Category: General

Trans Texas Corridor I-69 SECRET meeting in Fort Bend

Posted on by

In this article, Transportation Commissioner Ted Houghton repeatedly refers to Texans’ FREEways as “assets” as if the PUBLIC’S highways are theirs to sell to the highest bidder on Wall Street! To make matters worse, they’re holding a SECRET, CLOSED DOOR meeting to discuss the next controversial leg of the Trans Texas Corridor, TTC 69. Also noteworthy, businesses, ie – the Chamber of Commerce, are invited to the table, but NOT the taxpaying public whose community will be paved over by this corridor! How is this getting “community feedback?” Secrecy and involving multi-national corporations has become standard operating procedure for these trade corridors.

TURF’s Board member, Hank Gilbert, is mentioned in the article.

Link to article here.

Oct. 8, 2007, 4:26PM
 Trans-Texas Corridor talks include Fort Bend officials
 Committee formed by state Transportation Commission

By ZEN T. C. ZHENG
 Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

A controversial plan to create an interstate highway from the Texas-Mexico border to Texarkana is gaining momentum in Fort Bend County as local leaders are set to begin meeting in two weeks to brainstorm on how the project should be carried out in this area.

Ted Houghton, Texas Transportation commissioner, who was in Rosenberg Wednesday to promote the project, will be in Sugar Land Oct. 26 to discuss the Trans-Texas Corridor-69 proposal with the 24-member group formed by the commission.

‘Transportation crossroad’

Houghton said the project, which would turn Fort Bend and its vicinity into a “transportation crossroad,” would enable fast cargo deliveries to various ports with rails or truck lanes and increase mobility for passengers with high-speed toll lanes generally along U.S. 59.”We need to bring in the money to create economic opportunities,” Houghton said at the annual Fort Bend Regional Infrastructure Conference sponsored by the Rosenberg-Richmond Area Chamber of Commerce.

However, the project has drawn opposition from environmentalists, property-rights proponents and those who see the corridor as part of a proposal to create a North America Free Trade Agreement highway to connect Mexico to Canada through the U.S. heartland.

Meeting closed to public

The group to meet on Oct. 26 at Sugar Land City Hall comprises county judges, mayors of cities along the proposed route, leaders of area chambers of commerce and various ports including those of Houston, Freeport and Victoria, and representatives of metropolitan planning organizations. Members are mostly from the Fort Bend, Wharton and Victoria areas.Houghton told the Chronicle Wednesday that the meeting will be closed to the public and media.

He said the group, one of six formed in the project area from Brownsville to Texarkana, will have the opportunity to help tailor the project to “local needs.”

“It’s a positive thing. We are letting these regions plan it out,” Houghton said. “We hope by mid-next year, the group will come up with some recommendations to tell us what they would like to see built.”

The Interstate 69 project is part of the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor network at least seven years in planning by the Texas Department of Transportation and supported by Gov. Rick Perry.

1,200-foot wide corridors?

The network is conceived as a cross-state road system of new and existing highways, railroads and utility rights of way. It would have separate lanes for passenger and truck traffic, freight and high-speed commuter rails, as well as infrastructure for utilities including water, oil and gas pipelines, electricity and telecommunications services. One revenue option to support the network would be toll fees.I-69 would generally follow the U.S. 59 footprint with a section along U.S. 77 from Texarkana to three possible terminals along the Texas-Mexico border: Brownsville, McAllen and Laredo.

Another major component of the network, Trans-Texas Corridor-35, would run along Interstate 35 from Denison to the Rio Grande Valley. Two other possible routes would run along Interstate 45 from Dallas to Houston and Interstate 10 from El Paso to Orange.

According to Gaby Garcia, a spokeswoman for the state transportation agency, each of the two proposed major corridors would stretch about 600 miles and cost $12 billion only for the road portion, excluding rails and utility infrastructure.

Houghton said that critics’ assertion that the corridors would be 1,200 feet in width is not true. However, he said the exact width couldn’t be determined until a definitive plan is shaped with sufficient local input.

County judge’s endorsement

Houghton said he and Fort Bend County Judge Bob Hebert “had a great conversation” about the project during a private meeting.While asking Houghton to present a “fine print” of the plan, Hebert said he supports the project.

“I’m excited about it. We need the road,” Hebert said Wednesday.

However, some local community leaders deplore what they perceive to be a lack of awareness among Fort Bend residents about the Trans-Texas Corridor concept.

The county’s Democratic Party on Sept. 29 brought Hank Gilbert, a Tyler rancher who lost his race for Texas commissioner of agriculture last year, to Sugar Land to rally support for his crusade against the project. Event organizer Jenny Hurley said about 50 people attended the meeting.

Grand Parkway not a part?

Some opponents of a state plan to extend the Grand Parkway as a toll road from U.S. 59 south and then east to link Texas 288 are concerned that the expansion project could be part of the I-69 project. But, Houghton dismissed that notion.However, former Texas Transportation Commissioner John W. “Johnny” Johnson in 2000 told the Chronicle that I-69 was being proposed to pass north and west of Houston, merging with segments of the Grand Parkway, including the stretch between the Katy Freeway and U.S. 59. Johnson also said the proposed Grand Parkway segment south of U.S. 59 could be used as a continued truck route from I-69 to reach the Port of Houston via Texas 288 and Beltway 8.

“A Beautiful asset”

Calling U.S. 59 “a beautiful asset,” Houghton said tracing I-69 along U.S. 59 would mean less additional land needed for the project, thus having less impact on the community along the route.”We have already the asset. Now we’re trying to enhance the asset,” he said.

