Category: Why Foreign Companies?

Despite law that forbids it, TxDOT still looking to give 1604 toll project to foreign companies

Posted on by

Link to article here. The article mentions SB 792, the private toll moratorium bill that KILLED the 281/1604 private toll deal. But true to form, TxDOT is breaking the law and pursuing foreign control of 1604 toll lanes anyway. The article also notes that up to nearly $200 million in GAS TAXES may subsidize the toll lanes, making the tolling of these existing corridors a TRIPLE TAX (we’ve paid a tax for what’s already built, our tax money will be used to build the improvements, and then a lifetime TOLL TAX on top of that)!

Three to bid on U.S. 281 toll road project
10/24/2007
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News

Three private groups are now in the hunt to build U.S. 281 toll lanes, but two big foreign companies competing just a short while ago to build and lease a larger toll network here have dropped out.The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority board voted Wednesday to let all three teams submit plans to rebuild U.S. 281 north of Loop 1604 into a tollway with free access roads by 2012. It’s the fledging agency’s first project.

“Goodness knows we have been two and a half years getting here,” board member Bob Thompson said. “Maybe it’s even more important to see the confidence of these three large companies. It adds some credibility, it adds some stature to what we’re trying to do.”

The three teams include 29 construction, engineering and public affairs companies.

Fluor Enterprises Inc. of Irving and Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc. of Atlanta lead the Cibolo Creek Infrastructure team. Both joined to develop the Texas 130 toll road east of Austin.

Zachry Construction Corp. of San Antonio and Texas Sterling Construction Co. of Houston lead the other teams.

Zachry joined with Cintra of Spain to produce a plan for Trans-Texas Corridor toll lanes and rail lines that would parallel Interstate 35, and in 2005 offered to build and lease a 47-mile toll network on U.S. 281 and Loop 1604 in San Antonio.

But Cintra isn’t part of the group angling to add U.S. 281 toll lanes now.

A tolling bill from last spring’s legislative session busted plans for the San Antonio network by banning privatization of U.S. 281 toll lanes.

Now Texas Department of Transportation officials say they’re working with Cintra and Zachry, as well as the other international bidder, Macquarie of Australia, to see if privatizing Loop 1604 toll lanes would make financial sense without U.S. 281 in the package.

Mobility Authority officials, saying they want to keep toll rates “reasonable,” want to develop Loop 1604 toll lanes without leasing them and losing some of the profits.

On the U.S. 281 tollway, motorists would pay 17 cents a mile at the start, with fees rising 2.75 percent a year until 2017 and then 3 percent annually after that, under a plan the authority board approved Wednesday.

The toll lanes would go from Loop 1604 to Marshall Road or Comal County, depending on whether regional planners allocate $69 million or $112 million in state funds to subsidize the project. Another $80 million subsidy could be needed for five interchange connectors at Loop 1604.

“There isn’t surplus revenue in the case of 281,” authority Director Terry Brechtel said.

The latest estimates for the U.S. 281 tollway — in 2006 dollars — are $426 million for construction and $220 million for upkeep over 40 years.

On Monday, Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom filed a lawsuit to challenge the makeup and procedures of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which oversees federal transportation dollars and is set to approve U.S. 281 toll rates in December.

The lawsuit, which claims that discussion and debate are being shut down, seeks to remove nonelected officials from the planning board.

Toll road advocates call the lawsuit frivolous.

Wolff: Toll Opponents "Crazy," "Dangerous"

Posted on by

Link to story here. The pro-tollers have come unhinged! Look who can’t win on the arguments and feels the need to drag a political debate into the mud and muck with name calling…Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff. First, we’re called PIGS now “crazy” and “dangerous.”

Here’s what’s crazy:
-Charging us over and over again for what’s already built and paid for.
-Taking our gas tax plan for overpasses on 281 that’s been funded since 2003 and turning it into a cash cow, targeted, DOUBLE tax toll scheme.
-The Legislature stealing $10 billion from our gas taxes and later saying there’s no money for roads.
-Twice passing a Bexar County Commissioners Court Resolution AGAINST TOLLING EXISTING ROADS and then allowing them to toll existing corridors all over Bexar County.
-Exploding the cost of transportation at a time with record high gas prices which will further hurt the economy and the County’s sales tax and property tax base.

