I-69 from here to there is @#$%@^&

[NVUS]

:headknock This project is a huge threat to our property in Trinity. We have worked to hard over the years grooming this piece of land. The thought of the goverment telling you have to give up your land is B*******.

It's going to be interesting how they will get this project around Houston....This is going have an impact on everyone...

Texas needs to take a stand.


http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/public_hearings

[wet dreams]

Not only the threat of the hiway properties but when its done look for a severe increase of unliscene, un inspected, un insured trucks bringing 'whoknows what' into the United States from Mexico, BUT this is what some of our elected polititions WANT. WW

[jc]

I just want the t-shirt... I-69... classic

jc

[AceUpDJ]

Rick Perry and his family and friends stand to make billions off of this project. Citizens had better not try to get in their way.

[rdhdfmn]

and he is raping the texas land owners

[ZenDaddy]

I just want the t-shirt... I-69... classic

jc
Yup,

Of all the possible number comibinations ... ya' gotta ask why I-69.

NVUS, sorry to hear about your land. My understanding is there is a huge swath of land being taken from a large number of Texans. There are some other 'uncomfortable' things I'm hearing about (but haven't confirmed.) The most alarming of which is traditionally when the state took a piece of land to build a road, they would take just the land needed for the road. Often leaving the lucrative land on either side of the highway for the original land owner. My understanding is the consortium responsible for the highway is also taking the land on either side of the highway so they own the property rights for gas stations, hotels and stores, which they will rent out and use the money to recoup the cost of building the road.

I've had a hard time determining if this is a fact, but I find it alarming. The government is no longer in the business of building roads, but in the business of reallocating wealth. Meaning they are 'seizing' the land on either side of the road and giving it to someone else. Chairman Mao, Stalin and Castro should be smiling.

[Sow Trout]

What a bunch of narrow minds! Every road you drive on is on land that was taken from someone.

[John Galt]

I just want the t-shirt... I-69... classic

jcI think those signs are going to get stolen a lot...they will wind up in every frat house, barracks, and bachelor pad between Mexico and the Canadian border.

[dwilliams35]

What a bunch of narrow minds! Every road you drive on is on land that was taken from someone.There's some not-insignificant differences here if you do the research into this project. "every road" is one thing: there's not a whole lot of people that would say we don't need any new roads. However, when those new roads are shoved down our throat by a corrupt state government we start to wonder. When those roads are authorized to take in (seize) hundreds of times the land required for the actual highway, we start to wonder. When it becomes clear that the project will be handed over to a foreign private company and become a for-profit entity not under the control of or for the benefit of Texas and Texans save a few well-connected politicians and lobbyists, we really start to wonder a bunch. Then, when the state transportation bureaucracy and other proponents of the project start to violate laws enacted specifically to slow down this project until the wisdom of same becomes clear, we kinda just plain get pissy about it. Sorry our minds are so narrow as to not just let such a thing slide without adverse comment.http://www.2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/images/icons/hairout.gif

[Ernest]

The set up - take a wide area of land and allow the builder to offset construction costs with revenues from the subsequent land sales/land use - is a very basic concept that was used quite sucessfully in building railroads back in the day.

Like Sow Trout, I am really surprised by the responses. Basically, we took private property and built the greatest inter-state hwy system in the world. Built railroads as well. As a result, in part, of these improvements, we now all enjoy an elevated standard of living and mobility that is perhaps the best in the world for large nations.

So, I am unclear as to why suddenly now its suggested that this system is somehow unfair, improper, or not grounded in well established and historically successful practices.

I guess I missed the list of Texas or US based firms ready willing and able to match or beat the foreign deal. Similarly, the trade off associated with "for profit" or "gov. paid for in full" is a massive savings of tax dollars. Both Fed, and State. Further, there will be an offsetting tax boost for many tracts of land related to the commercial development and increasing values.

[Sow Trout]

Who in the state government is corrupt? Can you provide any evidence? Shoved down your throat? How many existing roads were you consulted on before construction? It can be built without a for-profit entity, but I don't think you want to pay those taxes. It is under the control of Texans. If you don't like the benefits, don't drive on it. Which politicians and lobbyists are benefiting and how? Who, not they, has violated what laws?There's some not-insignificant differences here if you do the research into this project. "every road" is one thing: there's not a whole lot of people that would say we don't need any new roads. However, when those new roads are shoved down our throat by a corrupt state government we start to wonder. When those roads are authorized to take in (seize) hundreds of times the land required for the actual highway, we start to wonder. When it becomes clear that the project will be handed over to a foreign private company and become a for-profit entity not under the control of or for the benefit of Texas and Texans save a few well-connected politicians and lobbyists, we really start to wonder a bunch. Then, when the state transportation bureaucracy and other proponents of the project start to violate laws enacted specifically to slow down this project until the wisdom of same becomes clear, we kinda just plain get pissy about it. Sorry our minds are so narrow as to not just let such a thing slide without adverse comment.http://www.2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/images/icons/hairout.gif

[Sow Trout]

The government will pay you for your groomed land, which will be more than for land that is not groomed.:headknock This project is a huge threat to our property in Trinity. We have worked to hard over the years grooming this piece of land. The thought of the goverment telling you have to give up your land is B*******.

It's going to be interesting how they will get this project around Houston....This is going have an impact on everyone...

Texas needs to take a stand.


http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/public_hearings

[Sow Trout]

In what year will this highway be completed? How can you project what kind of vehicles will be driven on it and by whom carrying what cargo? Which elected polititions and why do they want that.Not only the threat of the hiway properties but when its done look for a severe increase of unliscene, un inspected, un insured trucks bringing 'whoknows what' into the United States from Mexico, BUT this is what some of our elected polititions WANT. WW

[Sow Trout]

How?Rick Perry and his family and friends stand to make billions off of this project. Citizens had better not try to get in their way.

[Sow Trout]

How?and he is raping the texas land owners

[Sow Trout]

If they are doing that it will enable the road developer to offset his cost of building the road and lower our cost for using it. You'll get market value for your land today and have the opportunity to buy a smaller tract to build one of those roadside businesses.Yup,

Of all the possible number comibinations ... ya' gotta ask why I-69.

NVUS, sorry to hear about your land. My understanding is there is a huge swath of land being taken from a large number of Texans. There are some other 'uncomfortable' things I'm hearing about (but haven't confirmed.) The most alarming of which is traditionally when the state took a piece of land to build a road, they would take just the land needed for the road. Often leaving the lucrative land on either side of the highway for the original land owner. My understanding is the consortium responsible for the highway is also taking the land on either side of the highway so they own the property rights for gas stations, hotels and stores, which they will rent out and use the money to recoup the cost of building the road.

I've had a hard time determining if this is a fact, but I find it alarming. The government is no longer in the business of building roads, but in the business of reallocating wealth. Meaning they are 'seizing' the land on either side of the road and giving it to someone else. Chairman Mao, Stalin and Castro should be smiling.

[dwilliams35]

Who in the state government is corrupt? Can you provide any evidence? Shoved down your throat? How many existing roads were you consulted on before construction? It can be built without a for-profit entity, but I don't think you want to pay those taxes. It is under the control of Texans. If you don't like the benefits, don't drive on it. Which politicians and lobbyists are benefiting and how? Who, not they, has violated what laws?Okay, here we go:
1. look a little harder into the project than you may have, and the cliche's "if it walks like a duck" and "doesn't pass the smell test" really jump to mind in a serious fashion.
2. Evidence? Nope, I just went with the aforementioned smell test. It's pretty obvious.
3. Existing roads? None personally, but I know of two that my family has been involved in. The roads were necessary, took in a reasonable amount of land for the purpose, and we actually donated the easement for one of those roads.
4. Taxes? No, I don't want to pay the taxes. However, what has changed here? we've got the worlds' best transportation system already; it was all built with tax money and not handed over for the profit of a private entity. If we need a road, I'll be willing to pay my share. While we may need this road, there's too much about the plan that, again, doesn't pass the smell test. If you need private companies to build the roads, fine: When they essentially OWN the road (and all resulting profits,) that was seized under eminent domain, that smells pretty dang rank.
5. No, it's not "under the control of Texans". Read it a little closer; look some places besides the "keep texas moving" PR website.
6. the law recently passed requiring a moratorium on moving forward on the project didn't have the ink dry when Perry and the DOT issued a statement that it didn't apply to their project. It never even slowed down. That, and a whole lot of utterly reasonable legislative bills in the trash with a perry veto stamp on them..... again, smell test. IF we need a road, build a road: you can even shoot it right through my backyard. Go for it. When it's driven by pure and simple profit motive instead of the goal to improve public transportation, I'm going to be somewhat less supportive. If my land is needed for public transportation, I'll be somewhat disappointed, but generally supportive and as accomodating as I probably need to be. When the same land is needed for a private company to profit from, don't call me narrow minded when I raise issue. We've given land to the cause of public infrastructure before, I wouldn't have a problem with doing it again if required. The way this has been put together, however, I have a problem with.

[dwilliams35]

If they are doing that it will enable the road developer to offset his cost of building the road and lower our cost for using it. You'll get market value for your land today and have the opportunity to buy a smaller tract to build one of those roadside businesses.No, that opportunity isn't there: the idea is to give an exclusive zone of commerce under the control of the contract holder (Cintas). They have the right to "sublease" the land for the convenience stores, fast-food, truck stops, etc.; or build these things themselves. There are few "feeder roads" planned to service the adjacent land as was previously the practice, and intersections are completely controlled by the contract holder. Market value? Please..... Don't tell me you still believe that.

[Sow Trout]

So you will have the right to sub-lease the land. Financially, that is even better. You can depreciate the building you build, but not the land. If they don't pay market value, what do they base the price on? There are way too many lawyers specializing in condemnation litigation to let the state get away with much. Fewer feeder roads and fewer intersections saves money and speeds traffic flow. You are making it sound better with every post.No, that opportunity isn't there: the idea is to give an exclusive zone of commerce under the control of the contract holder (Cintas). They have the right to "sublease" the land for the convenience stores, fast-food, truck stops, etc.; or build these things themselves. There are few "feeder roads" planned to service the adjacent land as was previously the practice, and intersections are completely controlled by the contract holder. Market value? Please..... Don't tell me you still believe that.

[Ernest]

What do you think the result would be if - instead of consulting local land owners - they consulted all the folks that will see reduced commodity costs as a result of the road, all the folks that will save time and money using the road, all the folks that will get new jobs associated with the businesses and industry constructed near the road, and all the folks that get new jobs associated with the increase in economic activity related to the road? Then throw in all the people that will save time and money because traffic that would otherwise be carried by our existing roads will now use the new road.

My guess is all those people love the road idea.

