Jump to content

Infrastructure in Your Area?


Jim Naseum

Recommended Posts

In mine, the major roads are the biggest problem. Trucks are beating them into dust, and we are a hundred billion short on maintenance funds. It's hard to see any turn around in the future, short of some massive new taxing.

Our sewer and water systems are newer than in the east, and not failing yet. But we have very dubious quality in the gas line structure.

When they do fix roads, it looks like very poor work, and as often as not, had to be redone a second time.

Parks? Don't even go there. A mess.

It looks like there is simply not enough public money to keep the infrastructure in order.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point? Just kidding!!!

Same here in South Florida... My suggestion is to "cause trouble"... Attend the City and County meetings, raise hell, and start looking to form some coalition with like minded residents, neighbors, etc.... Then sue their happy asses.... Demand budgets, demand public records, etc.

Have some fun!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point? Just kidding!!!

Same here in South Florida... My suggestion is to "cause trouble"... Attend the City and County meetings, raise hell, and start looking to form some coalition with like minded residents, neighbors, etc.... Then sue their happy asses.... Demand budgets, demand public records, etc.

Have some fun!!!

 

Agree. 

 

The standard "story" issued by cities, counties and states is this: "We're out of money!" 

I first heard this sometime around 1978. Local communities being "out of money."  We first thought it was a temporary effect of a recession, or the oil crisis. But the out of money cry just kept increasing at all levels of local and then federal government. 

 

Do the math. 1. The USA is the wealthiest nation on earth - bar none - and has been so since WWII.  2. The private wealth is growing in fantastic double digit annual increases, at least for the past 30 years. 3. If the total wealth is PUBLIC + PRIVATE = TOTAL. Then, the problem seems to have an obvious solution, doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestion is to "cause trouble"... Attend the City and County meetings, raise hell, and start looking to form some coalition with like minded residents, neighbors, etc....

 

In my experience, most of the people who attend city and county council meetings are the special interest fringe groups...usually environmentalist wackos who try to stop projects from happening.  Regular working folks don't get involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure it varies, but in our areas it has been the corrupt business whackos and financial engineers with deep pockets and expensive out of area (even out of state) lawyers and public relations firms that dominate local city hall meetings with exotic, slick, professional presentations. The objectors, are the rebels from the community. Individuals who will be the most affected by the various plans. They come in without even having lawyers! They are the grass roots trying to protect themselves from the effects of the BigMoney players.  

 

I'm sure it varies depending on where you live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a couple of bridges that need replacing.

 

One was built in 1933 and crosses a major rail yard from a large residential suburb to downtown and the most major highway around here (I-75). It has two levels and you can drive on the lower level, look up and see through it at points.

 

The other carries more traffic (10X more than designed) and crosses SW Ohio into Northern Kentucky (again, I-75) called the Brent Spence Bridge. It's listed as "functionally obsolete". But trying to get someone to pay for it is like North and South Korea at the peace talks of the early 50's.
 

Edited by Mighty Favog
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

And your point? Just kidding!!!

Same here in South Florida... My suggestion is to "cause trouble"... Attend the City and County meetings, raise hell, and start looking to form some coalition with like minded residents, neighbors, etc.... Then sue their happy asses.... Demand budgets, demand public records, etc.

Have some fun!!!

Agree.

The standard "story" issued by cities, counties and states is this: "We're out of money!"

I first heard this sometime around 1978. Local communities being "out of money." We first thought it was a temporary effect of a recession, or the oil crisis. But the out of money cry just kept increasing at all levels of local and then federal government.

Do the math. 1. The USA is the wealthiest nation on earth - bar none - and has been so since WWII. 2. The private wealth is growing in fantastic double digit annual increases, at least for the past 30 years. 3. If the total wealth is PUBLIC + PRIVATE = TOTAL. Then, the problem seems to have an obvious solution, doesn't it?

'78? They would have been blaming it on Prop 13.

You are talking tax policy and budgetary items, in other words politics?

I'm pretty sure most people on here can add and subtract the numbers and can decide for themselves what the alternatives are in approaches.

It just seems to me to be a topic that is inextricably intertwined with national politics.

I think it could probably be discussed historically without politics, i.e., what certain administrations had done, but as soon as someone mentions a particular era or Executive, the whole conversation instantally switches to how that relates to today, and what his or her flavor of the week would do about infrastructure.

And which infrastructure, local, state or federal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And your point? Just kidding!!!