Here’s what’s dangerous:
-Throwing up stop lights, orange cones, and cement barriers all over the county causing hazardous road conditions, delays, and accidents.
-Allowing continued development in Northern Bexar County without keeping up with road capacity which ensured the intersection of 281 and 1604 would sit atop the city’s “Top 10 Crash Locations” list, where it has stayed since 2004.
-Refusing to install the overpass at a DANGEROUS intersection, 281/Borgfeld, where people have DIED when they’ve had the money to do it since 2003!

Apparently our elected officials are finally taking notice of the public outcry, but it’s clear they haven’t gotten the message. We don’t want or need toll roads…stop raiding our gas taxes, stop spending our money on illegal ad campaigns and hidden cameras in orange barrels, install the overpasses that are already paid for, index the gas tax, and be done with it.

Wolff: Toll Opponents “Crazy,” “Dangerous”
Judge rips into toll critics in ‘State of the County’ speech
By Jim Forsyth, WOAI
October 25, 2007

Bexar County Judge Nelson W. Wolff used his State of the County address today to tear into opponents of toll roads in Bexar County, saying they are ‘crazy’ and ‘dangerous’ and suggesting once that if he ‘named the other members of Commissioner’s Court who support toll roads it might endanger their lives.’

Wolff said toll roads are ‘the right way,’ and he urged the Chamber of Commerce audience to cheer Metropolitan Planning Organization Chair Sheila McNeil, who was sued along with the MPO this week by toll road opponents who claim that the organization is illegally pushing for toll roads.

“We have some people who have had to take a lot of heat,” Wolff said. “One of them is Sheila McNeil who is the head of the MPO. Sheila, stand up. We owe you a round of applause for taking the heat from these crazy people who are jamming it down your throat every day!”

Wolff has been a long time supporter of toll roads, and he has mentioned the importance of building toll roads in his previous two State of the County speeches. But the vehemence of his denunciation of toll road opponents surprised some in his generally pro toll audience. Wolff didn’t mention by name which toll road opponents he thinks are ‘crazy’ or ‘dangerous’ but he did cite an incident following a meeting to discuss toll roads.

“We had an incident not too long ago, where the anti toll road people were here and sort of jumped (Regional Mobility Authority Chairman) Bill Thornton and I in the parking lot. I tried to get away from him and he kept following me. I finally turned around and asked him to get away from me, and he said ‘give me your best shot.’ I called the deputy across the street, and he came over and kept him away from me. Let me tell you, they are dangerous people.”

“We’re barely holding on with a three two vote on Commissioners Court supporting this project,” Wolff said. “I won’t tell you who the other two commissioners are, I don’t want to endanger their lives.”

Lyle Larson and Tommy Adkisson are toll road opponents on Commissioner’s Court.

Then, Wolff suggested that residents should be grateful that toll roads are being built.

“The roads on the side will be free, the toll lanes will be in the middle, you don’t have to get onto the toll lane, you should be happy we’re building it, because there will be less traffic on the free lanes.”

Wolff said he opposes any concessions agreement which would allow “a company from ” to build the toll roads, a reference to the Cintra-Zachry partnership which has the contract to build 40 miles of the State Highway 130 toll road.

“TexDOT wants to give it (the US 281 toll lane construction contract) to a company from Spain,” Wolff said. “We prefer that the public be involved. We need to stick with the public sector, we need to keep the tolls as low as possible, and allow that money to stay right here and not go someplace else, whether it be or someplace else in

Elsewhere in his State of the County speech, Wolff said he anticipates suggestions on an estimated $300 million dollar venue tax renewal proposal to be submitted to Commissioners Court by December, and a vote could be called on the issue next spring. He says officials are considering four potential uses for the venue tax money. Sports complexes, including facilities at UTSA, which could be built inside the existing Municipal Auditorium, expansion of the Riverwalk south and north, and improvements to the AT&T Center.

TxDOT to lower speed on I-35 to force more traffic on SH 130 TOLL ROAD

Posted on by

Link to article here. And who will get this toll revenue? Cintra, a Spanish company, and its minority partner, Zachry. So a PUBLIC agency is expressly manipulating our interstate speeds to line the pockets of a private, foreign company!