But, there is an easy answer here. Landowners that don't like the deal because they will not get frontage road, raise a couple billion dollars, approach the builder, offer up the cash, and - if y'll are ready to pay FMV of the new frontage areas - they will sell it to you. Its a win-win.

Same with frontage roads. Offer up the cash, and they will likely be happy to build it. Probably even name it after you if the money is right.

[dwilliams35]

So you will have the right to sub-lease the land. Financially, that is even better. You can depreciate the building you build, but not the land. If they don't pay market value, what do they base the price on? There are way too many lawyers specializing in condemnation litigation to let the state get away with much. Fewer feeder roads and fewer intersections saves money and speeds traffic flow. You are making it sound better with every post.1. Why the heck would I want to lease land that by rights I should own?
2. Sure, they pay market value. However, there's a big difference between the market's "market value" and eminent domain's "market value". It's generally makes just about as much sense as property tax valuations do. On top of that, ask anybody here with long-held family property if they would sell their land today for market value. There's a whole lot more to valuation than you seem to recognize: the market may say the land I'm on is worth $3500 an acre: it's worth a heck of a lot more to that for me, soaked as it is with generations of my predecessor's sweat and blood. What it is worth to the individual that owns it doesn't get considered. My family has been contributing to the growth of Texas for over 170 years now. I still have no problem contributing to said growth. I do have a problem being forced to make the same contribution to a a foreign entity for their profit.
3. Well, traffic flow wouldn't be much of a problem at all with the original plan: it didn't have any on- or off-ramps to let local traffic use said highway.
They backed off of that when it became apparent that they'd never push that one through the legislature; no economic incentive to the local economy doesn't tend to fly at all. Now that they've added plans for more local access, which is it: do you want to sell this to landowners as a potential bonus to adjacent land value, or do you want to not allow them any highway access to said adjacent land? You can't have it both ways, you know. Cintas knows they can't have it both ways, so they just had their TDOT lap-dogs just plan on seizing all the land on both sides, so they could control it and all resulting profit.
Just answer me one question: just what is wrong with building a highway the old-fashioned way, anyway? Economic benefits of the improved transportation will up tax revenue anyway, right?

[Ernest]

This is the old fashion way!

The railroads were financed with a huge portion of foreign investment. Bonds sold in Europe brought all kinds of English, Dutch, and French cash which, when combined with the new land rights, permitted us to build numerous railroads. But for the foreign capital - invested for profit - and the land deal, those railroads would not have been built. Those same railroads that brought goods to Texas and enabled generations of Texans to get their ag. products to the market in the North and in the East.

Its not just railroads. A bunch of canals were built using this same approach as well.

When we can't directly finance improvements with tax revenues, we use for profit investment opportunites to get others to build it for us. Its what built this country prior to the creation of the massive tax base we have today, and we have that massive tax base in part because we utilized the "old fashion" way to create economic opportunities.

[Brian Castille]

Yep, somebody wasn't thinking! Those signs will get stolen left and right. My favorite is in Lubbock at the corner of Bangor and 69th St. They made a special pole tall enough where people couldn't steal the signs, lol.

But there is a way they name everything.

The Interstate Highway System has major east-west interstates ending in "0" with lower numbers south and larger numbers north. It has major north-south interstates ending in "5" with lower numbers west and higher numbers east.

The U.S. Highway system is the opposite for the most part. That is why we have IH-10 and US 90 down south.

Interstates ending with numbers other than "0" and "5" are "lesser" interstates such as I-27, I-37, I-12, etc.

I am not sure what numbers are still available, but there has to be an odd number somewhere near 60 or 70 other than 69!!!!!!!

I think those signs are going to get stolen a lot...they will wind up in every frat house, barracks, and bachelor pad between Mexico and the Canadian border.

[mastercylinder]

My favorite is in Lubbock at the corner of Bangor and 69th St. They made a special pole tall enough where people couldn't steal the signs, lol.


that's funny.

[dwilliams35]

This is the old fashion way!

The railroads were financed with a huge portion of foreign investment. Bonds sold in Europe brought all kinds of English, Dutch, and French cash which, when combined with the new land rights, permitted us to build numerous railroads. But for the foreign capital - invested for profit - and the land deal, those railroads would not have been built. Those same railroads that brought goods to Texas and enabled generations of Texans to get their ag. products to the market in the North and in the East.

Its not just railroads. A bunch of canals were built using this same approach as well.

When we can't directly finance improvements with tax revenues, we use for profit investment opportunites to get others to build it for us. Its what built this country prior to the creation of the massive tax base we have today, and we have that massive tax base in part because we utilized the "old fashion" way to create economic opportunities.A) railroads were purely private entities: they owned the land, they owned the track, they owned the train. they got leases and grants from the government to run track across what was little more than territorial wilderness. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison; This time, it's government basically granting a private company rights to seize privately owned, semi-developed land. The TTC contracts basically turn over a governmental function to a private entity, which has more than a little conflict of interest here. If Cintas could pull this road off without the state's essentially all but granting them eminent domain rights, fine: I'd like to see somebody that could pull it off.
B) "for profit investment opportunities" is a billboard in a publicly owned stadium; not handing over full control of a public highway for profit.
C) We couldn't build highways without private companies: Texas doesn't have the infrastructure to do it on their own: nobody denies that. However, this is the first time that it has gone this far: before, private contractors were used to build and maintain the highway, and leases have been sold for billboards and other for-profit activities. That's a long stretch from what's being proposed here. Even if Cintas was contracted to administer tolls, etc. on an existing highway, I really wouldn't have a problem with it. However, the state invoking eminent domain specifically for the profit of a single company, which already has the contract, the lobbyists, etc. etc. etc., just doesn't quite smell right. Okay, it just plain stinks.

[portalto]

My main question...Why don't the citizens of Texas get to vote on this? What concerns me is all the back-door, back-slapping deals going on with TXDOT. I haven't read every post but did you know that Gulliani's law firm represents Cintas. Wonder why Gov. Goodhair endorsed Gulliani?

[fishinfella]

If you want to write and protest.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/newsletters/images/mar04nl.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/newsletters/mar04nl.asp&h=307&w=306&sz=14&hl=en&start=15&tbnid=ghld3CfQWlyjSM:&tbnh=117&tbnw=117&prev=/images%3Fq%3Di-69%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8

[rbt2]

this totally smacks of "gubner goodhair" and how he tried to get the hpv vaccine shoved through without anyone knowing. i wonder how much of a kick-back he got from merck pharmaceutical?

this really hacks me off b/c we live in grimes county and between the ttc and the "aggie expressway" we will probalby loose our house and land!!!!!!!!!

it really makes me wonder why we as a state were not allowed to vote on this.

AND, as far as people saying things like people being narrow minded b/c all roads were taken from private land owners, i guess that YOU have never had this happen to you!!!!!

i am afraid that we lost this battle when all the other candidates for govenor were defeated b/c they all said they would stop the ttc. maybe somehow, it won't happen and we can keep our house and land.


rbt2


My main question...Why don't the citizens of Texas get to vote on this? What concerns me is all the back-door, back-slapping deals going on with TXDOT. I haven't read every post but did you know that Gulliani's law firm represents Cintas. Wonder why Gov. Goodhair endorsed Gulliani?

[drred4]

Just curious, why not just add lanes to the existing highways, interstates and so on? Why does this monstrosity need to be built? Will other states or Mexico have to pay to travel on this highway, and will they be subject to the same standards on vehicles as we would be in Texas to operate a vehicle everyday on the road?

[Sow Trout]

You shouldn't own it. You will have sold it for market value. I very well understand market value. I'm sure many people felt the same way when the Dallas/Ft. Worth toll road was built. It didn't belong to the people and the people did not design it. Nor did they set the fees for using it. Who's sweat and blood went into that land before your family owned it? I guess if there were no on/off ramps users would have to get on at the beginning and get off at the end. Where were those two points going to be?1. Why the heck would I want to lease land that by rights I should own?
2. Sure, they pay market value. However, there's a big difference between the market's "market value" and eminent domain's "market value". It's generally makes just about as much sense as property tax valuations do. On top of that, ask anybody here with long-held family property if they would sell their land today for market value. There's a whole lot more to valuation than you seem to recognize: the market may say the land I'm on is worth $3500 an acre: it's worth a heck of a lot more to that for me, soaked as it is with generations of my predecessor's sweat and blood. What it is worth to the individual that owns it doesn't get considered. My family has been contributing to the growth of Texas for over 170 years now. I still have no problem contributing to said growth. I do have a problem being forced to make the same contribution to a a foreign entity for their profit.
3. Well, traffic flow wouldn't be much of a problem at all with the original plan: it didn't have any on- or off-ramps to let local traffic use said highway.
They backed off of that when it became apparent that they'd never push that one through the legislature; no economic incentive to the local economy doesn't tend to fly at all. Now that they've added plans for more local access, which is it: do you want to sell this to landowners as a potential bonus to adjacent land value, or do you want to not allow them any highway access to said adjacent land? You can't have it both ways, you know. Cintas knows they can't have it both ways, so they just had their TDOT lap-dogs just plan on seizing all the land on both sides, so they could control it and all resulting profit.
Just answer me one question: just what is wrong with building a highway the old-fashioned way, anyway? Economic benefits of the improved transportation will up tax revenue anyway, right?

[Sow Trout]

It is I-69 because it connects with I-69 that runs up through the Chicago area.Yep, somebody wasn't thinking! Those signs will get stolen left and right. My favorite is in Lubbock at the corner of Bangor and 69th St. They made a special pole tall enough where people couldn't steal the signs, lol.

But there is a way they name everything.

The Interstate Highway System has major east-west interstates ending in "0" with lower numbers south and larger numbers north. It has major north-south interstates ending in "5" with lower numbers west and higher numbers east.

The U.S. Highway system is the opposite for the most part. That is why we have IH-10 and US 90 down south.

Interstates ending with numbers other than "0" and "5" are "lesser" interstates such as I-27, I-37, I-12, etc.

I am not sure what numbers are still available, but there has to be an odd number somewhere near 60 or 70 other than 69!!!!!!!

[John Galt]

The set up - take a wide area of land and allow the builder to offset construction costs with revenues from the subsequent land sales/land use - is a very basic concept that was used quite sucessfully in building railroads back in the day. "Back in the day" the land was owned by the government. It was not a situation of taking someone's land and giving it to someone else, knowing full well that land will skyrocket in value after the road is built.

This is what happens after the Kelo decision.

I think that one of the reasons people are reacting so viscerally is that they have a complete lack of trust in the government. They think that the land will be siezed and handed over to politically connected cronies.

