Mexico mega-port plan key to 'NAFTA superhighways'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 7, 2006

[Man50D]

WASHINGTON – There are mixed signals coming from Mexico about the fate of a proposed mega-port in Baja California for mainly Chinese goods that would be shipped on rail lines and "NAFTA superhighways" running through the U.S. to Canada.

The port at Punta Colonet, planned as a major container facility to transfer Asian goods into America's heartland, got at least a temporary setback when a Mexican businessman announced a competing project in which he was seeking to secure mineral rights in the area.

Gabriel Chavez, originally one of the principal movers behind the port plan, now says there are significant amounts of titanium and iron to be mined offshore – a project he considers more important than the port.

Mexican ports czar Cesar Patricio Reyes placed a moratorium on further work toward port planning for three or four months while the government explores ways to make everyone happy.

It is no secret the Mexican government is still committed to the port plan. A map from the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies shows the proposed goods route into a North American community.

According to transportation officials in Arizona, one of the sites considered for a rail line from Punta Colonet, the Mexican government has released an official directive stating its intention to create a new marine facility there -- about 150 miles south of the U.S. border.

The port at Punta Colonet, when completed, is expected to rival the biggest West Coast ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, both heavily congested now.

Bringing goods into a Mexican port would mean lower costs for foreign shippers because of cheaper labor and less restrictive environmental regulations.

Hutchison Ports Mexico, a subsidiary of the Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., is keeping reports about progress on the venture close to the vest.

Only recently has the port become a source of controversy in the U.S. as Americans begin questioning highway and rail projects criss-crossing the country – many of which are designed to carry product from Mexico to the U.S. and Canada on the so-called "NAFTA superhighways."

Resentment is building inside the U.S. because of what appear to be secretive plans made outside normal government policymaking channels about immigration, border policies, transportation and integration of the three North American nations.

Transportation Secretary Maria Cino has promised to release plans within months for a one-year, NAFTA pilot program permitting Mexican truckers beyond the limited commercial zone to which they are currently restricted.

The program will likely involve about 100 Mexican trucking companies, the Department of Transportation says.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA – the borders were to open partially to truckers from both countries in 1995. Full access was promised by 2000. Because of the restrictions on Mexican trucks, the Mexican government has imposed limits on U.S. truckers.

The U.S. restrictions were placed by the Clinton administration in response to demands from the Teamsters union, which said Mexican trucks posed safety and environmental risks. Currently, the U.S. permits Mexican truckers only in commercial zones close to the border that extend no further than 20 miles from Mexico.

While the American Trucking Association supports opening the border, other unions have joined in opposition with the Teamsters. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association came out this month in opposition to any Mexican truck pilot program.

Todd Spencer, the association's executive vice president, said the program would jeopardize safety on U.S. roads and would lead to an influx of cheap Mexican labor.

"A move by the U.S. Department of Transportation to open U.S. roadways to Mexican trucks puts the interest of foreign trade and cheap labor ahead of everything else, including highway safety, homeland security and the well being of hardworking Americans," Spencer said.

In a letter to the Interstate Trade Commission, Spencer wrote: "The net effect of admission of Mexican trucks into the U.S. marketplace would undoubtedly be negative. The supposed benefits to consumers from speculative reductions in shipping rates would be offset by the societal costs that are difficult to measure, but are easy to identify."

Raising more suspicions that such plans are leading to a future integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place this month in Banff – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Despite "confirmed" participants including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, North American Union guru Robert Pastor, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada, there has been no press coverage of the event. The only media member scheduled to appear at the event, according to documents obtained by WND, was the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady.

The event was organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta think-tank that promotes closer economic integration with the United States.

The Canadian event is just the latest of a series of meetings, policy papers and directives that have citizens, officials and members of the media wondering whether these efforts represent some sort of coordinated effort to implement a "merger" some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."

Last week, government documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request revealed the Bush administration is running what some observers see as a "shadow government" with Mexico and Canada in which the U.S. is crafting a broad range of policy in conjunction with its neighbors to the north and south.

[texastoo]

Oh, please. I prefer to make certain the goalposts have moved first. LOL

The game you are playing is??????????