With the project, U.S. 59 at all its intersections would be turned into overpasses, he said.

Houghton said project planners have been examining a variety of ways to fund the project. However, funding remains a difficult task, he said.

“We have looked at everything possible,” he said.

The state’s goal is to begin construction on the project in two to three years and have it completed within five to 10 years, Houghton said.

Pro-toll Perez to replace Krier as San Antonio Greater Chamber President

Posted on by

Link to article here.

He’s BAAAACCCKK…Former Councilman and MPO Dictator #1 (Sheila McNeil, his successor, is Dictator #2, see why on YouTube), and pro-toll lap dog Richard Perez has been tapped to be the new San Antonio Greater Chamber of Commerce President. Tolling authority Chair and ex-Mayor Bill Thornton is growing a Pinnochio nose for calling Perez “honest and straightforward.” For anyone who witnessed Perez’ lawless behavior as Chair of the MPO, they know what a tall tale Thornton is telling!

We agree with Thornton’s wish that Perez stay in this position a long time….because Perez has no political future in this town. His contempt for the people on the toll road issue will not soon be forgotten! What’s also telling is that two politicians served on the search committee. Why not businessmen? Because the Greater Chamber is the arm of government and vice versa. Whenever government needs to slip a tax hike or bond package past the voters, the Chamber delivers. Whenever the Chamber needs state-run monopolies like toll roads, government delivers (to Zachry, of course). To them, it’s a beautiful thing. Yep, this is the PERFECT job for Perez…..he loves to kiss the ring.

From the Express-News….
The Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce’s board announced this afternoon it has chosen Richard Perez as its new president and CEO.

Perez brings a new dimension to the chamber, said Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, who served on the search committee.

Perez topped the list of a stellar pool of candidates for the chamber job, said Bill Thornton, former mayor of San Antonio and a member of the selection task force.

“That tells you that Richard Perez was just a catch to serve in this new capacity for San Antonio,” Thornton said.

Perez is the perfect guy for the job because he has always been honest and straightforward, he said.

“He’s steadfast in doing what’s right for our community,” Thornton said.

Perez is young, bright and capable, he said.

“I hope he stays in this position for a long time,” Thornton said.

___________________________________________
Oh pleeeez….
To see Perez’ history of heavy-handed tactics as MPO Chair where he had a history of blocking agenda items, cutting off any anti-toll debate, and putting citizens’ to be heard dead last, read below:

• Perez railroaded a change to MPO bylaws to allow himself to be re-appointed to the MPO Board after term in office was up.
• Perez voted AGAINST reverting 281 back to FREEway instead of tollway.
• Perez abuses his power at MPO to get sidewalks just for his neighborhood.
• Perez delays citizens’ request for gas price study, makes Adkisson jump through special hoops.
• Perez stonewalls citizens request for independent review of toll plans.

Scholars say Bush makes North American Union unilateral executive decisions

Posted on by

Scholars Explain President’s Plan for A North American Union
By Phyllis Schlafly
Monday, October 8, 2007

Those who seek to understand what’s behind the chatter about President George W. Bush’s Security and Prosperity Partnership as a possible prelude to a North American Union, similar to the European Union, should read the 35-page White Paper published recently by the Hudson Institute called “Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosperity Partnership.”

The Washington, D.C., think tank is blunt and detailed in describing where the Security and Prosperity Partnership is heading.

Here’s how Hudson defines the Security and Prosperity Partnership’s goal: “The SPP process is the vehicle for the discussion of future arrangements for economic integration to create a single market for goods and services in North America.”

The key words are “economic integration,” a phrase used again and again, into a North American “single market,” another phrase used repeatedly.

“Integration” with Mexico and Canada is exactly what North American union means, but there’s a big problem with this goal. “We the people” of the United States were never asked if we want to be “integrated” with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, concept of government’s role, economic system and standard of living.

Here’s how Hudson explains the Security and Prosperity Partnership’s process: “The most important feature of the SPP design is that it is neither intended to produce a treaty nor an executive agreement like the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that would require congressional ratification or the passage of implementing legislation in the United States. The SPP was designed to function within existing administrative authority of the executive branch.”

Hudson explains further: “The design of the SPP is innovative, eschewing the more traditional diplomatic and trade negotiation models in favor of talks among civil service professionals and subject matter experts with each government. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States.”

Indeed, the Security and Prosperity Partnership is very “innovative.” The arrogance of the Security and Prosperity Partnership’s “design” to give the executive branch full “authority” to “enforce and execute” whatever is decided by a three-nation agreement of “civil service professionals,” as though it were “law,” is exceeded only by its unconstitutionality.

The Hudson White Paper admits the problem that the Security and Prosperity Partnership completely lacks “transparency and accountability.” Hudson freely admits “the exclusion of Congress from the process”; constituents who contact their Congressmen discover that members know practically nothing about the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Hudson states that, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, one of the U.S. challenges is “managing Congress.” Is Congress now to be “managed,” either by executive-branch “authority” or by “dozens of regulators, rule makers, and officials working with their counterparts” from Mexico and Canada?

The Hudson White Paper reminds us that the 2005 Council on Foreign Relations document called “Building a North American Community” bragged that its recommendations are “explicitly linked” to SPP. The Council on Foreign Relations document called for establishing a “common perimeter” around North America by 2010.

Hudson praises the Council on Foreign Relations document for “raising public expectations” about what the Security and Prosperity Partnership can accomplish. Hudson explains that, while immigration is not an explicit Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda item, “mobility across the border is central to the idea of an integrated North American economic space.”

“Harmonization” with other countries is another frequently used word. One of the Security and Prosperity Partnership’s signature initiatives is “Liberalizing Rules of Origin.”