[dwilliams35]

You shouldn't own it. You will have sold it for market value. I very well understand market value. I'm sure many people felt the same way when the Dallas/Ft. Worth toll road was built. It didn't belong to the people and the people did not design it. Nor did they set the fees for using it. Who's sweat and blood went into that land before your family owned it? I guess if there were no on/off ramps users would have to get on at the beginning and get off at the end. Where were those two points going to be?I shouldn't own it??????????? What, are you some kind of communal-property advocate? As I've said (now numerous times); if they need my land for a highway, fine. However, if you're wanting my land at so-called market value so that a spanish private company can sublease it for a jack-in-the-box, I've got a problem with that. The ancillary properties you're talking about aren't necessary for the highway: they're being seized solely for the profit-making venture of a private company. they don't make the highway go in better, they don't make the traffic problems go away, they don't make cargo move faster. They simply make more money for some guy named Francisco in Madrid. Whose sweat and blood went into the property before we owned it? The woman who got HER price for the property when we bought it, not an arbitrary figure named by the same entity that is buying it. Whoever's blood and sweat was in it before it was included in the price that she demanded of my predecessors. They'll give me $1500 or two grand an acre: meanwhile, on the open market, I wouldn't sell the same property for five or ten times that.

Meanwhile, if you had done the research on the TTC, you'd know that the original plan, begrudgingly backed off of by the state since then, was to have on-and off- ramps only at major highways: thus, in "my stretch" of the highway west of Houston, the only access would be at 290, I-10, and 59 south. Between those, it would have been a closed system with no access and serviced only by "rest areas" with gas stations, restaurants, and the like operated by Cintas sub-lessees on TTC right of way. The fact that it cut local entities completely out of the economic benefit part of this doomed that part of the project.

You also didn't answer the question about just what is wrong with the traditional way of building a highway.

[NVUS]

SOWTROUT & CO...

When you spend 20 years developing your private land to enjoy through out your retirement.....Never mind "IT'S A LAND THING, YOU'll NEVER UNDERSTAND"....


AS FAR AS A BUSINESS ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD....WHAT PART OF RETIREMENT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!

BTW...THERE WILL BE "NO ACCESS" FOR PEOPLE IN TRINITY TO THIS HIGHWAY. THEY WANT MY LAND BUT I CAN'T USE THE ROAD?????

[irbjd]

[QUOTE=John Galt
This is what happens after the Kelo decision.

[/QUOTE]I could be wrong, but I believe Texas has a law on the books preventing situations such as Kelo. If it was not in place before the Kelo decision, the Legislature put one on the books shortly afterwards just as many other states did.

If it is indeed true that Cintas will be able to condemn land to later sell for commercial use that is a bunch of bull***t. In no way does that constitute "public use". Just ask the City of Austin about the land it condemned to build either the convention center or the parking garage for the convention center. They ended up paying the guy millions.

I also have a HUGE problem with a for-profit entity (toll road constructor, phone company, pipeline company, etc) given eminent domain powers. Actually, I have a problem with the entire concept of eminent domain to begin with. This is largely due to the very notion of "market value" is the price determined by a willing buyer and a willing seller. In many, if not most, instances, the person losing their land to eminent domain is not a willing seller. Thus, it is impossible to determine market value (and don't give me the comparables cr*p). If they object the gov't (or entity with gov't powers) institutes condemnation proceedings to take over the property. Then the only thing left is trial to determine "market value". As dwilliams35 said, there is a huge difference between legitimate market value and eminent domain "market value".

Maybe they called it I-69 because it was the closest they could come up with to remind everyone who lost their property that they were scre**d in the process.

[portalto]

Just a quick yea or ney...who is for TransTexas Corridor and who is not.

NEY! NOT! NOPE! NYET! NO!

[tboltmike]

I'm suprised not to have seen NAFTA mentioned.

these are heavy duty corridors, roads, pipelines, power, etc. They are connecting Mexico to Canada.

What are the restrictions on the traffic entering the US?

Are there any treaties involved?

Is keeping Texas Moving a PR stunt?

[Sow Trout]

I am none of those. In fact, I'm not a big fan of the governor either.I believe SOW Trout is either an attorney for TX-DOT or the Chief Spin Doctor for Gov. Zoolander aka "I want to vaccinate your daughter weather you agree or not".

Anything Perry has a hand in is not good for Texas.

[wet dreams]

My point exactly as my reply on the first posting. If you think we have a problem now with ileagal entry just wait. WW I'm suprised not to have seen NAFTA mentioned.

these are heavy duty corridors, roads, pipelines, power, etc. They are connecting Mexico to Canada.

What are the restrictions on the traffic entering the US?

Are there any treaties involved?

Is keeping Texas Moving a PR stunt?

[Supergas]

Has everybody forgotten about our prez's retirement business???

Bushy-Fox, Inc.; President, Vincente Fox & VP Jorge Shrub (George Bush) the preemminent Highway Management Consultants in the Western Hemisphere..
:an2:

Supergas

[100% Texan]

My problem with a new high way is it going to be a toll if tax dollars pay for it then let us ride free.But the problem with this new I 69 is they want to take land from land owners not only for the highway but extra on both sides for there developement such as right of ways store's gas stations.outlet malls etc.We should all now and the future vote any politician includeing president if ya been a politician for over 6 months send your butt back home to were ever your from.I have never met any politician from any city, state or federal agency do what they campained for.How many times have you heard someone run and say they are going to get medical insurance for all americans or lower tax's it is the same bull malarky every year.If ya know me I have told friends about the letter p I dont trust ya if work or belong to the letter P work force.Sorry it was the folks before you that gave me the bad taste lol.

[Ernest]

FMV is typically defined as the amount the land would change hands b/w a willing seller and a willing buyer. Its almost always a hypothetical in an ED situation. As such, the whole idea that one party is not willing merely means its a typical ED situation, and NOT that it would therefore be imposssible to determine FMV. We determine FMV all the time is situations not involving a sale.

Quick C-N-P on ED and private corps.

In fact, property has been taken by government throughout American history, starting in the colonial era. Use of eminent domain by colonial governments was modest by modern standards, but certain important trends can be detected. First, property was acquired to promote the economic growth of the community. Colonial mill acts, for example, allowed the proprietors of water-powered grist mills, upon the payment of compensation, to erect a dam across a stream and flood neighboring land. Virginia and Maryland lawmakers sought to encourage iron production by extending eminent domain power to the owners of iron works. Second, lawmakers delegated eminent domain to private entrepreneurs—mill and iron works operators—whose activities were seen as benefiting society as a whole.



The years following the Revolution produced important changes in the law governing eminent domain. States began to utilize eminent domain for projects of a more extensive character. In the 1780s lawmakers empowered private canal corporations to take land.

The history of railroading is particularly instructive. State and federal courts in the antebellum era repeatedly sustained acts empowering railroads to appropriate private property. Rejecting arguments that property was being taken for private gain, they reasoned that railroad companies were carrying out the public purpose of improving transportation. The railroad eminent domain cases established two propositions: (1) that public use was not synonymous with public ownership and (2) that legislators were free to decide whether private enterprise might be a better vehicle than governmental agencies to effectuate the public interest. In other words, the question of public use turns upon the objects to be accomplished rather than the instrument employed to attain them.

Railroads were readily analogized to highways, which obviously represented public use. Moreover, railroads were regarded as common carriers and were therefore obligated to transport persons and goods upon payment of the appropriate charges. Even if the public use requirement meant that the property had to be actually used by the public, appropriation of land by railroads arguably could meet the test. After all, the public could use rail services.

Back to my words - If you own property in Texas (or any other state), ED has always been there, has always been a possibility, and going forward, will likely always be around. If someone dislikes it, whatever you do, never buy property in the US. Thats the only sure way to avoid ED.

Further, there is rarely, if ever, a situation where ED is used on a large scale and everyone is happy. Thus, the mere fact that the adversly impacted people are not happy is no reason not to use ED. Lets be serious, if the use of ED was always left up to the folks giving up the land, it would almost never be used, and we would be driving on a goat path to get from Houston to Dallas.

Vote? - that why we have rules and regulations relating the the use of ED, and we allow certain agencies to make these decisions. We can't afford to vote on each and every gov. decision - be it acquiring a tract of land for a park or expanding some two lane highway. We we be holding elections every single day of the year.

[dwilliams35]

FMV is typically defined as the amount the land would change hands b/w a willing seller and a willing buyer. Its almost always a hypothetical in an ED situation. As such, the whole idea that one party is not willing merely means its a typical ED situation, and NOT that it would therefore be imposssible to determine FMV. We determine FMV all the time is situations not involving a sale.

Back to my words - If you own property in Texas (or any other state), ED has always been there, has always been a possibility, and going forward, will likely always be around. If someone dislikes it, whatever you do, never buy property in the US. Thats the only sure way to avoid ED.

Further, there is rarely, if ever, a situation where ED is used on a large scale and everyone is happy. Thus, the mere fact that the adversly impacted people are not happy is no reason not to use ED. Lets be serious, if the use of ED was always left up to the folks giving up the land, it would almost never be used, and we would be driving on a goat path to get from Houston to Dallas.

You seem to be avoiding the point that nobody here is arguing against Eminent Domain or the proper use thereof by the state. The point is that in this particular case, the usage is improper at best, utterly corrupt at worst. Just run a highway through here and people will whine a little bit, but ultimately tend to agree that we probably needed a highway. Run a quarter-mile wide strip mall through here with rents and other profits collected by a foreign private company, and we've got a problem with it. Free enterprise is what this is all about: in standard highway construction that has been going on for a century, FMV ED applies to a strip from a hundred feet to a couple of hundred yards wide: most landowners through the area don't necessarily like it, but they realize that the rest of their land is now worth more with highway frontage. With this deal, the landowners are stripped of a huge swath of their land at minimal FMV, then their "highway frontage" is handed over to a private company (foreign, to boot) to reap ALL of the benefits, economic or otherwise, that the new highway will offer. The only thing a "neighboring" landowner has to look forward to is NO increase in land value, only offset by his land now being HARDER to access, as there are no feeder roads, limited intersections, etc. Traditional eminent domain seizure generally represented a win-lose situation for landowners; short-term loss, long-term gain. This is the grand bull moose of lose-lose. Sorry, if there's going to be a McDonalds on my family's land, I'd really appreciate if we get the opportunity to profit from it, rather than just sending all the money to madrid with a swish of Rick Perry's pen.

[Supergas]

Ernest's avatar & his opinions seem to be in conflict.... :headknock

SG

[NVUS]

Never crossed my mind until talking to the neighbors....There are several cemeteries in the path of this I-69 that will be relocated...Think about it...This could be your parents, sister, brother, grandparents, or friends buried in these cemeteries!

[Ernest]

How is ED incompatable with being a redneck republican? Its neither left nor right. More like a necessary evil associated with the creation of infastructure.

