lease.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1139295216354507542006-02-07T01:53:00.000-05:002006-02-07T01:53:00.000-05:00I'm not sure if I'm for this or not. My biggest question is... WHAT IS THE CATCH. Momma said "you don't get somethin' for nothin'." What does Statewide Mobility Partners stand to gain from this deal? <BR/><BR/>And as far as creating jobs, that makes NO sense. If "Major Moves" construction would support 130,000 jobs, how many would the same road construction support under the government control?<BR/><BR/>No one seems to have the answer to these questions.Legacy Userhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14652605826792067384noreply@blogger.com