Replies

That's a nice bit of interpretation you got going there. I am guilty of projection and perhaps Clinton-speak. But you must surely realize that your accusations that the governor is giving away monopolistic protection are projective and phrased in a guilty-until-proven-innocent manner. We don't know how much the governor has beaten his wife, but we certainly know that we can't trust him to protect her. He is just a politician after all.

"That's a nice bit of interpretation you got going there. I am guilty of projection and perhaps Clinton-speak."

NO - you are not guilty of intentional Clintonian speak (projection - yes - and it's understandable here), I was only noting that it could come across as Clinton-speak. Actually, I was looking for a post to respond to on that topic (Clinton-speak), and then I saw that language, and couldn't ignore it.

"But you must surely realize that your accusations that the governor is giving away monopolistic protection are projective and phrased in a guilty-until-proven-innocent manner."

They're not just accusations without justification. There is a quote, by Williamson (I think), and I'm trying to find the thread, where he says something to the effect of: "yea, it's certainly possible that Cintra will get protections".

Now if you couple that with the protections given to the SH 91 toll lanes in California (different company), along with the same type of protections that Cintra was given in Canada, wouldn't you agree that being suspicious of what the governor is committing this state to over the next 50+ years is reasonable. Especially when there's been posted nothing to the contrary.

(p.s., I don't think Williamson is the sharpest knife in the drawer, when it comes to being a point-man for Perry)

I'm still trying to find the specific quote, but here is a piece of a very good article that also describes the experiences in Canada and California, when private companies get free reign. I do base my suspicions on real events:

"Some even negotiate noncompete clauses into contracts so that governments cannot expand other freeways that might take business away from toll roads.

Just how much power Cintra will have is being negotiated behind closed doors in Austin. State officials say that within weeks they expect to sign a contract, known as a comprehensive development agreement, identifying Madrid, Spain-based Cintra as the lead agency, along with San Antonio's Zachry Construction Corp. and other minority partners. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1329336/posts

Found it:

Here's a quote...

"Talking about Cintra and TxDOT’s future expansion of I-35 Chairman Williamson said at the press conference, - - - we fully expect that there will be limitations on our ability, at some point in the future, to compete with the road he is going to spend his money on and pay us for. We believe that profit is a decent and honorable pursuit and that for him to pay his franchise taxes in Texas, he's going to have to generate some profits. We're not afraid of that. He offers to take us out of the risk business in offering an alternative corridor parallel to 35, and he offers us cash in exchange for that."

Heck, he's more certain of it than even me.

Here's the link - it was Williamson.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/transcom/transcripts/1204.htm

It's there, just do a search on that page for a few of the words.