Tell you whats "Hillary" about this whole discussion is the folks that spend their days driving roads built on land grabbed from others that, now that their time has come, suddenly claim its unfair. Thats the double standard working here as pointed out by Sow Trout.

Williams - you seem to be missing the point that neither you nor I decide what is right for Texas Transportation. Thats done by our elected officials.

If you want to profit from a McDonalds on your land, like I said about, raise the cash, buy into this deal as a partner, and enjoy the profits. Alternatively, there are tons of commerical corners in Texas where you can erect whatever store or shop that you desire. Again, the "Hillary" position is reward without risk. Something for nothing. Me, I say, the folks fronting the big cash and putting it at risk, get the profits.

[Sow Trout]

The state should not be expected to increase the value of one's property by building a road. Neither should it deminish the value of the property, but if they do the land owner should be compensated a fair value.

[Dutch Treat]

Never crossed my mind until talking to the neighbors....There are several cemeteries in the path of this I-69 that will be relocated...Think about it...This could be your parents, sister, brother, grandparents, or friends buried in these cemeteries!
Has the path actually been declared? If so, where can I see a map? I have property in Victoria County and Ft. Bend County and would like to know if the bulldozers are coming to visit.

Bob

[WilliamH]

The set up - take a wide area of land and allow the builder to offset construction costs with revenues from the subsequent land sales/land use - is a very basic concept that was used quite sucessfully in building railroads back in the day.

. . . . .
Just because it was sucessful does that make it right, in the past or today?

[NVUS]

http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/index.htm


http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc_2007/CWA0607150.htm

[dwilliams35]

How is ED incompatable with being a redneck republican? Its neither left nor right. More like a necessary evil associated with the creation of infastructure.

Tell you whats "Hillary" about this whole discussion is the folks that spend their days driving roads built on land grabbed from others that, now that their time has come, suddenly claim its unfair. Thats the double standard working here as pointed out by Sow Trout.

Williams - you seem to be missing the point that neither you nor I decide what is right for Texas Transportation. Thats done by our elected officials.

If you want to profit from a McDonalds on your land, like I said about, raise the cash, buy into this deal as a partner, and enjoy the profits. Alternatively, there are tons of commerical corners in Texas where you can erect whatever store or shop that you desire. Again, the "Hillary" position is reward without risk. Something for nothing. Me, I say, the folks fronting the big cash and putting it at risk, get the profits. That's just it: there's no risk in an already-guaranteed contract; they can do whatever the heck they want. Meanwhile, I'm barred from "buying into this deal" by that same contract, awarded without benefit of the voters. If this goes through, free enterprise is dead: it's a pure and simple monarchy: if you drop enough money to king perry and his court, you get an exclusive contract; and we'll go ahead and seize all the peon's properties to make it work for you.
Put it back into the free market, and I'll be on board. Being cut completely out of the potential for increases in our land values and inherent values thereof tends to **** us off. Let's say that the government came up to you and said to get off your land, here's your fifteen hundred bucks. Leave now, this is eminent domain. Then, as soon as the bulldozers left, you find out that it's just for a new starbucks, owned by a guy who is the #1 contributor to the reelection campaign of the guy in charge of eminent domain seizures. No highway, no public rail, no stadium, not even a public youth center. Just a starbucks. No public benefit whatsoever except they get to spend too much for a cup of coffee on land that used to be your living room. You on board with that? I'm not either. Eminent domain shouldn't be about my opportunity to buy into this deal as a partner: it should be about the state taking what is absolutely necessary for the infrastructure, and allowing the people that suffered through that to realize resultant gains if they exist. This is nothing but a corporate handover: we'll take these redneck farmers' every possession and hand it over to you in exchange for a campaign contribution..
No matter how you try to kick it back to "what is right for Texas transportation", this isn't right for Texas PERIOD. If we need a highway, build a highway, and let the citizens of Texas soak in the benefits. Don't just screw said citizens because you think you can get away with it. I'd rather be driving dirt roads every day than to live under a system like you're proposing. It's simply disgusting.

[Lezz Go]

We think we are a free people. We are not.

We think we own our land. We don't

We point fingers at other country's govts for being "on the take". Ours is the worst.

We are FUBAR....

[Ernest]

You are living under the system that exists. Its not something I am merely proposing. More like, a reality that has existed for years. Start driving those dirt roads from now on, cause thats were we are at.

Do y'll really think that if this was opened up for bid that there are more than a handful of folks with the cash and experience to do this deal? Don't you think that our elected officials spoke with all those with the knowledge and expereince to do this deal? If not, how come folks are not coming out of the woodwork to meet or beat the existing deal?

But, the key here is revealed by your post. "it should be about the state taking what is absolutely necessary for the infrastructure, and allowing the people that suffered through that to realize resultant gains if they exist."

Many folks want to get rich on the risk and cash put up by others. They are looking for a free lunch in addition to being paid FMV for the land taken. Plain and simple. They oppose this project cause others have the upside potential. Are you ready to bet it all the long range profitability of this project? Others are, and in return for that risk, they demand the profits. If you don't think there is a ton of risk in this deal, you misunderstand the contract completely.

[Sow Trout]

It is hard for me to understand that some people can believe what they do.

[dwilliams35]

Who the heck cares whether it's profitable, risky, or not? I'm sure Cintas has done their homework before they rolled the dice on the project. That really doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that the way the entire project got from initial theory to where it's at now is absolutely improper: it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public, and for the most part the only people left that support it have a vested interest in seeing it go through. It's a huge departure from the tried-and-true methods of securing financing and land for a highway, with no real benefit to the public as a result. It's nothing but a land-grab scam by a handful of people in the governor's office, ex-governor's office employees who are now lobbyists for Cintas, and the employees of a division of TXDOT who currently have banked their livelihood on completion of the project, as well as a federal department of transportation willing to do anything to further their dream of a "NAFTA Superhighway", including threatening, as they did last year, withdrawal of a portion of federal highway funds if the highway wasn't pushed through.

I really am not just terribly scared of it, although I'm firmly planted very close to each of four versions of the target routes. I know that I, nor any coalition of my neighbors, come up with near the amount of money that Cintas is throwing at the government to make this go through. That being true, I've sort of accepted the inevitable: either I need to find somewhere else to live or will have to suffer the inconveniences of having this monstrosity running nearby. (no, there will be no conveniences in this area.) The fact that I've accepted that in no way means that I'm "on board" with the project and the real and perceived corruption that it is awash in. The way this has been run is a travesty. I don't blame Cintas: their purpose is to maximize their shareholder's wealth, just like any other company. The way that the earlier legislatures, the DOT and the governor's office has just simply laid down before the altar of personal monetary and political gain is simply disgusting. The more recent legislative seatings have realized that there's a lot out of whack with this project, and have made their efforts to slow it down ; efforts which have been fought tooth and nail by our illustrious governor, either by last-minute veto or outright ignoring duly passed legislation. As I've said before: I've got NO problem with a necessary highway: I'll even open the gate when they bring in the dozers, (as my family has done before for TX highways). However, the manner in which this has been promoted and executed is simply not right: it is an affront to private property rights, the rights of the Texas citizenry to have their government do what is best for the state, both short term and long, and is basically a major failure of the "smell test".

I really challenge you guys (or gals, whatever) that don't agree here to do some real research on the TTC project: it's all over the Internet, both in the www.keeptexasmoving.com (http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/) DOT PR website(note that this site, operated by the TX DOT, is a .com, not a .state.us, a .org, or a .gov: that's kind of telling to me as to the real basis of this) or the www.corridorwatch.org (http://www.corridorwatch.org/) "opposing" view, among others. The long-term scope of this project goes WELL beyond TTC-69 and TTC-35 (which is a little further along) which parallels I-35. It's thousands and thousands of miles of privately owned tollways and railroads, encompassing millions of (currently) privately owned acres all across Texas. The door of private business having access to eminent domain rights has already been cracked by the Supreme court in the Kelo decision: the TTC plan will throw that door wide open to wholesale seizure of Texas by what is quite literally nothing but a private enterprise.

[the wood man]

Where in the hell have all of you people been the last 4 years when we have been fighting this project? It seems that only now yall are waking up when it is coming to your back yard. I am writing from frustration because the only way to defeat this project was to throw Perry out of office and yet I would wager that the majority of 2 coolers voted for him. And I am writing as a Republican voter. The biggest enemy to fishing and hunting and what is left of the outdoors in Texas is Rick Perry. The reasons are so numerous that I dont want even to begin to write about it. Anyway, we did get a token 2 year moratorium on the project even if Perry's people claim that it is insignificant. come on, money for the very biggest guys and corporations is not the most important thing, at least to me.

[drred4]

Just curious, why not just add lanes to the existing highways, interstates and so on? Why does this monstrosity need to be built? Will other states or Mexico have to pay to travel on this highway, and will they be subject to the same standards on vehicles as we would be in Texas to operate a vehicle everyday on the road?

and again I ask these questions??

[dwilliams35]

Just FYI, this is the conceptual map for the entire TTC project: it's by no means limited to TTC-35 and TTC-69. The orange lines are the priority corridors. This was from the original plan in 2002; they don't talk much about the "rest of the plan". And no, these don't include existing highways: they often parallel existing highways, as in 35, 59, and I-10 on this map, but they are new highways with the same authorized quarter-mile wide easement.

[the wood man]

Because my friend you are missing the point. This is not a transportation driven project but a revenue project. And as such they need to condemn the cheapest land as possible so as to maximise their profits. This is why the last few legistative supporters kind of fell of the bandwagon when they realized the inherrent conflict between doing what is best for the public and what is best for Cintra.

[dwilliams35]

and again I ask these questions??Well, one goal of the project, obvious if you look at the plan, is to provide hazardous-material routes around major population centers: thus, if a Mexican truck with ten out of eighteen tires still good is carrying a load of chlorine and rolls over, it just takes out my family and a bunch of cows rather than River Oaks, as it would driving down 59. It's a purely toll-driven road: the DOT director has stated that in our lifetimes all existing roads will be toll: this is part of that goal. Vehicle standards? ask the feds: they sure aren't up to our standards now.

[Jolly Roger]

and again I ask these questions??
The TTC was the best choice for the problems we will be facing in the very near future. Expanding our road system to meet the problem would have taken all the money Texas has for roadway projects. TXDOT budget is enough to keep the roads we have repaired and working for the next few years. But it does not have the money to take on a project like this.



With the rising fuel cost, and the already over taxed public. The best choice is a toll road. The TTC is not meant as a road system that you will use every day. It is meant for commercial traffic. You do not have to look far to understand that our interstate highway system, while very good. Will not withstnad the demands of the future. Putting the public on the same roads as cross state traffic is not a good choice.