Texas: Speed Limit May be Lowered to Boost Toll Revenue
Toll road contract in Texas allows state to lower speed limits on nearby interstate freeway to avoid paying penalties to a private company.
October 19, 2007

SH130 route mapThe Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has agreed to consider lowering the maximum speed limit on a stretch of interstate highway that competes with a planned toll road. Cintra-Zachary, a joint Spanish-US venture, paid TxDOT $1.3 billion for the right to collect tolls on 40-miles of State Highway 130 set for construction beginning in 2009. Although TxDOT suggested that free market competition was part of the goal of using a public-private partnerships to construct and operate roads, the contract it signed on March 22 to construct this portion of SH130 was specifically designed to limit the desirability of alternate, free routes.

“The compensation amount owing from TxDOT to Developer on account of the competing facility shall be equal to the loss of toll revenues, if any, attributable to the competing facility,” the contract states. (11.3.2.1)

The provision ensures no improvements can be made to nearby roads unless the agency issues payment to the Spanish-US private consortium with taxpayer funds. TxDOT can reduce the amount of compensation owed, however, if it agrees to increase toll revenue by imposing a “decrease in the maximum daytime posted speed limit for passenger vehicles on all or a substantial portion of I-35 where it runs generally parallel to the Facility.” This means that TxDOT can recover money generated by additional tolls as motorists abandon I-35 because of the lowered limit and increased congestion.

The net effect of the clause is to dissuade, without prohibiting, any improvements on competing roads. TxDOT has argued that it is strapped for cash and therefore has no alternative but to turn to private sector tolling to fund new roads. Future improvements to free lanes would become less likely when the agency must pay not only the cost of labor and materials, but a compensation to nearby toll road operators as well.

In the past, so-called “non-compete” language in tolling contracts resulted in a blanket prohibition on the construction of new roads or engineering improvements intended to ease congestion. Non-compete clauses raised public anger in the case of the SR91 Express Lanes in Orange County, California. More recent agreements have tended to focus on introducing “traffic calming” measures on competing roads intended to drive traffic off of pay roads and onto toll roads, as was seen last year in Sydney, Australia’s Cross City Tunnel (view parliamentary report on the tunnel).

TxDOT has also reserved the right to add contract language that would limit improvements to free roads near the planned Trans Texas Corridor toll road.

“The foregoing rights shall be subject to any covenant regarding competing facilities that may be entered into in connection with the development and operation of a Facility,” the agency’s TTC-35 Comprehensive Development Agreement states. (18.2)

Excerpts from the competition portion of the SH130 contract are available in a 351k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Facility Concession Agreement, SH130 Segments 5 and 6 (Texas Department of Transportation, 3/22/2007)

Perry endorses pro-Trans Texas Corridor Giuliani for President

Posted on by

The Trans Texas Corridor officially arrived on the national stage and square in the middle of presidential politics today with Texas Governor Rick Perry’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for President. With Giuliani being the extreme polar opposite of just about everything Perry claims to represent as a “conservative,” the only explanation for his cozy relationship with Giuliani is their common tie to Cintra and the Trans Texas Corridor. For a reminder of Giuliani’s ties to Cintra, read here. To read about how Perry is expected to be tapped as Giuliani’s Vice Presidential running mate, go here.

Given that Perry couldn’t even garner more than 39% of the vote in his last election and his betrayal of conservatives ever since (conducted an all out assault on border security, parental rights, private property rights, and keeping transportation taxes as low as possible when he flip flopped on the border, mandated the HPV vaccine for 10-11 year old girls, vetoed a bill to give protection from eminent domain abuse, and vetoed a private toll moratorium bill), does anyone honestly think Perry will help rather than hurt Giuliani and can anyone honestly call him a “conservative”? He’s about as conservative as Bush. They’re both more like advocates of state-run capitalism!

Perry endorses Giuliani for president
By Peggy Fikac
Express-News, Austin bureau
10/17/2007

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry this morning endorsed former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for president, saying on Fox News that he would campaign for the man he believes is best-suited to lead America during “probably one of the most important times in our history with a war on terror going on.

“For the last six months, I have cogitated, I’ve looked, I’ve studied these candidates — some of them I know very well — and came to the conclusion that the individual who can lead America with clarity, the individual who has the experience, the individual who cleaned up a city that was absolutely on its back is mayor Rudy Giuliani,” Perry said.