The Hudson Paper reveals the Security and Prosperity Partnership’s cozy collaboration with “some interest groups and not others.” Translated, that means collaboration with multinational corporations, but not with small business or citizen groups.

After the heads of state of the United States, Mexico and Canada met in Waco, Texas, in March 2005 and announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership by press release, the North American Competitiveness Council emerged as “a private sector forum for business input” to Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups. But, according to Hudson, it wasn’t merely “private” because it was “given official sanction.”

After the three amigos met in Cancun, Mexico, in 2006, President Bush provided taxpayer funding for a think tank called the Center for Strategic and International Studies to meet secretly and produce a report called “The Future of North America.” That document’s favorite catchword is “North American labor mobility,” which is a euphemism for admitting unlimited cheap labor from Mexico.

The Hudson White Paper states that “SPP combines an agenda with a political commitment.” That’s exactly why those who want to protect American sovereignty don’t like the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

Among the people who take the Security and Prosperity Partnership seriously are Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., who introduced a House resolution opposing a North American Union and a NAFTA Superhighway, similar resolutions introduced into the state legislatures of 14 states, and California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter’s amendment to prohibit the use of federal funds for Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups, which passed in the House by a vote of 362-63 on July 24.

The Hudson white paper suggests that it might be “necessary” for the Security and Prosperity Partnership to change its name and acronym. It is unlikely that a change of name will silence the American people who are outraged by the Security and Prosperity Partnership’s goals and process.

After spending abuses, taxpayers aren't buying the line that govt lacks money

Posted on by

Link to article here. The most telling finding in this poll on taxes and govt. spending:

“In Mr. Winston’s survey, 75% of respondents agreed that, ‘Taxes should not be increased as long as Congress continues to waste the tax money it already receives.’ Only 23% did not.”

ON THE HILL: GOP Tax Dilemma
After years of waste in Congress, voters aren’t buying the party’s fiscal message.
By Stephen Moore – WSJ
Published: 10-09-07

A few weeks ago Republican leaders gathered on Capitol Hill to hear from their top pollsters and pundits about how they can win back the votes of independent voters. Some of the attendees are still in a state of cardiac arrest over what they learned.
America’s swing voters, especially the suburban “security moms,” who abandoned the GOP in droves in 2006 still hold Republicans in very low regard. What has party tacticians especially spooked is that these independents are apparently not much attracted to what the Republicans are saying about taxes.
That’s a bitter pill for party leaders to swallow, because for 25 years the anti-tax banner has been a political trump card for conservative candidates. A top strategist at the Republican National Committee who attended the meeting told me: “Our tax message has worn thin.”
Well, that’s not exactly true.
It is true that the GOP message on taxes needs a makeover, perhaps a radical one — and the party’s congressional leaders had better figure this out soon: The big tax fight starts as early as next week when House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangle unveils his multibillion dollar soak-the-rich tax hike plan to pay for middle-class Alternative Minimum Tax relief. So let’s review some of the key attitudinal shifts of voters on taxes as revealed in recent polls and focus-group findings.
First, the not-so-good news for the GOP.
Most voters are unpersuaded by the Republican message that the Bush tax cuts were a resounding success that pumped the economy back to life. Worse, the key independent voters are actually repelled by that message.
“It crashes like the Hindenburg,” says Richard Thau, who has been monitoring swing voter sentiments across the nation. Why? Because politicians who boast about the rosy economy seem out of touch, even delusional, given the rising costs of gasoline, health insurance and college tuition.
The reality, of course, is that the investment tax cuts did help create seven million jobs and did steer the economy out of recession. That doesn’t matter to these “stressed out” voters, as Mr. Thau calls them. The Bush tax cuts are a bridge to the past, not the future, to borrow a Clintonite term. Moreover, because local property and school taxes have been skyrocketing, many independent voters scratch their heads and wonder: What tax cuts?
There is more deflating news.
Unlike in the 1980s and ’90s, voters are today less attracted to talk of new tax cuts, which they think are pie-in-the-sky, given the current war costs and budget-deficit. Nor are they averse to raising taxes on “the wealthy,” a group they are persuaded is taking advantage of tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share.
That the richest 10% already pay two-thirds of the income taxes isn’t well understood. One strong defense mechanism against the left’s class warfare tax policy is that roughly half of voters are convinced that when politicians say they are only going to soak the rich, they fear their own tax bills will go up.
There is another silver lining for the GOP: The Democrat’s tax-happy policies are an even less palatable message to voters.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, who has sat in the GOP tax strategy sessions tells me that “an overriding concern of economically anxious voters today is that they don’t see their own taxes rise.”
Pollster David Winston, who’s been testing the tax issue for Republicans, agrees with that assessment. When Mr. Winston asked a national sample of registered voters last month, “Do you believe or not believe this statement: Given the cost of living these days, now is not the time to raise taxes,” 65% believe now isn’t the time to raise taxes, while only 31% believe it is.
There is another GOP imperative: The anti-tax message must be linked to wasteful government spending.
“There’s no question that for seven out of 10 American voters, wasteful government spending is one of the largest problems in Washington,” says pollster Tony Fabrizio. “For many of these voters it’s a bigger issue than taxes.”
All of the polling consistently finds that voters believe about 40 cents of every dollar spent by Washington is wasted. So this widespread aversion to the way government mishandles money may be the best shield against tax hikes — at all levels of government.In Mr. Winston’s survey, 75% of respondents agreed that, “Taxes should not be increased as long as Congress continues to waste the tax money it already receives.” Only 23% did not.