The land that will be needed does suck. But that is the nature of our country. If you do not understadn this, then I am sorry. But befor you bash me, understand that thousands of acres of my familys land are under water now, so millions will have power and drinking water. This is true on both side of my family for two different reservoirs.

They were left with two choices,

Find the money to exapnd the roads we have, either by more fuel taxes.

Or make it a toll road.


So far they are working toward a toll road. With very high fuel cost and the chacne that different fuels are coming on the market. Fuel tax option was not the best choice.

[dwilliams35]

The TTC was the best choice for the problems we will be facing in the very near future. Expanding our road system to meet the problem would have taken all the money Texas has for roadway projects. TXDOT budget is enough to keep the roads we have repaired and working for the next few years. But it does not have the money to take on a project like this.



With the rising fuel cost, and the already over taxed public. The best choice is a toll road. The TTC is not meant as a road system that you will use every day. It is meant for commercial traffic. You do not have to look far to understand that our interstate highway system, while very good. Will not withstnad the demands of the future. Putting the public on the same roads as cross state traffic is not a good choice.

The land that will be needed does suck. But that is the nature of our country. If you do not understadn this, then I am sorry. But befor you bash me, understand that thousands of acres of my familys land are under water now, so millions will have power and drinking water. This is true on both side of my family for two different reservoirs.

They were left with two choices,

Find the money to exapnd the roads we have, either by more fuel taxes.

Or make it a toll road.


So far they are working toward a toll road. With very high fuel cost and the chacne that different fuels are coming on the market. Fuel tax option was not the best choice.There's a heck of a lot more to funding this thing than a toll booth, you know. If they need a highway, build a highway. Even make it a toll road. Fine: it's worked fairly well all around Houston, anyway. However, Houston toll roads are owned and operated by the city and county, not a private company with an exclusive 50 year contract.

[Jolly Roger]

Well, one goal of the project, obvious if you look at the plan, is to provide hazardous-material routes around major population centers: thus, if a Mexican truck with ten out of eighteen tires still good is carrying a load of chlorine and rolls over, it just takes out my family and a bunch of cows rather than River Oaks, as it would driving down 59. It's a purely toll-driven road: the DOT director has stated that in our lifetimes all existing roads will be toll: this is part of that goal. Vehicle standards? ask the feds: they sure aren't up to our standards now.



If you think that sticking all that truck traffic on the roads we have now is a good choice. Then by all means please keep talking like you are.


But if you would think about it, and understand that the comerical traffic is going to be a major problem in just a few years. Then look at the other choices. You may re-think your stance on this project

I hate it, but also understadn that without it. All interstate highways will be gridlock in a few years.


The fact it is a toll road should not be that large of a cocern du to the fact that most of the traffic on it will be comerical. There will be very few exits. Unless you plan on traveling a few hundered miles, then you will not want to take it.


The rail traffic is already a problem, this project is ten years to late for it.

[drred4]

Well, one goal of the project, obvious if you look at the plan, is to provide hazardous-material routes around major population centers: thus, if a Mexican truck with ten out of eighteen tires still good is carrying a load of chlorine and rolls over, it just takes out my family and a bunch of cows rather than River Oaks, as it would driving down 59. It's a purely toll-driven road: the DOT director has stated that in our lifetimes all existing roads will be toll: this is part of that goal. Vehicle standards? ask the feds: they sure aren't up to our standards now.That is what I thought, just wanted to hear what others would have to say, or what their take on the project was on those questions.

[Jolly Roger]

There's a heck of a lot more to funding this thing than a toll booth, you know. If they need a highway, build a highway. Even make it a toll road. Fine: it's worked fairly well all around Houston, anyway. However, Houston toll roads are owned and operated by the city and county, not a private company with an exclusive 50 year contract.
Texas will own certin parts of it that are not toll operated. Texas will also have to pay for the stuides, and other aspect to it. Fed dollars are helping to pay for this. The envrio and other studies will have to come from Texas

What part of the cost are you talking about. Just tell us, don't assume "you know"

Because I am a contractor what build highways for the great state of Texas, I do not work for TXDOT. So I know more about it then you, and yet you want to sound as if you are one working on the budget.

If that is so, fill us in on it.

[Jolly Roger]

That is what I thought, just wanted to hear what others would have to say
He is very much incorrect on this.

Think of where the hazardous materiasl travel now???


Then think about a highway that has no exits and goes around your town by miles. How would it take hazardous material into population centers. The whole ideal behind the TTC is to dodge population centers.

[dwilliams35]

If you think that sticking all that truck traffic on the roads we have now is a good choice. Then by all means please keep talking like you are.


But if you would think about it, and understand that the comerical traffic is going to be a major problem in just a few years. Then look at the other choices. You may re-think your stance on this project

I hate it, but also understadn that without it. All interstate highways will be gridlock in a few years.


The fact it is a toll road should not be that large of a cocern du to the fact that most of the traffic on it will be comerical. There will be very few exits. Unless you plan on traveling a few hundered miles, then you will not want to take it.


The rail traffic is already a problem, this project is ten years to late for it. As I've said numerous times here, I really don't have a problem with them building the highway: the hazardous-material facet is pretty much the best reason for it I can think of. Tolls are fine, the highway is fine, go for it: just do it without the seizure of private land for a private company's profits, do it without all of the backroom deals circumventing the legislature and the voters, etc. The land for the highway I live on was donated by my grandfather years ago: I wouldn't hesitate to do it again if needed. I certainly am not going to roll over and quietly hand it to another private party to reap the economic benefits thereof, though. That's exactly what they're asking me to do (if it comes through here, of course).

[budana]

i was told tha that a company out of Spain has submitted the lowest bid to build the hi-way and on each side of it the right of way will be 1500' for future utilities/pipelines.we had a town hall meeting here in Victoria last week.

[Jolly Roger]

Here is a link to the public hearing dates. You can also find the real map of the TTC, and not one from 2002.


If you want to learn about the TTC, I would suugest you go to a meeting. Instead of thining that someone spouting off.


http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/houston

[Jolly Roger]

As I've said numerous times here, I really don't have a problem with them building the highway: the hazardous-material facet is pretty much the best reason for it I can think of. Tolls are fine, the highway is fine, go for it: just do it without the seizure of private land for a private company's profits, do it without all of the backroom deals circumventing the legislature and the voters, etc. The land for the highway I live on was donated by my grandfather years ago: I wouldn't hesitate to do it again if needed. I certainly am not going to roll over and quietly hand it to another private party to reap the economic benefits thereof, though. That's exactly what they're asking me to do (if it comes through here, of course).
Your hazardous-material reason is incorrect. The TTC will be the best choice to transport hazardous-material. Not only will it be self contained within the TTC if there is a spill. The amount of ROW will help to protect the surrounding people.

The transportaing of hazardous-material now is poor at best. It is only going to get worst without something like TTC.


I am not saying that TTC is the only answer. I am saying that if you look at what is coming, and look at the choices. Right now it is the best choice.


A for the back room deals, and profit. The TTC does not get built without someone making a profit. These people making a profit will hire thousands of Texas people to work on the road.

Texas can not afford to build it, and we can not afford to not have it built. We are left with very few choices, and none of them are good ones.

[Jolly Roger]

During the past 25 years in Texas:
Population increased 57%
Road use grew 95%
State road capacity grew 8%

During the next 25 years in Texas:
Population is estimated to increase 64%
Road use is estimated to grow 214%
Without new funding methods, state road capacity will only grow 6%

[dwilliams35]

Texas will own certin parts of it that are not toll operated. Texas will also have to pay for the stuides, and other aspect to it. Fed dollars are helping to pay for this. The envrio and other studies will have to come from Texas

What part of the cost are you talking about. Just tell us, don't assume "you know"

Because I am a contractor what build highways for the great state of Texas, I do not work for TXDOT. So I know more about it then you, and yet you want to sound as if you are one working on the budget.

If that is so, fill us in on it.Okay, so you're a contractor. Cool.

Meanwhile, back to what I was saying:

"Property may be leased or a franchise or license granted for any purpose, including use as a facility and use for unrelated commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes." [Sec. 227.082(d) (http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-hb3588-text-01.htm#227.082)]

In other words, just as I've been saying, the seized property isn't necessarily for highways: it's for a profit-making venture where the state, in partnership with their "private equity partner", in this case Cintas, can take the seized land and use it for commercial purposes in direct competition with local merchants, etc. that had to do it the hard way. Take that out, just build the dang highway, and while I'd be somewhat disturbed if it went through my living room, I'll be 100% behind it. I know perfectly well that Texas needs some more highways. I also know that the section that is potentially going through my living room is pretty much the best route to do it, or at least the cheapest. (look at the recent DEIS maps and note their avoidance of the more expensive incorporated areas like the plague) I also realize that it's a major plus to get commercial traffic (especially the substandard Mexican trucks) away from populated areas. Heck, if they were just building a highway, I'd say this was one heck of an idea, especially if I didn't live at ground zero.
Meanwhile, having had a big target on the south wall of my house for the last six years, I've done more than my share of keeping up with how this process is going, the legislation behind it, and the basis of the CDA's (Comprehensive Development Agreements) that are inherent in the plan. That is the only part of the plan I don't like: if you'd bother to read the rest of my posts in this thread, you'd realize that. I quite simply do not agree with the state's plan to seize private property for the enrichment of private enterprise rather than simply the necessary progress of public transportation. That's it. Now if you're done insulting me and my stance..........(and by the way, the 2002 map is still quite valid: the rest of the highways are nowhere near even the preliminary studies, but the basic concept hasn't changed.)

[dwilliams35]

Your hazardous-material reason is incorrect. The TTC will be the best choice to transport hazardous-material. Not only will it be self contained within the TTC if there is a spill. The amount of ROW will help to protect the surrounding people.

The transportaing of hazardous-material now is poor at best. It is only going to get worst without something like TTC.



Uhhh. that's what I just said:
You're going into this assuming I'm against this highway just because I'm against the project. I think it may be clouding your perception when you read my posts.

[drred4]

Question about land through Wharton county or like areas where farming(rice,corm,milo,cotton,soybeans etc..) is a big issue. When that amount of land is chewed up where is that farmer to find more land. Those guys have been using the same land for years and though all farmers in the county will not be affected the ones who are will be hit pretty hard. They just can't go find land down the road. Others are farming that. No I'm not a farmer, I just wanted to pose a thought or question. This corridor isn't afecting me directly by losing land, but other future projects I am sure will.

Take a look anyone going down highway 6 to College Station. Look what that project is taking up and just imagine what this corridor would be like. No I am not against new highways either, but this one seems to be a bit overkill.