“I’m proudly and excitedly going to campaign for him and work for him,” Perry said, appearing on Fox & Friends for what was touted by the news channel as a “humongous Texas-sized announcement.”

Perry, who touts his record as a conservative, made a reference to a difference in views on some issues with Giuliani, who has backed the right to abortion and gay rights.

Perry has supported abortion restrictions — including a requirement for girls to get parental consent for abortion — and a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Texas. In a recent speech to California Republicans, Perry touted that record and said the GOP must stay true to its conservative values.

“We spent an inordinate amount of time together over the course of the last six weeks talking about issues, both on the phone and face to face,” Perry said of Giuliani. “I looked him in the eye and I asked him questions on some issues that we don’t agree on.”

But Perry, in a phrase he often uses, said, “I don’t get tied up with the process. What I look for is results.”

Citing his work cleaning up New York City, the GOP governor said Giuliani “is the individual who will give us the results that will make America safer, that will move our economy forward, that will put strict constructionists on the Supreme Court …”

Some have suggested Perry may be a possible contender for vice president, with his appeal to conservatives especially important if a candidate such as Giuliani is the nominee. Others scoff at that idea.

Some say the term of President Bush, the previous Texas governor, will make it difficult for the GOP to put another Texan on the ticket. Asked about that on Fox, Perry said with a chuckle, “I’ve got the best job in the work. Ask the president.”

When pressed, he said, “I have no interest in going to Washington, DC. It’s not a place that I have passion about. I’ve got three-plus years left in my term as the governor of a great state … whose economy is doing quite well and intend to do that and finish out that term.”

Canadians want referendum on North American Union

Posted on by

Canadians call for vote on SPP
Activists demand national referendum on ‘continental divide’

Posted: October 15, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern By Jerome R. Corsi
 © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Canadian activists are demanding Prime Minister Stephen Harper fulfill a promise and submit the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America to a national referendum for an up or down vote.

“The Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet in both Liberal and Conservative regimes support the unification of North America as witnessed by the fact of [former Prime Minister] Paul Martin and [current Prime Minister] Stephen Harper being signatories to the SPP process,” said Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party.
Fogal rejects the idea that the vote on SPP should be taken solely in the Canadian Parliament.

“A decision about the restructuring of Canada into an integrated North America is not a decision for parliament, but for the citizens of Canada,” Fogal says. “What every Parliamentarian should do is call for a no confidence vote on this issue to cease unification of Canada, the USA and Mexico, and then run a campaign on the life of Canada not its death.”

Maude Barlow, the National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, agrees.

“So far, only 30 CEOs from North America’s richest corporations, including Lockheed Martin, Bank of Nova Scotia, Chevron, Power Corporation and Merck, have had any meaningful input,” a news release on Barlow’s website proclaims. “Only they have been invited to annual closed-door meetings of SPP leaders and ministers, such as the one that took place in Montebello, Quebec, in August.”

As WND previously reported, the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, dominated the SPP closed-door meetings with the SPP trilateral working groups, the trilateral cabinet members in attendance and President Bush, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon, and Harper at the third annual SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, on Aug. 20-21.

WND has also reported the NACC is a shadowy council of 30 top North American multinational corporations self-appointed by the Chambers of Commerce in each of the three countries to constitute the sole outside advisory to the SPP.

The 30 companies composing the NACC are listed on a memo posted on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website.

In the United States, the companies on the NACC are:

  • Campbell Soup Company
  • Chevron Corporation
  • Ford Motor Corporation
  • FedEx Corporation
  • General Electric Company
  • General Motors Corporation
  • Kansas City Southern
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation
  • Merck & Co., Inc.
  • Mittal Steel USA
  • New York Life Insurance Company
  • Procter & Gamble
  • UPS
  • Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Whirlpool Corporation

No union leaders, public interest groups, environmental advocates or news media have ever attended the closed-door of the NACC with the SPP.

According to a document on the Commerce Department’s SPP website, the organization of the NACC was agreed upon by the three leaders on March 31, 2006.

“We are pleased to announce the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council,” the White House announced the same day.