[1rudeboy]

The game I'm playing? Last time I checked, I was discussing PPP's. Now, all of a sudden, I'm fielding questions about Bill Clinton and the UN. If that isn't changing the subject, nothing is.

[dennisw]

I'd like to see some evidence that Texas is playing "catch up." My guess (again, specifically with regard to pipeline infrastructire) is that Texas is rather a "pioneer" in the area.

My comments were in relation to texastoo saying the Texas Turnpike Authority has been in existence for 3 years.  NE states have had these authorities for years.

[texastoo]

Your link for the Reagan administration and PPPs would be appreciated.

In other words, finding a clip of Bill Clinton talking about them, or the UN writing about them (recently) doesn't amount to much. Actually, it doesn't amount to anything at all.

I guess we can just sweep this part of history under the rug or maybe rewrite it.(sarcasm)

[1rudeboy]

I'm sorry, I thought the Reagan Administration's efforts to reduce the scope of government interference in our daily lives could be stipulated on this website. And your sarcasm is way off-base. I'm not "re-writing" anything. In fact, I'm arguing that PPP's have existed longer than you realize.

[texastoo]

Will be back later.

[dennisw]

Major Seaport Proposed for Baja California Norte

Chinese and Korean interests want a port facility in Baja California A Los Angeles firm, fronting for Chinese and Korean concerns, is lobbying the Mexican government to be granted permission to build a $1 billion dollar port in the agricultural area of Punta Colonet, 150 miles south of Tijuana. The port project would be one of the largest Mexican public works projects ever, according to the LA Times. Roads, rail lines, port facilities and even a small city will have to be constructed to accommodate the project. The consortium believes it is necessary to accommodate the growing demand for Asian goods; imports from China grew at the astounding rate of 15% last year.

It would improve Baja’s current port facilities which are limited, although it is anticipated most of the cargo would be destine for the US. If the plan is thorough, it would include vast improvements to Hwy 1 north to the Mexico-US border. The down-side is the obvious environmental impact. The LA Times described the intended area as ‘deserted farmland’ This is far from fact. Punta Colonet south San Quintin is one of the most productive agricultural areas in Baja. It’s proximity to Hwy 1 and the US have spurred the growth of large commercial farming in the area. Having anchored in Punta Colonet, it is a beautiful, unspoiled area where orchards and farms run right to the oceans edge. There has been tremendous growth in the region over the last 5 years. Chinese and Korean firms have not been known for their environmental planning or concerns. One US environmentalist is quoted as saying, “This is just another case of exporting California’s dirty environmental problems to the pristine coastline of Baja California. This is one of the last places we can preserve the beauty that once was the entire west coast”

http://www.bajainsider.com/environment/port-punta-colonet.htm

 

[1rudeboy]

After about fifteen minutes on the ‘net (and taking time to make some tea and watch the snow fall), I found the following. Looks like the concept of privatizing public functions as a policy goes back to 1955, but I’ll let someone else to the legwork.

The Federal Government shall rely on commercially available sources to provide commercial products and services. In accordance with the provisions of this Circular and its Supplement, the Government shall not start or carry on any activity to provide a commercial product or service if the product or service can be procured more economically from a commercial source.
OMB Circular No. A-76, August 4, 1983 (revised 1999).

Note the date(s) of the Circular.

[1rudeboy]

to the legwork = do the legwork

[Ben Ficklin]

These example that you use as public-private partnership(PPP)are not. They are public. The DFW turnpike was the first in Texas and it was freed in 70s. I don't know when it was built, it was there when I came up.

As others have mentioned, there are numerous newer examples of public toll roads, all local or regional, under the authority of the local/regional mobility authoriy.

It would appear to me that the TTC was the first PPP, though since it was rolled out, a couple of existing roads in other states have been leased to Cintra. There is much more of this in Europe.

Another thing unique about the TTC is the multi-modal concept. The logic behind this is that far less land will be required to put all the modes in one corridor. Some of this goes back to the attempt to build highspeed rail in Texas. The state issued a franchise to a private company but without the power to condemn land, it fell thru.

Also, these toll roads are a way of moving away from the gas tax as a method of financing all the roads. A portion of the profits is used to build other roads and free roads. I don't know the details on this with the local toll roads but on the TTC, the state gets 5% on day one and as ridership rises, the state's cut rises to a max of 50%. Though I don't know the deatals, apparently some of the TTC state money goes to the local authority.