Perhaps the most encouraging poll finding is that Americans fully understand the link between a strong economy and deficits. In 2006 federal revenues increased by a world record $250 billion, because of surging employment, corporate profits, and stock values. No Hillary Clinton tax hike could have possibly raised that kind of money.

This is a nation that instinctively gets the supply-side message that putting people to work yields more tax revenues than a strategy of weighing down businesses and workers with tax hikes, which explains this stunning finding: When Mr. Winston’s poll asked, “Which approach is more likely to increase federal revenues?” 81% said “increasing economic growth” while only 13% said “increasing taxes.”
So the tax issue is still radioactive with most voters, and the GOP would be foolhardy to run and hide from it.
That’s especially true because if the economy slows down in the coming months due to the housing credit crunch, aversion to higher taxes is likely to intensify.
“Voters’ biggest economic concern is whether they will have enough money to meet their own needs,” says Sen. Kyl. He says that if Republicans are going to win in 2008, they have to persuade voters that Democratic tax hikes “will make things worse” for the economy and their own personal finances.
Fortunately, this message has the added attraction that it’s not just pollster-driven spin. It’s the truth.
Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

Councilman: "It's a taxation plan, not a congestion plan"

Posted on by

See Councilman Jeff Mills of Sunset Valley on YouTube here telling the Board these toll roads are about raising revenue, not solving congestion.

Last night in Austin, the Capitol Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Board voted to convert 4 more FREEways into tollways (and build one new toll road) using $910 million in YOUR gas taxes. The public was against it 4 to 1! We no longer have representative government and Councilman Mills’ speech on this above YouTube link proves this is about taxation, not congestion relief.

Article in Austin American Statesman here.

Charge by mile scheme….this time floated in Boston.

Posted on by

Link to article here.

Tolling the open road
Massachusetts considers charging by the mile for highway drivers
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff | October 7, 2007

The monthly invoice could look something like an electricity bill or a cellphone statement. But instead of kilowatt hours or roaming minutes, it would itemize how many miles you drive – with surcharges for traveling during peak hours, premiums for using so-called Lexus lanes that bypass rush-hour snarls, and discounts for sitting through traffic jams.

The free and open road, regarded by many Americans as a birthright, could become a relic under a plan being discussed in Massachusetts and in several other states, transforming highway use from a service available to all into a utility paid for on a per-mile basis.

This philosophical shift is the cornerstone of a landmark report, released last month by the Commonwealth’s Transportation Finance Commission, which was tasked with finding the estimated $15 billion to $19 billion needed to fix the state’s crumbling roads and bridges over the next two decades.

Under the commission’s plan, a 5-cents-per-mile fee on major roads would replace, or minimize, gas taxes and fundamentally change a central aspect of everyday life.

“The idea that this is completely free is a fiction. It isn’t,” said James Aloisi Jr., a lawyer who served on the commission and a transportation official under former governor Michael Dukakis. “Someone’s got to pay for it. We think the user should pay for it.”

But early signs show that regular drivers may find the notion of a fully-tolled highway system harder to fathom.

“The taxpayers pay taxes to build the roads, we pay tolls to use the roads, and now they want to hit the taxpayers again,” said Phyllis Lachman, 67, of Concord.

State Senator Steven A. Baddour, a Methuen Democrat and cochairman of the Legislature’s transportation committee, said turning roads and bridges into a utility and adding more tolls “is too big of a stretch.”

“People don’t see it that way,” he said. “You can’t just put it in a report and expect people to buy it.”

The technology that allows per-mile pricing is being used around the country, in bits and pieces, though no state has begun tolling all major roads. Oregon has come the closest, with a pilot program that equips volunteer drivers with global positioning devices in their cars. They pay by the mile and are exempt from gas taxes.

British drivers famously pay a flat fee equivalent to about $16 to drive into central London. If they fail to pay in advance, a security camera will shoot a picture of their license plates and automatically send them a ticket. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York is pushing for a similar approach in his city.

More commonly, several states are using transponders, the same ones Massachusetts drivers use for the Fast Lane program, to create premium lanes on major highway systems that set pricing based on supply and demand. Those willing to pay hefty tolls get home the fastest.

Drivers on an 8-mile stretch of Interstate 15 in San Diego pay $1 to $4 to use the carpool lane (carpoolers and buses still ride free). Digital signs display toll prices that change throughout the day based on traffic volume. An express lane on State Road 91 in Southern California costs as much as $9.50 for a 10-mile drive during peak hours.

The price of using the lanes rises during rush hour so that drivers willing to pay more get a faster commute. At first, critics derided the roads as “Lexus lanes” because it was believed only the rich could afford to use them.

But researchers have found popularity cuts across class lines. Parents desperate to avoid a late fee from a day-care center or workers about to get fired for tardiness do the math and decide that a pricey ride can bail them out in a pinch. San Diego is expanding its program.

“That’s the most free-market way of doing things in transportation that we have,” said Martin Wachs, director of transportation, space, and technology for the Rand Corporation.

To Wachs, these lanes illustrate the broader choice drivers have. They pay for faster-moving, higher-quality roads through user fees or they pay by sitting in traffic on patchy, slow roads.

“You don’t pay the same price for a hamburger as a steak,” he said.

The Bush administration has embraced the theory as well. Last month, US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters awarded grants worth $848 million to Miami, Minneapolis, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle to fight gridlock with strategies that include high-priced rush hour lanes.

The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority has been studying cameras that record license plate numbers, so that motorists who drive through toll booths without a Fast Lane transponder get a bill.

The authority is also looking at Fast Lane equipment that lets motorists drive through toll booths at highway speeds rather than slowing to 15 miles per hour.