“The Council will comprise members of the private sector from each country,” the White House said, “and will provide us recommendations on North American competitiveness, including, among others, areas such as automotive and transportation, steel, manufacturing, and services. The Council will meet annually with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis.”

On Sept. 25, Harper made a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York where he again endorsed SPP.

In a transcript archived on the CFR website, Harper referred to the NACC, saying: “At the North American summit that Canada hosted in Montebello last month, I was struck by the power of the message sent to us by the leaders from the American and Canadian private sectors.”

“They appealed to us to see the connection between security and prosperity,” Harper continued. “They told us that without the ‘and’ we won’t have either.”

The CFR website also has archived a video of Harper’s Sept. 25 remarks.

Express News: SECRET MEETING spurs citizens to get a briefing FIRST!

Posted on by

An Express News story touches on the SECRET MEETING for BIG business, but focuses more on the 281 toll rates.

Of course, the article doesn’t mention that we only pay 1-3 cents a mile in gas taxes and the national average for toll rates is 9 cents per mile. So 17 cents per mile is a BIG tax hike we’ll all pay, since trucks and businesses will pass on the toll costs to customers. AND let’s not forget that the improvements to 281 are ALREADY PAID FOR with gas taxes (see proof here and here) so WE DO NOT NEED TOLLS! We’ve been told it’s necessary to convert 281 into a tollway to accelerate improvements. They’ve had the gas tax money for the first 3 miles since 2003, for the rest of the fix to Borgfeld by 2004, and now as a toll road, it’ll cost 4 times the price and only get to Marshall Rd! It also fails to mention SAMCo is taxpayer funded and represents the HIGHWAY LOBBY, so don’t let the non-profit tag fool you!

The article states…
The authority will brief the nonprofit mobility coalition at a private meeting Friday at Valero Energy Corp. to strategize support for toll plans.

“We want everyone to have a chance to see this, to ask questions,” Boyer said. “We were on the ball and asked for it.”

When Hall heard about Boyer’s meeting, she called Reed to set up a presentation for toll critics, which will be held at 6 p.m. today at Chester’s Burgers at 16609 San Pedro Ave. She said she wants to know how much profit U.S. 281 toll lanes will generate.

“That’s the real crux of the matter,” she said. “That’ll be interesting.”
______________________________

17 cents will get you a mile

Web Posted: 10/16/2007 12:04 AM CDT

Patrick Driscoll
Express-News Noisy, anxious speculation over how much motorists will pay to use toll lanes on U.S. 281 has ended with a silent revelation.Barring legal action and a dramatic turnaround in the courts, drivers in two- and three-axle vehicles could pay 17 cents a mile when the first four miles of U.S. 281 toll lanes open in 2012, according to documents posted on the Web without fanfare Monday.

Rates might increase 2.75 percent a year through 2017 and then 3 percent annually after that, about as fast as consumer inflation has been rising.

The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, which will develop the U.S. 281 tollway, negotiated for months behind closed doors with the Texas Department of Transportation to set the toll rates and had carefully kept the numbers hushed.

But the local Metropolitan Planning Organization must sign off on the deal, and following its habit of releasing information before meetings, posted the proposed toll fees. The organization meets next Monday.

“There you go,” spokesman Scott Ericksen said. “It’s just our process.”

Now that the rates are out there, a furious long-running debate over toll roads will now shift to new ground.

“I’m just glad we’re finally getting down to the nitty-gritty,” said Jim Reed, a mobility authority board member.

Terri Hall, founder of San Antonio Toll Party and Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom, said the fees, while comparable to Houston and Dallas, are higher than some other states — a claim borne out by a recent state audit.

“Texans have to be asking themselves, ‘Why do we have to pay so much?'” she said.

Vic Boyer, director of the public-private San Antonio Mobility Coalition, said business and road industry officials are so far warm to the rates.

“I think they feel fairly comfortable with what they’ve seen,” he said.

Rebuilding U.S. 281 into a tolled expressway with nontoll frontage roads from Loop 1604 to Marshall Road is just a start for the mobility authority.

The agency hopes to use $258 million in public funds and sell bonds backed by decades of toll fees to add $1 billion worth of toll lanes to highways:

The first 4 miles of U.S. 281 — which officials say will cost $200 million, a third more than estimates earlier this year. Construction starts next summer.

U.S. 281 toll lanes to Comal County. No timetable has been set.