Report to Congress on Public Private Parnerships

[Ben Ficklin]

You are wrong if you think the number of views on a thread are relevant. Consider how many individuals are pinged to a particular reply and how many different replies that they are pinged to.

How many times have you viewed the thread? Or me?

Then, you need to consider that it is the same individuals who are participating on every thread and they are using the same pinging techniques on each and every thread.

[dennisw]

These example that you use as public-private partnership(PPP)are not. They are public. The DFW turnpike was the first in Texas and it was freed in 70s. I don't know when it was built, it was there when I came up.

As others have mentioned, there are numerous newer examples of public toll roads, all local or regional, under the authority of the local/regional mobility authoriy.

You are 100% correct. I got ahead of myself. Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is 100% governmental. But the Massachusetts governor doesn't control them and they often do whatever the heck they want: after all, they have their own revenue stream to play around with. It's a private fiefdom for those who run it who hire their friends and political allies to work there. You have to be "connected" to get a toll takers job there. The compensation is v good

[texastoo]

Snow! I just turned on my airconditioner again. Actually, I have no problem with what I have read so far regarding this circular. Yes, I noticed the dates but don't know when the Reagan policies were revised with Clinton's post NAFTA failure. However, under the heading Background#4 caught my eye.

In the process of governing, the Government should not compete with its citizens. The competitive enterprise system, characterized by individual freedom and initiative, is the primary source of national economic strength. In recognition of this principle, it has been(Reagan years) and continues to be the general policy of the Government to rely on commercial sources to supply the products and services the Government needs.

The definition of commercial source if found under definitions #d.

A commercial source is a business or other non-Federal activity located in the United States, its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, which provides a commercial product or service.

I have no problem with this so far as I haven't read it all. Cintra is not a business from the U.S. so therefore they are not entitled to taxpayer money. This circular spells this out.Banks such as Chase Manhattan, Bank of America and many more are commercial sources that should be used to finance the roads. Not the taxpayers if these are "for profit" roads.

[1rudeboy]

First measurable snowfall in Chicago today (breaking a record held since 1871).

You are correct to point out that the rules for government procurement are different today than in the 1980's (at least I'm almost sure they are). In any case, Cintra's contract is with the Texas DOT, not the Federal government. Setting all that aside, I was simply providing some history with regard to public/private partnerships, by way of illustrating that they're not a recently-developed concept.

[texastoo]

So "how" is the feds giving Cintra the loans?

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ppp/tifiasep15.htm

Read this letter to The Federal Highway Administration applying for a federal loan from TXDOT. The read on down to the Experiment.

"Federal policies generally encourage price competition, which this concession procurement contemplates. However, we recognize that it would be burdensome for the TIFIA office to be required to work with multiple proposers during the bid preparation period, when ultimately TxDOT will award only one of them the contract"

So the state of Texas will borrow the money from the Feds and then give it to Cintra. This reminds me of "money laundering" Not kosher.

[1rudeboy]

You might not think it's kosher, but the Federal government is loaning the money to Texas, and Texas must pay it back. There are plenty of conditions, but requiring Texas to choose one contractor over another is not the sort of federal intervention I'm willing to consider as beneficial.

[Ben Ficklin]

I don't know the details of that Mass TA but probably the appointments are political for periods that outlast the appointer. Your right about the 90 grand/yr toll booth attendent.

With a private design-build-operate-maintain, none of that happens.

[texastoo]

We wouldn't want to put a burden on the federal employees. So if 10 contractors apply for a loan to build a road in Illinois, the feds have to read all the applications. The feds. probably know it is a "done-deal" in Texas so why burden the employees with work.

[1rudeboy]

I'm sorry, but I believe that the State of Texas is in a better position to decide who should build a road in Texas than the Federal Government. One of the only reasons the Federal Government is involved in the first place is because the project involves an Interstate.

[texastoo]

It involves an interstate and a furrin company. It is illegal, isn't it?

This all had to be post NAFTA. American taxpayers financing a foreign company to make a profit off them.

Since American citizens can't sue the government, I wonder if they will be able to sue Cintra? I haven't heard anyone discuss this.