The technology, in place elsewhere, would give the Turnpike Authority more options to set aside carpool lanes for fast travel.

Or the authority could charge higher tolls on regular lanes during rush hour. That might reduce congestion by persuading commuters with flexible schedules to avoid rush hour.

In most cases, traffic planners choose to build new lanes or convert carpool lanes into Lexus lanes instead of charging everyone. A more dramatic change, charging for basic roads that are now toll-free, may prove a larger hurdle. The federal government forbids charging on interstate highways, meaning the discussion to change would have to take place on a national level. And any system that requires all drivers to log their travel would raise privacy concerns. Proponents say there are ways to overcome the concerns – including systems that let drivers register for anonymous accounts or keep their digital driving logs stored in their cars.

But unless those concerns are allayed, many politicians say they will not support turning roads into utilities.

Voters “simply don’t want Big Brother,” said Representative David Paul Linsky, Democrat of Natick. “I want to see a specific proposal.”

Nonetheless, the market approach has attracted support from the political left and right. Environmentalists say letting drivers see the true cost of using the roads will discourage congestion and persuade more commuters to use public transportation or to carpool. On the other hand, free market libertarians see an opportunity to reduce taxes and involve private companies in building, maintaining, and controlling roads.

“We use economic markets for electricity, for telephones, for food, for water . . . the question is why roads should be excluded,” said Gabriel Roth, a research fellow at the Independent Institute and editor of the book “Street Smart.”

The American Automobile Association, a powerful consumer lobby, has traditionally opposed adding tolls. Art Kinsman, director of government affairs for Southern New England, said he will poll his 2 million members. But if drivers are expected to treat roads as a utility, they will need to see better services. Now, many accept it may take a few months to fix a pothole. If drivers pay by the mile, they’ll demand to know, “are they going to come out and fix it tomorrow?” Kinsman said.

Beyond that, motorists need confidence that the money will be going to improve the transportation network, Kinsman said.

“There needs to be some trust restored with the public,” he said. “I think it’s a tremendous shift in how people view roads.”

City to install surveillance cameras for "crime prevention," but admits it's to "monitor" highways

Posted on by

Link to article here. Note the section that reveals the REAL REASON the city wants these surveillance cameras is to monitor traffic on Hwy 40 to check license plates and registrations. How can this be legal? Government should not have the authority to do random checks on law-abiding citizens. This authority should only be used if the driver is committing a crime. Note the Mayor’s cavalier attitude toward BIG DADDY GOVERNMENT and a surveillance society…everyone does it, so why shouldn’t the city make a little money off of monitoring its citizens by fishing for minor infractions like lapsed registrations rather than apprehending violent criminals and using our resources to retrofit crumbling bridges and streets (read about how a San Diego street collapsed engulfing 6 homes)?

City passes camera law
Aberdeen agencies may now require surveillance devices in developments
By Madison Park
Sun Reporter
October 7, 2007

Hoping to deter crime by expanding the use of surveillance cameras, Aberdeen passed a measure that empowers the city government and police to require cameras in new developments.

The Police Department, the Department of Planning and Community Development, and the Department of Public Works will decide whether a new residential, commercial or industrial development must install cameras at “strategic locations” before a development permit is issued.

The City Council passed the measure, which becomes effective next week, by a 4-1 vote.

Cameras installed at new developments will be connected to a watch room at the police station, Mayor S. Fred Simmons said.

Simmons said the police chief will work with the other departments to study the feasibility of installation and check whether a camera is “wanted and necessary” at new developments.

But the ordinance does not spell out guidelines for determining whether a new development will be required to have cameras, which concerned the lone dissenter on the council vote, Ruth Elliott.

“We have no internal procedures or policies on this,” Elliott said. “It is vague, and you can read in between the lines.”

Though crime is decreasing in Aberdeen, the city is seeking to prevent crime by expanding the camera program, Simmons said. The city installed cameras this year at two troubled intersections: one on Edmund and Washington streets and the other on East Bel Air and Aberdeen avenues.

The cameras can zoom in, rotate 360 degrees, and are monitored from the city’s police station. Footage from the cameras has been used to prosecute drug cases.

“The cameras are going to see what the police officers are going to see,” Simmons said. “It’s another set of eyes. That’s all.”

Surveillance cameras are a familiar sight in larger cities such as New York and Chicago. In Baltimore, a network of about 400 surveillance cameras is in use. And smaller Maryland towns, including Preston and Ridgely in Caroline County, use surveillance cameras. The Harford County Sheriff’s Office has been looking into bringing cameras to Edgewood.

Law enforcement officials have credited the cameras with providing information about suspects such as descriptions and license plate numbers.

Simmons said he is interested in expanding the camera program in Aberdeen to monitor traffic on U.S. 40, using cameras that can read license plate numbers and run them through a computer database to check whether a car is stolen or the registration is expired.

“You can’t go to a supermarket, the ATM, or a drugstore without being camera’ed,” Simmons said. “They’re all camera’ed. … Look up and there’s three or four white cameras capturing everything on the state highway. We live in that age.”

Elliott voiced discomfort with that notion.

“I don’t care to have cameras everywhere in the city,” the councilwoman said. “I’m supportive of having cameras in areas where there are problems.”

Elliott said the ordinance doesn’t protect average residents.

“Whatever that’s caught on camera, that may not be of a criminal aspect, just a personal thing could be used depending on who is looking at those tapes,” she said. “That info could be released to the wrong people – that’s why we need tighter procedures and policies.”

Elliott expressed concern that the two-sentence ordinance gives broad authority to the city without laying out parameters about how the city will determine whether a development should have cameras.