Loop 1604 from Culebra Road to U.S. 281. Construction starts in late 2009.

Plans also call for tolled interchange ramps along Loop 1604 to give motorists faster shots to other freeways such as U.S. 281. The proposed toll rates under consideration for 2012 suggest charging 57 cents for each ramp.

Emergency and military vehicles would get free passage on toll lanes. VIA Metropolitan Transit would get a $42,000 a year break, enough to allow buses and vans to ride free, but the agency would have the option of spreading its exemption among other vehicles, such as vanpools.

In 2012 trucks would be charged 46 cents a mile on toll lanes and $1.15 per interchange ramp.

There would be no tollbooths. Instead, motorists would pay via an electronic scanning system.

“Our goal is to be reasonable, to keep it affordable,” mobility authority Chairman Bill Thornton said.

The authority will brief the nonprofit mobility coalition at a private meeting Friday at Valero Energy Corp. to strategize support for toll plans.

“We want everyone to have a chance to see this, to ask questions,” Boyer said. “We were on the ball and asked for it.”

When Hall heard about Boyer’s meeting, she called Reed to set up a presentation for toll critics, which will be held at 6 p.m. today at Chester’s Burgers at 16609 San Pedro Ave. She said she wants to know how much profit U.S. 281 toll lanes will generate.

“That’s the real crux of the matter,” she said. “That’ll be interesting.”

EXCLUSIVE: SECRET briefing on toll rates for BIG BUSINESS before public gets access

Posted on by

The San Antonio Mobility Coalition, SAMCo, run by Joe Krier, along with the San Antonio Free Trade Alliance will be hosting a secret meeting October 19 at the Valero campus prior to even the PUBLIC getting access to toll rates and the toll rate escalation for 281 on October 22. The highway lobby that feeds at the public trough was slated to get advance access the PUBLIC hasn’t been privy to. This is especially distressing considering SAMCO and the Free Trade Alliance are taxpayer funded. Citizens have to take time off work and head downtown to a place where parking is scarce (MPO mtgs at Via) just to hear this information on their own dime, yet our public agencies bring this vital toll tax information right to the business community’s doorstep while they’re all on the clock (some of whom are on the taxpayer’s dime, too!).

It’s an outrage that those who will profit off these toll plans get special treatment at the taxpayers’ expense! However, through a turn of events, we asked that the tolling authority brief citizens FIRST on the toll rates at our Tuesday meeting and they AGREED! The taxpayers demanded transparency, sunshine, accountability, and that the public get TOP PRIORITY, and now the PUBLIC gets to scoop the HIGHWAY LOBBY!

Government ought to be operating without even the APPEARANCE of impropriety, this SAMCo meeting smacks of corporate cronyism and backroom deal-making which has become the norm with Perry and his highway dept.

Not only will the hogs at the trough be treated to the potential pricetag road contractors can reap for tolling our public highways, the stated purpose of the meeting is to strategize on how to influence the upcoming MPO vote that must approve the toll rates to move forward.

The purpose of the briefing is to provide:

1) An advance preview of the US 281 and Loop 1604 financial plans prior to these critical MPO meetings;
2) A forum to discuss cooperative action and joint strategy to support the financial plans and SMP amendments at the October 22 and December 3 MPO meetings.
3) Coordination of supportive resolutions, letters, emails, testimony, editorials, etc. prior to the final MPO votes.

Read the entire invitation here.

This meeting is significant because we caught them with their hands in the till using taxpayer money to lobby against the taxpayer and caught BIG BUSINESS getting special privileges NOT afforded the public until an MPO mtg Monday, Oct 22. Why does BIG BUSINESS need to know the toll rates and 281 profit levels before the general public?
SEE LIST OF CORPORATIONS GIVEN A SEAT AT THE TABLE BELOW

Mad yet? Read the list of the corporations involved in SECRET meetings with the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments to push for a North American Union in what amounts to forming a trade cartel. Time to dust off the anti-trust unit at the Justice Department!

Full World Net Daily article here.

As WND previously reported, the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, dominated the SPP closed-door meetings with the SPP trilateral working groups, the trilateral cabinet members in attendance and President Bush, Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon, and Harper at the third annual SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, on Aug. 20-21.