Same here in South Florida... My suggestion is to "cause trouble"... Attend the City and County meetings, raise hell, and start looking to form some coalition with like minded residents, neighbors, etc.... Then sue their happy asses.... Demand budgets, demand public records, etc.

Have some fun!!!

Agree.

The standard "story" issued by cities, counties and states is this: "We're out of money!"

I first heard this sometime around 1978. Local communities being "out of money." We first thought it was a temporary effect of a recession, or the oil crisis. But the out of money cry just kept increasing at all levels of local and then federal government.

Do the math. 1. The USA is the wealthiest nation on earth - bar none - and has been so since WWII. 2. The private wealth is growing in fantastic double digit annual increases, at least for the past 30 years. 3. If the total wealth is PUBLIC + PRIVATE = TOTAL. Then, the problem seems to have an obvious solution, doesn't it?

'78? They would have been blaming it on Prop 13.

You are talking tax policy and budgetary items, in other words politics?

I'm pretty sure most people on here can add and subtract the numbers and can decide for themselves what the alternatives are in approaches.

It just seems to me to be a topic that is inextricably intertwined with national politics.

I think it could probably be discussed historically without politics, i.e., what certain administrations had done, but as soon as someone mentions a particular era or Executive, the whole conversation instantally switches to how that relates to today, and what his or her flavor of the week would do about infrastructure.

And which infrastructure, local, state or federal.

 

 

I don't find it necessary to insert politics into that discussion. The "public v. private split" has political dimensions, of course, but the guiding philosophic questions are on a layer ABOVE POLITICS. It would be a huge mistake for anyone to think politics is the basic motivator of public policy. Politics is always a slave to economic actors, and in the last thousand years, that means banking interests, which come in a few flavors. 

 

Politics is merely the visible veneer, or capped teeth of public policy. You have to peel it back to find what's underneath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'78? They would have been blaming it on Prop 13.

 

Prop 13 in California didn't really begin affecting these "we're broke" discussions until I would say, late in the 80s. And mostly, the effect was on schools. I need not point out that California went from first in the nation in 1965 to second last* in the nation by 1999. And today, it might be worst in the developed world, or close to it. 

 

*estimated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

'78? They would have been blaming it on Prop 13.

Prop 13 in California didn't really begin affecting these "we're broke" discussions until I would say, late in the 80s. And mostly, the effect was on schools. I need not point out that California went from first in the nation in 1965 to second last* in the nation by 1999. And today, it might be worst in the developed world, or close to it.

*estimated

It was my first election, they had every local breaucrat in the Bay Area speaking at every local club they could about how they were on a thin budget as it was, and if Prop 13 passed it would be the end of civilization as we knew it.

I heard from a guy at Department of Weights and Measures, General Aviation Services, Parks and Rec, Extension Agent, and on and on. It was the same talk, over and over again. All of those agencies started cutting the year it went into effect because they had to, and in the Bay Area it was a bit deal because the property tax base was cut back the most compared to other parts of the state. Didn't sales tax go from 5.0 to 6.0 and in the Bay Area another .5 for BART.

They blamed it on 13 for as long as govt thought they had a kind ear listening, which wasn't long. I do remember my parents, and all of their friends, talking about how much they were saving every month in taxes when the house payment was readjusted.

In the 80s they started closing schools, and blamed ot all on 13 which wasn't really true.

Grass roots tax revolt, Prop 13.

So the solution to infrastructure, if your state and/or local govt allows for voter lead referendums, is to start one that addresses that issue.

For the federal govt there needs to be a constitutional amendment to allow the people to pass a referendum. Wait, that won't work, that would lead to anarchy.

It is pretty simple.

1. Get a majority of legislators to agree that infrastructure needs to be replaced and is a priority. Define what infrastructure is, and what needs replacing, and in what order. Do this at same time that you have an Executive branch who is on board with the majority.

2. Determine how to fund it. On national level, you can raise taxes, borrow more, or shift money from one budget to another such as cut military to pay for it, or education. You can try to get states to chip in. You can put use fees on bridges, federal tax on water consumption. Block grants, a million ways to distribute money.

3. Once you figure out how to raise, or redistribute the money in No. 2, you pick the locations and the projects, and you hire people to do it.

I have heard "infrastructure" being a top ten topic in, at least, the last six election cycles. By everyone.

Nobody goes in and fixes it. Instead they blame it on EPA, "too many regs." "They are allliberals over there." I can't count the number of times I have had to point out who started EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc. on this forum.