Maybe I am wrong and hindsite in the future will be 20/20, but if we have a chance to vote on it mine will be no.

[Jolly Roger]

Uhhh. that's what I just said:
You're going into this assuming I'm against this highway just because I'm against the project. I think it may be clouding your perception when you read my posts.
You fail to understadn the concept. The materials are already going by your house, in trains and trucks. The TTC is the best choice for this type of transport because it is designed for it. It will be much better contained in TTC then anywhere esle.

[dwilliams35]

You fail to understadn the concept. The materials are already going by your house, in trains and trucks. The TTC is the best choice for this type of transport because it is designed for it. It will be much better contained in TTC then anywhere esle.uhh, like I said, I agree with you. While, of course, I'm not looking forward to a chlorine gas cloud wafting over my pastures, I do realize that this is the best route for the Hazmat traffic. (as would be any route away from heavily populated areas). Come on, Dude: I just don't like the business end of this project: I basically agree with you on each and every part of the transportation end.

[Jolly Roger]

Okay, so you're a contractor. Cool.

Meanwhile, back to what I was saying:

"Property may be leased or a franchise or license granted for any purpose, including use as a facility and use for unrelated commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes." [Sec. 227.082(d) (http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/cw-hb3588-text-01.htm#227.082)]

In other words, just as I've been saying, the seized property isn't necessarily for highways: it's for a profit-making venture where the state, in partnership with their "private equity partner", in this case Cintas, can take the seized land and use it for commercial purposes in direct competition with local merchants, etc. that had to do it the hard way. Take that out, just build the dang highway, and while I'd be somewhat disturbed if it went through my living room, I'll be 100% behind it. I know perfectly well that Texas needs some more highways. I also know that the section that is potentially going through my living room is pretty much the best route to do it, or at least the cheapest. (look at the recent DEIS maps and note their avoidance of the more expensive incorporated areas like the plague) I also realize that it's a major plus to get commercial traffic (especially the substandard Mexican trucks) away from populated areas. Heck, if they were just building a highway, I'd say this was one heck of an idea, especially if I didn't live at ground zero.
Meanwhile, having had a big target on the south wall of my house for the last six years, I've done more than my share of keeping up with how this process is going, the legislation behind it, and the basis of the CDA's (Comprehensive Development Agreements) that are inherent in the plan. That is the only part of the plan I don't like: if you'd bother to read the rest of my posts in this thread, you'd realize that. I quite simply do not agree with the state's plan to seize private property for the enrichment of private enterprise rather than the necessary progress of public transportation. That's it. Now if you're done insulting me and my stance..........(and by the way, the 2002 map is still quite valid: the rest of the highways are nowhere near even the preliminary studies, but the basic concept hasn't changed.)
Your fears of them taking your land for profit is misfounded. A city tried this a year or so in Freeport, and was shot down. The state ruled for the land owner. They will take your land for the highway and the Right Of Way. But they will not be able to take your land for anything else. If you have been to a meeting, they cover this subject a few times. If they decided that your land will be needed for the highway, I am sorry. But that is how it works. If TTC is private or public they still will need to take the land.


I am not insulting you, or your stance. But like everyone else that is so against this progect you refuse to see that we have no other choices. You also accusse people in TXDOT or others of being bad people out to get your land. If it was me, I would say screw yall and let the traffic back up so far around your house on the highways that are already there until you were screaming for new roads to be built. Then you would be happy to see the dozers coming. But instead a lot of false info from people that do not have a clue are being put out as if they know the facts.



If you have a better choiuce that does not make every person in Texas pay much higher taxes, or does not bankrupt TXDOT. Then by all means put it foward. Until then understadn that this is the best choice for what we have in the future.

Me and you may not like Privete toll roads, but the fact is that this does not happen unless there is someone willing to put up the money to build it.

I would suggest instread of griping on a message board. Write your goverment and express your interest for them to make the Fed pay for TTC. Or even a major bond issue. Both of these have been consodered, and both were not thought to be the best choice. But if enough texans complain, maybe the Fed goverment will step in and pay the bill.

[Jolly Roger]

uhh, like I said, I agree with you. While, of course, I'm not looking forward to a chlorine gas cloud wafting over my pastures, I do realize that this is the best route for the Hazmat traffic. (as would be any route away from heavily populated areas). Come on, Dude: I just don't like the business end of this project: I basically agree with you on each and every part of the transportation end.

The TTC will be built as almost as a self contained pathway for materials. Of course it will have storm sewer, but this is also thought about. A spill in TTC will be easy to contain and clean up.

As it is now, the right train goes over in the wrong place. And millions of people's drinking water can be contaminated. This could be people many miles away.

While your arguement is that because they are moving the TTC close to you that it puts you in danger, this is incorrect. The fact is that right now you are in far more danger from trains crossing rivers and streams hundered or more miles north of where you live.

Like I said, you have to understand the concept.

[dwilliams35]

Your fears of them taking your land for profit is misfounded. A city tried this a year or so in Freeport, and was shot down. The state ruled for the land owner. They will take your land for the highway and the Right Of Way. But they will not be able to take your land for anything else. If you have been to a meeting, they cover this subject a few times. If they decided that your land will be needed for the highway, I am sorry. But that is how it works. If TTC is private or public they still will need to take the land.


I am not insulting you, or your stance. But like everyone else that is so against this progect you refuse to see that we have no other choices. You also accusse people in TXDOT or others of being bad people out to get your land. If it was me, I would say screw yall and let the traffic back up so far around your house on the highways that are already there until you were screaming for new roads to be built. Then you would be happy to see the dozers coming. But instead a lot of false info from people that do not have a clue are being put out as if they know the facts.



If you have a better choiuce that does not make every person in Texas pay much higher taxes, or does not bankrupt TXDOT. Then by all means put it foward. Until then understadn that this is the best choice for what we have in the future.

Me and you may not like Privete toll roads, but the fact is that this does not happen unless there is someone willing to put up the money to build it.

I would suggest instread of griping on a message board. Write your goverment and express your interest for them to make the Fed pay for TTC. Or even a major bond issue. Both of these have been consodered, and both were not thought to be the best choice. But if enough texans complain, maybe the Fed goverment will step in and pay the bill.Come on, man: I posted the legislation that specifically allows this project to take the property for private enterprise. It may go to a supreme court decision ala' Kelo, but for now, that is the plan. period. Again; go ahead and build a highway. Go ahead and build it any dang where you want to. Go ahead and make it a tollway to generate revenue. That's just fine and dandy with me. Even hire a private company to manage the tollway. That's fine. Just don't grab somebody's land for $1K an acre, give it to some private company who proceeds to lease it to Jack in the Box for $4K a month. If you need to give the highway, all the toll booths, railroad income, etc. etc. to that company to make the deal go through, that's fine too. (although a 50 year exclusive contract sounds a little excessive) However, if it isn't the actual highway and the land needed for drainage, access, etc., it's not the state's business. The state and/or their contractors should not be in the business of competing with the citizens.

[dwilliams35]

The TTC will be built as almost as a self contained pathway for materials. Of course it will have storm sewer, but this is also thought about. A spill in TTC will be easy to contain and clean up.

As it is now, the right train goes over in the wrong place. And millions of people's drinking water can be contaminated. This could be people many miles away.

While your arguement is that because they are moving the TTC close to you that it puts you in danger, this is incorrect. The fact is that right now you are in far more danger from trains crossing rivers and streams hundered or more miles north of where you live.

Like I said, you have to understand the concept.Okay, JR. Whatever. I understand the dang concept, okay? I know perfectly well about spill containment, spill remediation, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. And no, my argument is not that moving TTC close to me puts me in danger: my argument is that if the highway does end up next to me, it will probably be the best place to put it, away from a population center. If I'm in danger, tough cookies. I'm not worried about the da*& danger! It's best if it's out somewhere like here, so that if an uncontainable spill does happen (try to contain a nice chlorine gas cloud, willya?) it just wipes me and my family out instead of a million or so Houstonians. Come on, man: I'm trying my best to agree with you on a lot of your points, and you're fighting me at every turn.

[Jolly Roger]

Come on, man: I posted the legislation that specifically allows this project to take the property for private enterprise. It may go to a supreme court decision ala' Kelo, but for now, that is the plan. period. Again; go ahead and build a highway. Go ahead and build it any dang where you want to. Go ahead and make it a tollway to generate revenue. That's just fine and dandy with me. Even hire a private company to manage the tollway. That's fine. Just don't grab somebody's land for $1K an acre, give it to some private company who proceeds to lease it to Jack in the Box for $4K a month. If you need to give the highway, all the toll booths, railroad income, etc. etc. to that company to make the deal go through, that's fine too. (although a 50 year exclusive contract sounds a little excessive) However, if it isn't the actual highway and the land needed for drainage, access, etc., it's not the state's business. The state and/or their contractors should not be in the business of competing with the citizens.
I hope yall can stop it from being built, scare the hell out of everyone. Make them think they are taking the land for fast food joints. Then by all means when Our highways come to a grinding halt, I will have no one in my fishing spots.

I would suggest you go to a meeting. And ask them how and where they plan to exit the traffic. Then when they explain there exits to you, the little light will go off in you head as to how this road is different then anything you have seen.

Without you understadning how this highway is different then a interstate, and them explaining the process of how they will have exits. Then you will understand why your fears of fast food joints on your land are unfounded. Until then, it is very obvious you will not believe me.

Like I said, lot of wrong info going around.

[dwilliams35]

I hope yall can stop it from being built, scare the hell out of everyone. Make them think they are taking the land for fast food joints. Then by all means when Our highways come to a grinding halt, I will have no one in my fishing spots.

I would suggest you go to a meeting. And ask them how and where they plan to exit the traffic. Then when they explain there exits to you, the little light will go off in you head as to how this road is different then anything you have seen.

Without you understadning how this highway is different then a interstate, and them explaining the process of how they will have exits. Then you will understand why your fears of fast food joints on your land are unfounded. Until then, it is very obvious you will not believe me.

Like I said, lot of wrong info going around.I know perfectly well what the "exit strategy" was and is (two different things). What it will be, heaven only knows. Meanwhile, I really don't care what the heck the exits are doing. As long as it's still legally possible (and it is) for them to seize land for non-transportation purposes, I'll be against it. period. They may never take advantage of that clause: doesn't matter. They have no business having that right; it's not a governmental function in any way shape or form to engage in commercial enterprises.