But Simmons said, “The reason why it’s left open is that the whole landscape changes all the time.”

Melissa Ngo, senior counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, also questioned an ordinance that lacked guidelines on determining where cameras would be required.

“How are they going to decide?” said Ngo, whose Washington-based organization studies civil liberty and privacy issues. “If this is going to be low-income development, are they going to watch over the poor people? If this is going to be fancy condos, are they going to decide that they don’t need to look over those people?”

Corsi: Bush could elect Hillary over the Trans Texas Corridor

Posted on by

Link to article here.

Corsi: Bush could elect Hillary
Says GOP risks loss by ridiculing questions about ‘North American Union’

Posted: September 22, 2007 © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Speaking yesterday in St. Louis at Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Council meeting, WND staff reporter Jerome Corsi predicted the Republican Party risks losing the 2008 presidential election and two-thirds of the House and the Senate if President Bush continues to ridicule questions about a possible North American Union as “conspiracy theories” while continuing to press an active integration with Mexico and Canada in the remaining months of his second term.

Calling Karl Rove the architect not only of the Republican electoral victory in 2004 but also of the Republican electoral defeat in 2006, Corsi told the group the main issue was immigration.

“Yes, the war in Iraq was an issue in 2006,” Corsi acknowledged, “but even Richard Nixon won a landslide in 1972 despite the growing unpopularity of the Vietnam War. The Democrats will lose any time they run a far-left anti-war electoral campaign.”

C-span’s Book-TV recorded Corsi’s presentation for later broadcast.

Corsi asserted in 2006 “grassroots Americans voted against open borders and illegal immigration, whether Karl Rove or the Republican National Party want to admit it, or not.”

“Every time President Bush pushes to have Mexican trucks cross our borders, the American grassroots feel betrayed,” Corsi told the group.

“George Bush can put Hillary Clinton in the White House,” Corsi said, “and all he has to do is keep ridiculing the idea of a North American Union or NAFTA superhighways, instead of answering the question directly.”

Corsi contended the Bush administration is not listening to the American people, “not even when the House and the Senate vote overwhelmingly in bi-partisan majorities to take the funds for the Mexican trucking demonstration project as a last ditch effort to stop the Department of Transportation from letting unsafe Mexican trucks from rolling across the borders.” A main thesis of Corsi’s current WND-published New York Times bestselling book, “The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada,” is the Security and Prosperity Partnership has created a bureaucratic trilateral working group structure that is creating the infrastructure for a European Union-style North American Union and the construction of a NAFTA superhighway network.

“We are six years into the war on terror, yet President Bush has still failed to secure our borders with Mexico and Canada. Why is that?” Corsi asked. “The American public demands an explanation, especially when Hezbollah terrorists who bought their way into the U.S. by bribing Mexican officials are now in federal prison for sending money back to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.”

The explanation, Corsi argued, is that Bush opened U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada when he agreed to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, at a summit meeting with Mexico’s then-president, Vicente Fox, and Canada’s then-prime minister, Paul Martin, at Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.

“The Bush administration admits there are 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States,” Corsi noted. “The real number is probably 20 million or more. But the question is why is one of every 10 people born in Mexico living in the United States as a Mexican national today?”

By 2010, Corsi said, 20 percent of Mexico’s population would be living in the U.S. under the Mexican flag.

“Now there are 47 Mexican consulate offices in the U.S. dedicated to protecting the civil rights of these Mexican citizens living in our country,” Corsi told the group. “We have already become a dual country, and I don’t remember ever voting to allow that to happen.”

Corsi rebutted the argument that the U.S. could not evolve incrementally into a North American Union without the U.S. Constitution being amended.

“In Europe, the intellectual elite and the multi-national corporations who advanced the European integration agenda proceeded by the incremental method,” Corsi answered.

“The same is happening here,” he explained. “First, President Bush allows our borders to be open and a fait accompli just happens. An increasing proportion of Mexico’s population begins living in the United States, without any requirement that they become U.S. citizens, and our elected politicians do nothing to stop it.”

“Then President Bush comes to the Senate, now twice, and argues that 12 million illegal immigrants cannot be rounded up and deported,” Corsi continued. “The only solution President Bush offers is to pass ‘comprehensive immigration reform,’ which is nothing more than a code name for an amnesty that one way or another legitimates the illegal aliens remaining here.

“That’s how the incremental method is meant to work,” Corsi said. “By the time the people get to vote, the fact of North American integration will be already accomplished to the point where a vote will not be sufficient to reverse the fait accompli or to preserve our sovereignty without important compromises on the way to becoming a regional government.”

Corsi also addressed the Bush administration attempt to ridicule the idea that new NAFTA superhighway systems are being built, with the plan to import millions of containers from China into the U.S. through Mexican ports, with Mexican dock workers, Mexican truck drivers and Mexican train workers being used to reduce the costs of transporting the containers into the U.S. heartland.

“President Bush can ridicule and call names all he wants,” Corsi said, “but dozens of government websites document the effort of the Bush administration to advance public-private partnerships where foreign investment concerns build and operate new toll roads in the United States.”

Corsi point out that just by going to websites such as KeepTexasMoving.com anyone can navigate to the Trans-Texas Corridor and see the Texas Department of Transportation documenting the new four-football-fields wide superhighway that Cintra, an investment consortium in Spain, plans to build parallel to Interstate 35.

“Already the investment bankers are talking to Oklahoma,” Corsi pointed out, “trying to convince the state politicians to offer the billions Cintra is offering to extend TTC-35 north. What’s Oklahoma going to do? Just let the four-football-fields TTC-35 superhighway end at the Oklahoma border? I don’t think so.”