You know who got those agencies started? Pissed off moms. It takes angry mothers to get anything done. When they learned that their tuna fish sandwich they made for little Jenny or Tommy had mercury in it, and where mercury came from, you got the Clean Air Act. When their kids were eating lead paint they got that eliminated. When their kids were breathing in lead all day, they got rid of leaded gas.

When mothers decide infrastructure needs to be changed, and now, it will happen. Until then, you are never going to get past step one above.

Edited by dwilawyer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

And your point? Just kidding!!!

Same here in South Florida... My suggestion is to "cause trouble"... Attend the City and County meetings, raise hell, and start looking to form some coalition with like minded residents, neighbors, etc.... Then sue their happy asses.... Demand budgets, demand public records, etc.

Have some fun!!!

Agree.

The standard "story" issued by cities, counties and states is this: "We're out of money!"

I first heard this sometime around 1978. Local communities being "out of money." We first thought it was a temporary effect of a recession, or the oil crisis. But the out of money cry just kept increasing at all levels of local and then federal government.

Do the math. 1. The USA is the wealthiest nation on earth - bar none - and has been so since WWII. 2. The private wealth is growing in fantastic double digit annual increases, at least for the past 30 years. 3. If the total wealth is PUBLIC + PRIVATE = TOTAL. Then, the problem seems to have an obvious solution, doesn't it?

'78? They would have been blaming it on Prop 13.

You are talking tax policy and budgetary items, in other words politics?

I'm pretty sure most people on here can add and subtract the numbers and can decide for themselves what the alternatives are in approaches.

It just seems to me to be a topic that is inextricably intertwined with national politics.

I think it could probably be discussed historically without politics, i.e., what certain administrations had done, but as soon as someone mentions a particular era or Executive, the whole conversation instantally switches to how that relates to today, and what his or her flavor of the week would do about infrastructure.

And which infrastructure, local, state or federal.

I don't find it necessary to insert politics into that discussion. The "public v. private split" has political dimensions, of course, but the guiding philosophic questions are on a layer ABOVE POLITICS. It would be a huge mistake for anyone to think politics is the basic motivator of public policy. Politics is always a slave to economic actors, and in the last thousand years, that means banking interests, which come in a few flavors.

Politics is merely the visible veneer, or capped teeth of public policy. You have to peel it back to find what's underneath.

Who are the national policy makers in a representative democracy bounded by a constitutional framework?

Let's pick a policy that isn't too controversial, that has support on both sides.

Cigarette smoking is bad, and should be eliminated.

How government achieves that goal, or not, is public policy. Tobacco reacted initially by trying to contest that issue. Mainstream medicine was positive it was harmful. So they developed the Tobacco Institute to put out propoganda and fund junk science studies.

Then they upped lobbying.

Everyone knows the story from there. Political battles for the next 30 to 40 years. By the way, it still hasn't been eliminated. In fact, we have a new hightech form, probably more dangerous than cigs.

The process of identifying a problem, and solving a public issue, even one that 95 percent of people completely agree on, is public policy. It usualky, not always starts with a government official or legislator. So many, but not all, public issues are born a political birth.

The process of solving a public policy issue, whether it needs solving, and if so how, is entirely political, regardless of the reasoning behind it.

What you keep going back to, in nearly all threads, centers on tax policy and budget issues. It is true that there are ideological issues behind tax policy and the budgetary process, but you keep asking the question "how you solve" this or that problem. (Which you never seem to answer). The process of going about solving any public policy issue is POLITICAL, especially if it involes taxation, and the manner in which you tax, and budget issues. Taxation and budget are both constitutional by the way. The power to spend, and tax, derives only from the constitution. There is a reason for that.

Because they are POLITICAL.

If we were a country of socialists we would approach an issue one way, or pure capitalists another, or under a monarchy another, or under a despot, well I we wouldn't approach a problem under a despot.

So our system is representative democracy constrained by a constitution, and problems get solved a certain way in that system, it's called politics.

Now, if you are saying that the answer to a particular problem, or set of problems,can be solved better if a majority of the people had a different philosophical ideology, that is something different entirely. We should talk about what the philosophy is, and why it would make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I'm sure it varies, but in our areas it has been the corrupt business whackos and financial engineers with deep pockets and expensive out of area (even out of state) lawyers and public relations firms that dominate local city hall meetings with exotic, slick, professional presentations. The objectors, are the rebels from the community. Individuals who will be the most affected by the various plans. They come in without even having lawyers! They are the grass roots trying to protect themselves from the effects of the BigMoney players.

I'm sure it varies depending on where you live.

I don't think it does. Just the issues and the amount of money involved.