[Jolly Roger]

I know perfectly well what the "exit strategy" was and is (two different things). What it will be, heaven only knows. Meanwhile, I really don't care what the heck the exits are doing. As long as it's still legally possible (and it is) for them to seize land for non-transportation purposes, I'll be against it. period. They may never take advantage of that clause: doesn't matter. They have no business having that right; it's not a governmental function in any way shape or form to engage in commercial enterprises.
That law has always been there. To get all worked up about it on this project is uncalled for. For they have ONE plan to exit the traffic. The exits may change locations as some towns may want them, others may not. But it has been the same since the concept of TTC. If you do not know this or understand that it makes your concerns of a fast food joint on your land impossible. Then like I said there is nothing that myself or anyone else can tell you that you will believe.

[dwilliams35]

Actually that law's been there since 2003. HB 3588. Meanwhile, I could really care less if they have an exit every 200 miles or every 200 feet. The sheer fact that they have the legal ability to build said jack in the box
is the problem. Again, the state has no business being in competition, or even having the ability to be in competition, with private merchants, landowners, anybody, be it directly or through a subcontractor. There is no valid reason for that language to be in ANY transportation bill. Build a highway and/or other means of public transportation and operate it. Anything else is out of line.

[Jolly Roger]

Actually that law's been there since 2003. HB 3588. Meanwhile, I could really care less if they have an exit every 200 miles or every 200 feet. The sheer fact that they have the legal ability to build said jack in the box
is the problem. Again, the state has no business being in competition, or even having the ability to be in competition, with private merchants, landowners, anybody, be it directly or through a subcontractor. There is no valid reason for that language to be in ANY transportation bill. Build a highway and/or other means of public transportation and operate it. Anything else is out of line.
Like I said before, the state can not take your land and put a fast food joint on it. There are admentdants to Senate Bill 7, HB 2006 and HB 3057 that were added to make sure your land can not be used but for what it was intented. If your source is not giving you this info, then they are not telling you the whole story.


http://www.texascattleraisers.org/newsDesk/eminent_domain_2005_Texas_cattle.asp

"The Supreme Court decision sent shockwaves across the country, and legislatures scrambled to find a way to limit the application of the decision.
In Texas, Sen. Kyle Janek filed Senate Bill 7 to prohibit the use of eminent domain by any governmental entity for economic development purposes, with certain limited exceptions.
Of particular interest to many ranchers concerned about the Trans-Texas Corridor program, the bill explicitly prohibits the Department of Transportation from condemning private property for ancillary facilities (gas stations, restaurants, etc.), unless the property is for one of multiple facilities included in a comprehensive development plan approved by the county commissioners court of each county in which the property is located."



I would also suggest you look here for more complete info on your land rights

http://www.texaslandownerscouncil.com/lege.html


" TLC supported HJR 11, HB 461, and HB 3057 (later incorporated into HB 2006). HJR 11 would create a constitutional amendment preventing eminent domain for private development"

[w_r_ranch]

It is hard for me to understand that some people can believe what they do.
I was just thinking the same about you (& comrade ernest). Try grabbing your ears & pulling till you hear a loud "pop", then open you eyes. I can't believe we have communists among us on this board. http://www.2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/images/icons/icon13.gif

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Communism.html

[Dutch Treat]

The main attitude being displayed seems to be "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up"!

This thread is going nowhere fast.

Give it a rest. If you ain't happy, get active in a protest organization.

Does anyone have an exact map of the path of this highway? These maps with miles wide swaths of speculation do nothing for the issue of what is going to be taken or not.

Bob

[rbt2]

there is MORE to this than just using personal land to build fast food joints... my problem with this, other than "gubner goodhair's" way he's handling this whole cluster mess and shoving it down our throats, is that more than likeley, my wife, my child and i will loose our HOUSE and LAND. does anyone on here have the concern that they will loose thier HOUSE??????

somehow, this whole mess has to be stopped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rbt2

[the wood man]

Those few who defend the project(and I mean few) only defend the small merits of it and completely ignore the long term horrific and PERMANENT damage that will be done to what is left of rural Texas. One of the most ridiculous statements is that "well,land has always ben taken from someone to build roads". Gov Perry himself often compares his beloved TTC to the farm to market development years ago. This is just crazy. Almost all of the old timers were in favor of the FM as it was a direct advantage for them.Many donated land. Contrast with the TTC. The only direct benefits are for Cintra and whatever private bond holders that there will be and I guess large corporations. If you look at the negative aspects and compare them with the positive I believe that you will come down on the side of us opposed to the TTC concept. By the way, TXDoT has had to back off a lot of things and compromise to keep the project going such as their "ancillary facilities". It was only the hard work of the opposition that made them back off some of the things that they wanted to do. The project was always pushed as relieving traffic congestion in the big cities but many studies have shown that it will have a very mimimal impact as most truck traffic is "destination specific" and congestion is caused by commuters living in the suberbs and working in the city with virtually no puplic transportation system in place.Think about it logically-How is a toll road that runs many miles through the countryside going to help Houston traffic in any meaningful way?Austin has already built the I30 toll road around the city to help with traffic, and now they want to build the corridor too only a few miles from it?Sure they do becaus again the TTC is not about transportation per se but revenue. Those few who support the project usually can trace their support in some fashion or another in that they stand to benefit economically from it. In most cases I do believe that. Anyway, I could write about it all day but some of us poor folks not politically connected have to work. And yes, I will drive down a public free road to get to work.

[juan]

I my experience with government, they go to the public and have all these meetings and hearings which the public protest and in the end the government does what the heck it wants by using eminant domain and condemnation. It happend to our subdivision on the Westpark Tollroad. The bottom line is ITS COMING because a governemt agency wants it to happen.

[Calcasieu Cracker]

Since when is the complete disregaurd of propety rights OK? For the "common good" - right, that is the core of marxism. Fair market value is determined by the free market which is comprised of indivuals making independent decisions - not a government audit. If the company to benifit wants to build a road, let it buy the land on the free market. That is fair market value, not government sponsored robbery. Isn't this America? What is going on here?

[Sow Trout]

I am probably farther from being a communist than just about anybody on this board. There is a toll road in Florida that has businesses in the median. I am sure they are privately owned and are for profit. Before they were there cows and/or oranges were probably growing. That toll road is a great way to get across the state. I only wish there were more businesses in the median, but they want to limit traffic so we can drive 90 mph. I was just thinking the same about you (& comrade ernest). Try grabbing your ears & pulling till you hear a loud "pop", then open you eyes. I can't believe we have communists among us on this board. http://www.2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/images/icons/icon13.gif

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Communism.html

[w_r_ranch]

I am probably farther from being a communist than just about anybody on this board.
What you are advocating is communism, pure & simple. Deny it all you like.
If you walk like a duck & quack like a duck... you're a duck, my friend.

I bet you would be singing a different tune if it was YOUR house & property that was being "stolen" at the fair market value of maybe 20 cents on the dollar.

[warlock]

I think you need to look at our legislature... most including my State Rep for Seabrook voted for it...we need a change...I have a ranch along the HWY 21 feeder corridor with RR tracks along one side...I cant wait for the day they try to take our property. If this goes through its just a matter of time.

[Ernest]

Give it up guys - or shall I say Comrades.

When they start calling us commies, the discussion is over and the mud slinging has begun.

Just wait til they begin claiming the 5th Amendment, ratified in 1791, was some early commie plot (ignoring for a moment that communism did not even exist in 1791.) Guess that makes Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers commies as well. At least we are in good company.

[NVUS]

:texasflag DWILLIAMS35
Great job of explaining.....If anything, other people became aware of I-69 through this thread...:cheers: ........I wonder how much they are going to offer us for all the black bass in the pond? $.10

[Jolly Roger]

Give it up guys - or shall I say Comrades.

When they start calling us commies, the discussion is over and the mud slinging has begun.

Just wait til they begin claiming the 5th Amendment, ratified in 1791, was some early commie plot (ignoring for a moment that communism did not even exist in 1791.) Guess that makes Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers commies as well. At least we are in good company.
That is no joke.

Being called commies on computers that were delivered to the store on a highway that was built using land taken from Texans. Then the person went to the store to buy the computer driving on a road, that was built using land taken from Texans. Then the power comes from a high voltage transmission line that criss cross this great state, because they took th ROW from Texans. Then the water that is used to power the turbine that makes the electricity for the computer is in a reservoir that was built over land that was taken from many Texans.

Thay can all us commies, even if it is untrue. But we can call them hypocrites and be 100% correct.

[w_r_ranch]

Just wait til they begin claiming the 5th Amendment, ratified in 1791, was some early commie plot Guess that makes Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers commies as well. Nice try, but do point out an example of Thomas Jefferson and our Founding Fathers using eminent domain and then "giving" the land to private corporations & developers. Take as much time to research this as you need... Even the Fed prohibits this:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html


What YOU are advocating is the redistribution of land (wealth) and THAT is a communist tool.

I'll repeat: I bet you would be singing a different tune if it was YOUR house & property that was being "stolen" at the fair market value of maybe 20 cents on the dollar.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/land-grab-opposition-to-trans-texas-corridor-growing/3721364962

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/land-grab-big-concern-at-i69--naftas-trans-corridor-meetin/1933909621

http://www.txfb.org/TexasAgriculture/2005/030405/030405TTCpart2.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTPeBC3tH2k

[Ernest]

Thats an executive order from June of 2006, issued specifically to over come a Supreme Court decision. Specifically - Kelo in 2005.

Why would I research what I already know? Did you even read my c-n-p on this thread?

I would respectfully suggest that no reasonable person, understanding the historical facts, can credibly claim that the US and numerous states did not grab property, give it to private co's - like railroads, mills, or canals - and allow them to use the land in association with for profit enterprises. Kelo even said it was legal. Hence the subsequent executive order. If it was in fact prohibited by the 5th, then there would be no need for the exec. order.

[kayakcaptain]

Be kind of interesting to see how our parents and grandparents reacted to the Interstate Highway project put forth in the 1950 by Ike. Going to bet it was about the same reaction just without the message boards.

[JohnnyRocko]

Jolly Roger,

I am surprised how you are so quick to support the usurping of other peoples private property to the government. The surprise, unfortunately, doesn't compare to the outrage I feel by your justification for allowing this land to be profiteered by a foreign company. Furthermore if it was truly about providing for the future transportation needs of Texas they wouldn't have canceled the proposed section throughout the King Ranch. Hmm, you mean if I am the single biggest private landowner in Texas to the tune of 825000 acres the rules don't apply to me? Now don't get me wrong I don't want their land confiscated either but it just reveals how the politics of this proposal stink to high heaven.

And to think I always respected you for your activism with regards to Texas Open Beaches. Well when a government body comes to transfer the control of that next section of public beach to a private entity under the auspices as to whats best for Texas don't come crying to me. I'll chalk it up to increasing to the tax roles to benefit the great state of Texas.

Hopefully it doesn't affect you since you are..." a contractor w[t]hat build[s] highways for the great state of Texas....."

happy trails
Will

[Sow Trout]

So how do you think your ancestors felt about the Gulf Freeway? I'm sure it doesn't bother you to drive on that confiscated land.