Corsi also noted the general counsel of the Federal Highway Administration wrote letters threatening to withdraw federal highway funds from Texas if the Texas legislature should succeed in voting a stop to the TTC project.

“With that type of heavy-arm pressure being placed on Texas,” Corsi asked, “can anyone reasonably doubt that the Bush administration is as determined to see the TTC project be built as they are to see Mexican trucks cross the border before Bush has to leave office?”

Corsi asserted that in 2008, Republican Party candidates are going to have to distance themselves from President Bush, promising to secure the nation’s borders and oppose any move to establish a North American Union or to build NAFTA superhighways.

“Simply denying that North American integration has occurred, as a below-the-radar-strategy, will not be credible enough to win,” he said.

“Truly, the Democratic Party candidates are no more direct or reassuring on these issues,” Corsi admitted. “Democrats are conflicted on these issues, many openly supporting illegal immigrants in the view that the Democratic Party can guarantee decades of electoral success simply by championing illegal immigrants as the next generation of downtrodden who will look to Democrats for social welfare benefits and generous opportunities to achieve citizenship.”

The problem, Corsi said, is that grassroots American voters, “even in the red states are angry at Bush over these issues.”

“Unless Republican candidates in 2008 address issues of border security, globalism, the North American Union and NAFTA superhighway directly, people are going to vote against Republicans, even if they regret having to vote for Democrats as a consequence,” he said.

TxDOT's "funding shortfall" claim falling on deaf ears

Posted on by

TxDOT funding gripes get cool reception
by Christine DeLoma
Lone Star Report
October 2, 2007

As lawmakers take a deeper look at the implications of leasing state roads to private contractors, state transportation officials are fighting back – warning lawmakers there will soon be a shortage of funds for transportation projects.

It’s a showdown over the private toll road moratorium.

No more money? Transportation Commission chairman Ric Williamson sounded the alarm at the Sept. 27 commission meeting, saying the private toll road moratorium, along with rising highway costs and federal grant cuts, may cause the agency to scale back its plan to build new roads throughout the state.

The warning is nothing new. Williamson has talked in the same vein for several months. Now, deep-seated mistrust between many lawmakers and the agency is causing the alarm to fall on deaf ears.

Rep. Joe Pickett (D-El Paso), for example, who attended the meeting, was quoted in the Austin American-Statesman as saying, “[I]t’s always gloom-and-doom” with the Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

Williamson has repeatedly criticized the Legislature for taking away the agency’s primary tool in raising funds to build new roads, the use of comprehensive development agreements (CDA’s) with private developers.

Lawmakers had a variety of concerns over the length of contract agreements, the setting of toll rates, the inclusion of non-compete clauses, and the buy-back provisions. Accordingly, legislators voted for a two-year moratorium (with several exceptions for urban areas) on CDA’s.

Study committee excludes Krusee. During the private toll road moratorium, lawmakers will study the use of CDA’s in building private toll roads. Speaker Tom Craddick on Sept. 27 named three members to the Legislative Study Committee on Private Participation in Toll Projects.

“This session, the issue of toll roads built with private equity became a matter of much concern among the Legislature and the general public,” Craddick said. “It is my hope that this committee will come up with substantive recommendations so that we can resolve conflicts on this issue.”

Craddick named the following members: Reps. Aaron Peña (D-Edinburg), Larry Phillips (R-Sherman) and Wayne Smith (R-Baytown). Missing from the committee is the primary defender of CDA’s, Transportation chairman Mike Krusee (R-Round Rock). Lt. Gov. David Dewhust and Gov. Rick Perry have yet to make their appointments.

Court says TxDOT advertising OK
Toll road opponents were rebuffed this week in their efforts to stop TxDOT’s campaign extolling the virtues of toll roads in Texas.

State Dist. Judge Orlinda Naranjo denied San Antonio Toll Party Terri Hall’s request for a temporary injunction on TxDOT’s $9 million “Keep Texas Moving” advertising campaign. Naranjo said the Legislature gave TxDOT the legal authority to promote its activities throughout the state.

TxDOT is using taxpayer funds to promote the use of toll roads and the controversial Trans-Texas Corridor through a multi-media campaign using radio, TV, print, and Internet to solve the state’s traffic congestion problems.

At an expected second hearing next week the state Attorney General’s office is predicted to move for dismissal. Hall and her lawyers will allege that TxDOT, contrary to state law, advanced a political rather than an educational campaign.

Paxton asks for interim charge
Meanwhile, Rep. Ken Paxton (R-McKinney) has requested that the Speaker issue an interim charge for the Legislature to study taxpayer lobbying.

“The Texas Department of Transportation has recently been called into question for spending taxpayer money promoting the Trans Texas Corridor and other projects,” Paxton said. “While I appreciate the Department’s efforts to share with the public information regarding its initiatives, I believe the Legislature has a responsibility to ensure that state resources are spent efficiently. For this reason, I have requested an interim charge to research the use of public money for advertising government programs, as I believe the government should not spend the money raised from taxpayers to lobby the public.”

Tolling existing interstates?
When lawmakers learned TxDOT was lobbying Congress for the authority to buy a portion of our federal highways in order to put toll plazas on them, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison quickly crafted an amendment to ban the idea outright.

However, as with most legislative wrangling, the content of the legislation has changed. Hutchison has teamed up with Pennsylvania Rep. John E. Peterson to help secure the provision to the Fiscal Year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bill. The most recent iteration of the ban now would allow states to opt-in to a one-year ban on tolling existing interstate highways.

The other major change to her proposal: Individual states would be allowed to toll newly constructed roads or lanes.