Zoning is big, who is going to get the porn shop, liquor store, bar, in their neighborhood. Where apartments can go, and not go.

Whether the citizens of a city should build a stadium to get a sports team, if tax subsidies should be given to attract an employer with good jobs. Whether to raise power, water rates.

Whether the police and fire should get a raise, how much, a pension. Whether they should have civil service protection, collective bargining. Who gave what to whose campaign, how is it disclosed, if it is.

I deal with it every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is pretty simple. 1. Get a majority of legislators to agree that infrastructure needs to be replaced and is a priority. Define what infrastructure is, and what needs replacing, and in what order. Do this at same time that you have an Executive branch who is on board with the majority. 2. Determine how to fund it. On national level, you can raise taxes, borrow more, or shift money from one budget to another such as cut military to pay for it, or education. You can try to get states to chip in. You can put use fees on bridges, federal tax on water consumption. Block grants, a million ways to distribute money. 3. Once you figure out how to raise, or redistribute the money in No. 2, you pick the locations and the projects, and you hire people to do it. I have heard "infrastructure" being a top ten topic in, at least, the last six election cycles. By everyone. Nobody goes in and fixes it. Instead they blame it on EPA, "too many regs." "They are allliberals over there." I can't count the number of times I have had to point out who started EPA, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, etc. on this forum. You know who got those agencies started? Pissed off moms. It takes angry mothers to get anything done. When they learned that their tuna fish sandwich they made for little Jenny or Tommy had mercury in it, and where mercury came from, you got the Clean Air Act. When their kids were eating lead paint they got that eliminated. When their kids were breathing in lead all day, they got rid of leaded gas. When mothers decide infrastructure needs to be changed, and now, it will happen. Until then, you are never going to get past step one above.
 

 

I have a different historical viewpoint on this. 

 

Most of the large public facility, like roads, bridges, railways and ports, were built to serve the industrial age when fortunes were made in steel, coal, autos, and heavy industry. It was essential to serve that economy, which really ended by the 1980 time frame. 

 

Today, heavy industry isn't where the "future lies." Facebook alone has nearly twice the market capitalization of Ford! The future lies in communications and biotechnology, which do not rely on trucking, roads, railroads and the like for building fortunes. The old structures are "good enough." 

 

Therefore, new infrastructure will have very few friends in powerful places, and that's exactly what we see out there. These high level policies about where to put capital, are made by "bankers" and I don't mean your local branch manager. I mean the two dozen global bankers in charge of 75% of the world's total wealth. For them, a new sewer plant will; have nearly zero return on investment (using the term generally, not specifically) and so they won't lean that way on their political servants. 

 

I would say, breakdowns will be nominally repaired to keep things sort of running, but you wont see broad, expansive bold projects like you did in the period 1900 to 1955.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are the national policy makers in a representative democracy bounded by a constitutional framework?

 

Let me venture an analogy, even knowing how dangerous they are!

 

Suppose you want to examine the intrinsic and extrinsic features of a skyscraper. You could ask one of the iron workers bolting and welding it together. You could ask the construction super, who is in charge of bringing it into existence, or you could ask the architect who had the vision to design it. 

 

The iron worker would be like typical local government officials in the town or state. The construction supervisor would be like the WH and Congress. The architect would be the world financial cabal - that very small group of sovereigns, central bank owners, trillionaires who direct the strategies that governments eventually implement. They are as far removed from the interests of "the people" as you can possibly be. .

 

You can see this in action, by noting that so-called "governments of the people" very, very rarely legislate "goodness" for the people, even when it would be obviously simple to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the cast iron/iron threaded pipes are mandatory for sprinkler and air compressor systems in our State. Why? They can get red hot in a fire and not break or separate. Anyway that's the way it was in the state of the art chemical plant that I worked in.

JJK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

And, a lot of the retro cowboys wouldn't mind going back to driving horses around.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think, if they don't decide to close/disband the entire city it'll probably fall into the economics of the boy breaking the windows putting people to work to fix it. The downside of that, though, is it could very well be the new "New Deal" from the early 1900's. And we all know where that went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look on the positive side. It could possibly be a huge blunder to sink $100 billion into roads and bridges with hovercraft vehicles being just around the corner.

The last few times we went there to visit family, we took whichever of our vehicles had the tallest sidewall tires.......'Cause they stop fixing pot-holes.

And the very last time I was there, I could not believe my eyes! There was a huge billboard on Ballinger Hwy. that ENCOURAGED people to get on welfare!

Edited by Mighty Favog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...