[KIKO]

make the best out of it. What ever land you have left the pice of the land is going to be worth more. You will also have the potential to go commercial. Build yourself a truck stop or gas station or lease it to Gandy and they will do it.

[NVUS]

sowtrout....
The Gulf frwy is what, 60 yards wide?......THE LAND FOR THE I-69 BEING TAKEN IS 1/2 MILE WIDE THRU TEXAS, AND SOME AREAS 2 MILES....I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF LAND BEING TAKEN......MAYBE THEY SHOULD RUN I-69 ALONG THE COAST...BLOCKING 1/2 MILE TO 2 MILES TO OUR BAYS & OCEAN...DID YOU GET A VISUAL?????

[Sow Trout]

And the Gulf Freeway is not wide enough to carry the volumn of traffic trying to use it. Should there be a limit on how wide a highway can be? How wide is the South Freeway designed for? No one will be blocked from anything, although they might have to change their route.sowtrout....
The Gulf frwy is what, 60 yards wide?......THE LAND FOR THE I-69 BEING TAKEN IS 1/2 MILE WIDE THRU TEXAS, AND SOME AREAS 2 MILES....I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF LAND BEING TAKEN......MAYBE THEY SHOULD RUN I-69 ALONG THE COAST...BLOCKING 1/2 MILE TO 2 MILES TO OUR BAYS & OCEAN...DID YOU GET A VISUAL?????

[WilliamH]

Furthermore if it was truly about providing for the future transportation needs of Texas they wouldn't have canceled the proposed section throughout the King Ranch.

That's interesting.

[JohnnyRocko]

Sowtrout,

You must of been really good on your high school debate team. I was too busy playing sports so, can you explain to me one more time how what my ancestors thought about the Gulf Freeway and whether I drive on it has any bearing on this discussion? What if I don't drive on it? What if my ancestors were opposed to the Gulf Freeway? What if they were in favor of it but I don't drive on it? Or better yet what if they were opposed to it and I do drive on it? I'm not sure I'm following your rationale.

The taking of a private citizens land by any body of government and subsquently leased to a for-profit private enterprise goes right in the face of the ideals and priniciples upon which this country was founded. As has been previously stated in this thread if the TTC was just about acquiring land to make a highway the debate would be much different. The 5th amendment states the "...[no person]...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I sorry if I don't see how a for profit company from Europe by the name Zachary/Cintra selling tolls to the citizens of Texas to drive on their highways on what used to be my neighbors land constitutes public use. Now I'm well aware of the court decision in 2005 Kelo v City of New London that said government s could steal a private citizens land to give to another but all that bears out is what Thomas Jefferson foresaw long ago.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486



Folks I always thought the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Conneticut was a travesty but honestly I never thought I would see something like this in Texas......THIS IS TEXAS D*#nit. The home of the Alamo, Shiner beer, Willie & Waylon, Stephen F Austin, Bum Philips, "Come and take it". You can go just about anywhere in the world and people can point to Texas on a map. You ever think how significant that is? You ever wonder why that is? I have my theories right our wrong. Firstly its a matter of pride. Hell were so proud, were proud of being proud. Its that very pride makes public campaigns such as "Don't mess with Texas" so effective. Its also that pride that makes every Texan know that when push comes to shove we are all in this together. If Texas needs an interstate I'm fine with it . If it has to go through our family land well so be it. But don't take what took thousands of families generations to build and squander it away to a European company so that it may line its coffers. The people most affected are the rural communities across East Texas and along the coast. Communities who agricultural economies would be devasted if this plan comes to fruition in its current form. Another thing to think about it the cost. No has put a price tag on this project but yet they continue on. Hmm a government project with no budget...doesn't pass the smell test does it. I echo the sentinments written to all Texans and Americans by a soldier who found himself surrounded in a that dusty old mission back in 1836. "I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country. Victory or Death." - LT COL William Barret TravisWe need your help! Get educated on what this plan is and what it is not. Keeptexasmoving.org is the states site. for the oppossing viewpoint I personally like http://salcostello.blogspot.com/. There is also corridorwatch.org among others. Thanks for listening to my rant and God Bless Texas.

Will

[rbt2]

i just keep going back to my original problem... the state might actually take my house and land away from me and my family. toll roads and all that other "junk" be d*^#ed!!! I DON'T WANT TO LOOSE MY HOUSE!!!! if this was going through the govenor's living room, like it might go through mine, do you think, for one second, he and his family would have this issue???

ALSO, are other states building roads such as this, or is it just texas? if not, then what kind of bottle-neck is that going to create at the state lines? what about mexico, are they building the road to connect it, or will there be a bottle-neck there as well???

rbt2

[Sow Trout]

You probably couldn't understand any explanation.Sowtrout,

You must of been really good on your high school debate team. I was too busy playing sports so, can you explain to me one more time how what my ancestors thought about the Gulf Freeway and whether I drive on it has any bearing on this discussion? What if I don't drive on it? What if my ancestors were opposed to the Gulf Freeway? What if they were in favor of it but I don't drive on it? Or better yet what if they were opposed to it and I do drive on it? I'm not sure I'm following your rationale.

The taking of a private citizens land by any body of government and subsquently leased to a for-profit private enterprise goes right in the face of the ideals and priniciples upon which this country was founded. As has been previously stated in this thread if the TTC was just about acquiring land to make a highway the debate would be much different. The 5th amendment states the "...[no person]...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." I sorry if I don't see how a for profit company from Europe by the name Zachary/Cintra selling tolls to the citizens of Texas to drive on their highways on what used to be my neighbors land constitutes public use. Now I'm well aware of the court decision in 2005 Kelo v City of New London that said government s could steal a private citizens land to give to another but all that bears out is what Thomas Jefferson foresaw long ago.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486



Folks I always thought the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Conneticut was a travesty but honestly I never thought I would see something like this in Texas......THIS IS TEXAS D*#nit. The home of the Alamo, Shiner beer, Willie & Waylon, Stephen F Austin, Bum Philips, "Come and take it". You can go just about anywhere in the world and people can point to Texas on a map. You ever think how significant that is? You ever wonder why that is? I have my theories right our wrong. Firstly its a matter of pride. Hell were so proud, were proud of being proud. Its that very pride makes public campaigns such as "Don't mess with Texas" so effective. Its also that pride that makes every Texan know that when push comes to shove we are all in this together. If Texas needs an interstate I'm fine with it . If it has to go through our family land well so be it. But don't take what took thousands of families generations to build and squander it away to a European company so that it may line its coffers. The people most affected are the rural communities across East Texas and along the coast. Communities who agricultural economies would be devasted if this plan comes to fruition in its current form. Another thing to think about it the cost. No has put a price tag on this project but yet they continue on. Hmm a government project with no budget...doesn't pass the smell test does it. I echo the sentinments written to all Texans and Americans by a soldier who found himself surrounded in a that dusty old mission back in 1836. We need your help! Get educated on what this plan is and what it is not. Keeptexasmoving.org is the states site. for the oppossing viewpoint I personally like http://salcostello.blogspot.com/. There is also corridorwatch.org among others. Thanks for listening to my rant and God Bless Texas.

Will

[CentexPW]

STOP the Tolls Get the TRUTH

texastollparty.com

[JohnnyRocko]

You probably couldn't understand any explanation.Is that your way of saying there isn't an explanation? In the future, you might want to try something like saying like " JR, you right. The Gulf Freeway has no bearing on this debate."

With regards to the TTC and the proposed 4000 miles of extra and existing roads that are proposed to be transformed into toll roads we are obviously on different sides of the debate. For people concerned with the future of Texas feel free to go to http://corridornews.blogspot.com (http://corridornews.blogspot.com/) and hear the real story of what is happening in this state.

Will


First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one leftto speak up for me.

[tboltmike]

Is this TTC for the good of the public, or a sweepstakes for globalist minded politicians and businesses??

Bottom line, individuals are showing that they can exercise their will through gov't agencies by bankrolling politicians through campaign funding and public propaganda under the guise of immanent domain.

We are seeing this more and more. Politicians are putting themselves in positions to lord their will over individuals (property owners) because they know what is best for (hehehe) the "public".

The public has free access to the interstate system. Not so sure the same is true for the TTC. Controlled exits/entrances, franchised concessions along the way, tolls, questionable funding, questionable use of authority.

[AceUpDJ]

I firmly believe that this project is mostly about enriching Rick Perry, his family and friends, and a number of other state politicians.

Perry especially needs this to go through, since he was prevented from getting billions in kickbacks from a certain drug company, for forcing little Texas girls to be guinea pigs for a developmental HPV vaccine.

Greedy people never get enough. But he's trying.

There is no precedent in Texas, as far as I know, for using public domain laws to take land and property from legal Texas citizens, and give it to foreign interests to benefit a private, for-profit, foreign corporation.

However, doing it through a foreign company that does not answer to U.S. regulation does ensure that any bribes and kickbacks paid will be harder to trace.

[NVUS]

WHO IS PAYING FOR THE TV ADS KEEPTXMOVING ON EVERY TV STATIONS IN TEXAS???? US, THE TAX PAYERS:question: :question: :question:

[AceUpDJ]

NVUS, the answer is, yes, you and I are paying for those commercials, their website, and everything else. Of course, the Spanish corporation that will own the road is probably paying out some pretty big cash, like billions in bribes.

This thread probably ought to be locked down or moved to the Sports Pub forum, it's kinda political, huh?

[JohnnyRocko]

I hope this thread stays right where its at. Although politicians are involved, its not really a conservative or liberal issue. Its a fight for the liberty and freedom of the citizens of Texas. Lets not bury this in another board, when the key to righting the wrongs is getting the word out to as many Texans as possible.

[AceUpDJ]

Johnny, I agree with you, I just don't feel comfortable breaking the rules Mont has laid down for this site. I respect him, and I enjoy being a member of 2coolfishing, so when there are issues, especially non-fishing subjects, that tend to go negative, I just get conflicted about putting in my two cents worth.
FWIW, I also don't view it as a liberal vs. conservative issue. I'm a conservative, but don't see wrong-headed or crooked government actions as having anything to do with that. This perverted, twisted application of state and federal constitutional rights will affect ALL Texans who own property, work, pay taxes, or drive outside of their neighborhoods.

[tboltmike]

We may be getting more like Mexico that we realize...where bribery and payoffs are the norm for doing business.



NVUS, the answer is, yes, you and I are paying for those commercials, their website, and everything else. Of course, the Spanish corporation that will own the road is probably paying out some pretty big cash, like billions in bribes.

This thread probably ought to be locked down or moved to the Sports Pub forum, it's kinda political, huh?