WND has also reported the NACC is a shadowy council of 30 top North American multinational corporations self-appointed by the Chambers of Commerce in each of the three countries to constitute the sole outside advisory to the SPP.

The 30 companies composing the NACC are listed on a memo posted on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website.

In the United States, the companies on the NACC are:

* Campbell Soup Company
* Chevron Corporation
* Ford Motor Corporation
* FedEx Corporation
* General Electric Company
* General Motors Corporation
* Kansas City Southern
* Lockheed Martin Corporation
* Merck & Co., Inc.
* Mittal Steel USA
* New York Life Insurance Company
* Procter & Gamble
* UPS
* Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
* Whirlpool Corporation

No union leaders, public interest groups, environmental advocates or news media have ever attended the closed-door of the NACC with the SPP.

According to a document on the Commerce Department’s SPP website, the organization of the NACC was agreed upon by the three leaders on March 31, 2006.

“We are pleased to announce the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council,” the White House announced the same day.

“The Council will comprise members of the private sector from each country,” the White House said, “and will provide us recommendations on North American competitiveness, including, among others, areas such as automotive and transportation, steel, manufacturing, and services. The Council will meet annually with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis.”

Read these to open your eyes to other secret meetings for special interests:

Secret meeting on TTC 69, corporations invited, public/press is not.

More secret meetings with corporations invited, public/press shut out.
here, here, and here.

Vicente Fox: North American currency, Amero, on the way

Posted on by

Ex-Mexican prez: ‘Amero’ on the way
Vicente Fox confirms long-term deal worked out with President Bush

Posted: October 9, 2007
 By Jerome R. Corsi
 © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Ex-Mexican President Vicente Fox last night on CNN

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox confirmed the existence of a plan conceived with President Bush to create a new regional currency in the Americas, in an interview last night on CNN’s “Larry King Live.” It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan for a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement that encompasses the Western Hemisphere is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.

According to a transcript published by CNN, King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener, a Ms. Gonzalez from Elizabeth, N.J.: “Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?”

Fox answered in the affirmative, indicating it was a long-term plan. He admitted he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas – a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere, suggesting part of the plan was to institute eventually a regional currency.

“Long term, very long term,” he said. “What we proposed together, President Bush and myself, it’s ALCA, which is a trade union for all the Americas.”

ALCA is the acronym for the Area de Libre Comercio de las Américas, the name of the FTAA in Spanish.

King, evidently startled by Fox’s revelation of the currency, asked pointedly, “It’s going to be like the euro dollar (sic), you mean?”

“Well, that would be long, long term,” Fox repeated.

Fox noted the FTAA plan had been thwarted by Hugo Chavez, the radical socialist president of Venezuela.

“Everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came,” Fox commented. “He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea.”

Fox explained that he and Bush intended to proceed incrementally, establishing FTAA as an economic agreement first and waiting to create an amero-type currency later – a plan he also suggested was in place for NAFTA itself.

“I think the process to go, first step is trading agreement,” Fox said. “And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.”

Fox’s reply to the CNN viewer was captured in a clip posted on YouTube.com. CNN posted video of the interview but did not include the segment with questions from viewers.

Last week, WND reported BankIntroductions.com, a Canadian company that specializes in global banking strategies and currency consulting, is advising clients the amero may be the currency of North America within 10 years.

Coin designer Daniel Carr has issued for sale a series of private-issue fantasy pattern amero coins that have drawn attention on the Internet.

WND also reported the African Union is moving down the path of regional economic integration, with the African Central Bank planning to create the “Gold Mandela” as a single African continental currency by 2010.

The Council on Foreign Relations has supported regional and global currencies designed to replace nationally issued currencies.

In an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled “The End of National Currency,” CFR economist Benn Steil asserts the dollar is a temporary currency.

Steil concluded “countries should abandon monetary nationalism,” moving to adopt regional currencies, on the road to a global “one world currency.”

WND previously reported Steve Previs, a vice president at Jeffries International Ltd. in London, said the amero “is the proposed new currency for the North American Community which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.”

A video clip of the CNBC interview in November with Jeffries is now available at YouTube.com.

WND also has reported a continued slide in the value of the dollar on world currency markets could set up conditions in which the adoption of the amero as a North American currency gains momentum.

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.

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.