Hutchison said she will work for a national prohibition on tolling existing federal highways in 2009.

Currency "cold war" with China

Posted on by

Link to article here. Trade and transporting the influx of Asian goods into the U.S. via Mexico is the primary reason for the Trans Texas Corridor. Considering our massive $230 billion trade deficit with China alone, it’s not hard to fathom that these failed trade policies and the rapidly declining U.S. dollar will quickly bring America to its knees economically. Trade has now become a national security issue.

Are Iran, Russia, China behind dollar’s free-fall?
Some see ‘Currency Cold War’ meant to bring U.S. to its knees
October 2, 2007
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – The hottest selling book in China right now is called “Currency Wars,” which makes the case that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a puppet of the Rothschilds banking dynasty and it has persuaded some top officials Beijing should resist America’s demands to appreciate its own undervalued currency, the yuan.

This might not be news of concern to most Americans if the U.S. dollar were not in precipitous free-fall, having reached record lows against the euro yesterday.

What would it mean if China ever threw its economic weight around by dumping dollars in a major way?

Suffice it to say it is referred to in some quarters as China’s financial “nuclear option,” because it would be the economic equivalent of detonating a thermonuclear weapon in the world’s financial markets.

But the American dollar’s fate is hardly in the hands of the Chinese alone. Other foreign parties suspected of participating in a new “Currency Cold War” are Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

Diane Francis, a financial reporter for the National Post in Canada, says it plainly and boldly: “There is a Currency Cold War being waged by Russia, Iran and various allies such as Venezuela.”

The grand strategy being engineered by Vladimir Putin, she writes, is to force the use of euros as the international monetary standard as a transition to the Russian ruble.

“This is simply a monetary version of the old Cold War, minus the missiles,” she writes.

Experts don’t see any short-term reprieve for the falling value of the dollar. Kathy Lien, chief currency strategist with DailyFX.com in the US, told Bloomberg she expects the American dollar to slide even further, forcing more lending rates cuts in the U.S. to stave off recession.

“It seems like every single passing day we have a new record low in the dollar, and a new record high in the euro, and it’s driven by the fact that U.S. data is continuing to deteriorate,” she said.

If other nations do not follow the U.S. in cutting rates, the slide in the value of the dollar would most likely continue.

If the dollar trend continues spiraling downward, the risk is that nations like China – or Japan or Saudi Arabia – which have been buying U.S. Treasury bonds and thereby funding America’s deficit, would stop that practice.

That would be the nuclear option.

China, with $1.3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves as a result of the massive and growing $260 billion U.S. trade deficit, has taken huge losses with the falling dollar, given that some 80 percent of China’s $1.3 trillion in foreign reserves is held in U.S. dollar assets, largely in U.S. treasury securities.

Meanwhile, Song Hongbing, the author of China’s runaway bestseller, “The Currency Wars,” says he’s pleasantly surprised at the 200,000 copies his book has sold. He is probably not eager to see the dollar punished as he lives in Washington, D.C.

“I never imagined it could be so hot and that top leaders would be reading it,” he says during a book tour in Shanghai. “People in China are nervous about what’s going on in financial markets, but they don’t know how to handle the real dangers. This book gives them some ideas.”

Among the research findings that shocked him most was that the Fed is a privately owned and run bank.

“I just never imagined a central bank could be a private body.”

Some, meanwhile, are standing on the sidelines cheering the currency wars – seeing them as a way of reducing the power and influence of the “imperialistic” U.S.

Rohini Hensman, who describes himself as “independent scholar, writer and activist based in India and Sri Lanka,” says it’s about time the U.S. got its comeuppance.

“As the bombs started falling on Iraq in 2003, I wrote and circulated an appeal entitled ‘Boycott the Dollar to Stop the War!,’ arguing that although the military strength of the U.S. was enormous, its economy was in a mess; with a massive gross national debt, the only reason it could finance its foreign wars and occupations was because of the inflow of over a billion dollars a day from countries accumulating foreign exchange reserves in dollars because it was the world’s sole reserve currency. The denomination of the oil trade in dollars made it additionally desirable. With the advent of the euro, however, there was the possibility of an alternative world currency; therefore individuals, institutions and countries opposed to the war on Iraq should refuse to accumulate dollars or use them outside the U.S., because these were activities that helped to finance U.S.-Israeli aggression against Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghanis. After the World Social Forum meeting in 2004, the Boycott Bush Campaign adopted the dollar boycott as part of its strategy.”

In early trading today, the dollar advanced slightly, prompting gold prices back from 28-year highs set yesterday. The dollar’s value against a basket of six major currencies rose slightly to 77.950 from a lifetime low of 77.657 a day earlier. The dollar traded at $1.4223 per euro, stronger than a record low on Monday of $1.4283.

WND has reported the Federal Reserve is in a dilemma.

The stock market has demanded rate cuts, wanting to return to the free credit policies of the Federal Reserve that fueled the liquidity bubble that has boosted home prices and pumped the Dow Jones Industrial Average since 9/11.

Yet, the Fed giving in to stock market demands and lowering rates threatens an international dollar sell-off that could lead to a dollar collapse.

Former Fed Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan also sparked controversy by suggesting in his recently published book, “The Age of Turbulence,” the euro is rivaling the dollar as the international foreign exchange reserve currency of choice.

The Wall Street Journal recently quoted a rule of thumb advanced by Harvard University economist Kenneth Rogoff, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. According to Rogoff’s “back-of-the-envelope” calculation, a 20 percent drop in the dollar’s exchange value reduces Americans’ income by 3 percent, adjusted by inflation.