Posted on 03/18/2008 1:17:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Topeka — Agreements with Mexico and Canada are setting the stage for construction of a huge highway that will gobble up Kansans’ property and jeopardize U.S. security, representatives from a wide range of groups said Monday.
“Through incrementalism, apathy and inattention, our national sovereignty is being sacrificed on a cross of greed, socialism and globalism,” said state Rep. Judy Morrison, R-Shawnee.
Morrison has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 5033 urging Congress to withdraw from further participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement and Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
At a hearing before the House Federal and State Affairs Committee, truckers, labor officials and lawmakers and advocates from Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas urged approval of the resolution.
Committee Chairman Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe, said he didn’t know if the committee could comprehend all the information submitted on the subject and work on the measure within the last three weeks of the legislative session.
“I think I’ve got a little reading to do. I have not made a decision yet, but it’s getting very short,” Siegfreid said.
Owen de Long, a political consultant from Merriam, said plans are in the works to build a NAFTA superhighway that will be one-quarter of a mile wide to transport Asian goods throughout the United States that are off-loaded at Mexican ports.
De Long said it will be impossible to police the huge amount of cargo containers. “That’s how terrorists will arrive in Kansas City,” he said.
Some officials have repeatedly denied the existence of plans to build the highway.
But David and Linda Stall, founders of CorridorWatch in Texas, testified that because of NAFTA, Texas is in the middle of considering a Trans-Texas Corridor that has been criticized by landowners.
Okay, I’ll ask you since no one else has the guts to answer.
Have we built the last road we need to build in this country?
If not, can we do it on unclaimed land?
Well, that’s the same answer I always get, so you’re in good company.
Wow, that font came out a little bigger than I expected...
‘We’ aren’t building the road.
What are you wearing right now?
Thanks for the ping!
If I owned a cow pasture, and the road was coming through it, I'd probably be excited about being able to sell my cow pasture to gas stations, supermarkets, or developers in general.
The TTC will be a limited access toll road. Cintra-Zachry would give you the market price for the undeveloped cow pasture. and that would be that. No gas stations, no supermarkets, no big developers (other than those approved by Cintra-Zachry to build on their new undeveloped cow pasture).
Are you opposed to any more new roads in this country?
Why can't we take care of, and improve the ones we have? Why do we nee this monstrosity when fuel prices are reaching for the skies? Why are 25% of our gas taxes going towards education instead of roads? Why does everyne think that this willlower the price of inmported goods by bypassing the west coast ports? Doesn't anyone think of the cost of the tolls being passed onto consumers? Where are all those who belly-ache about the cheap Chinese imports?
“Can you tell me why new exits and entrances can’t be built in the future?”
The future is now. Ask the folks at Cintra, they’re the foreign company who will be managing the thing.
Sky-high gas prices and you have to drive an extra 20 or 30 miles to get home. Sound reasonable?
If it involves destroying American's livelihoods and recking the economies of smaller communities then, the answer is NO!
I don't feel Texas should be a stepping stone so, Mexico and China can make more money.
“I’d probably be excited about being able to sell my cow pasture to gas stations, supermarkets, or developers in general.”
Without exits, there won’t be any developemnet for your pasture.
That’s what I’m trying to explain to you.
There you go with the "all or none" idiocy -- again...
~~~~~~~~~~
I have never advocated against building roads as they are needed, where they are needed, for the purposes they are needed -- and considering all impacts (including economic and social) in all the specific regions they serve and/or pass through.
What I categorically reject is the notion that the massive, one size-fits-none "include everything but barge canals and bridle paths" multi-mode corridor is the correct answer for most of Texas (if for anywhere in Texas). In fact, I insist that the TTC "corridor" as proposed is not a design but, is, rather, a political scheme.
(Designs require tradeoffs to accomodate local conditions; the TTC as proposed includes no such analysis.)
In fact, I have proposed formally, to TXDOT, (via a highly-graphic Powerpoint-like engineering cost-benefit analysis presentation) that I69/TTC be built as a cargo-only corridor, departing Texas into LA at Shelby County. And I further proposed that passenger traffic be retained on improved, at-grade, open-corridor Interstate upgrades of existing roads.
I don’t think you’re thinking this through.
Who cares if the cost of the tolls is passed onto the consumer? Is that more onerous than having the taxpayer build the road?
The goods will have to compete with similar goods NOT coming across toll roads, so they can’t pass the total cost along. Besides the tolls aren’t going to be significant.
This foreign-phobia about who manages the road is interesting to me. Do you think Europe has a similar phobia about which company delivers packages and if it’s UPS, DHL, or FedEx?
The sentiment here is that we’re selling America to a foreign country. That’s categorically false, and it’s really no different than having a new Toyota dealership open in your hometown.
Will there be some logistical side effects of the new road? Of course.
The wonderful thing about the free market is that this always gets worked out. People sell stuff that becomes inconvenient to them, and they buy stuff that is convenient.
If the TTC inconveniences some people, they’ll work it out.
The Corridor would actually concentrate the things which generally require eminent domain into a small strip of land.
You'd have to explain to me what that's not good.
Assuming we need more roads in the future, and your answer implies that you accept that premise, then why not do it intelligently?
Not only would they not agree with you, they'd likely run you out of town.
Texans don't want this thing.
Some Texans don’t want this thing.
I’m a Texan.
I drive our highways.
I see how crowded they are, and understand the certainty that they will get even more so as Texas’s population grows.
It’s just bizarre to me that a cult-like movement has arisen to oppose fixing this problem.
If you don’t drive on it, it won’t cost you a dime. Where’s the beef?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.