Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
How the money is borrowed and the timeframe are products of TABOR and bond markets. Take away TABOR and you might have some flexibility. But with revenues being capped as they are, the rest is just a function of what it costs. I don't know if you've ever actually read the constitutional and statutory provisions with respect to public finance, but it's very clear that this is how it was always intended to be.
You may want somebody to sell you a car for $250 per month for 3 years, but they're not going to; you're going to pay $500 for 6, like it or not, or you're not getting a car. In CDOT's case, they couldn't afford $500, so they found somebody who'd take $300 for 12 years. That's how it works. And there are additional provisions because CDOT can't even really guarantee the $300 per year without an election, so there's added risk, and that means the company actually is going to demand $300 for 15 years, in case you don't pay.
As for the conditions on public disclosure, you're just complaining. Of course, nobody would oppose a bill requiring more public comment, but you can't get a deal if you need legislative approval, because legislators have to respond to the whining, uninformed public, who want the car for $250 for 3 years. That bill, if allowed to go into law, wouldn't have meant a better deal for the state. it would've just meant there wouldn't be deals done at all. That's not fearmongering - I have plenty of projects that I can't get financed right now until revenue projections look up.
|
What this is more like would be a 18 year old son who wants to buy a car for 3000 dollars.
His father (or mother) says "We don't have the money to spare, and, we cannot borrow the money to cover (smart parents stay off credit cards). Don't buy the car."
The son goes out, signs a contract to buy the car, goes back to his father with the contract and asks his father, "So do you agree with me that I need a car?"
The father replies, "Yes, you do need a car in some ways, but, due to our tight financing, and, your not working, our not being able to afford you car is more important than your needs." A long discussion follows.
About 30 minutes into the warm theoretical discussion, the son pulls out a signed contract.
The father looks at the contract which states in paragraph 16, section B, paragraph 2, line 5, that once the contract is signed, the signee has 48 hours to back out of the contract.
He looks at the date and the date is 3 business days past (I am not talking about Colorado private motor vehicle purchase law, I am using this as a metaphor and I am not talking about the "get a job argument).
******************
What should really happen with Tabor regarding such projects is that the public should be made aware that the state CANNOT afford them, so why not scrap them? If the State cannot muster an election to get public permission to borrow money on a specific project nor persuade the Federal government through elected congress people and senators to provide out-of-state funds, then that project should not be built!
That is the true intent of Tabor.
However, what CDOT has done on US 36 and very likely is seeking to do in a round about manner on I-70 is to be able to finance a project that the State cannot afford without public involvement and final approval, i.e., expenditures of money if conditions of an agreement made in secret are not met.
This not an issue of assuming that our elected officials or senior level salaried state bureaucrats have or do not have the right to make a blanket contract or a build-to-print contract. Rather the issue concerns the agreement not being public debated with an underwriter of a multilevel agreement between the State of Colorado, foreign companies, and, 50 year terms.
That is not the intent of the Tabor amendment.
**************
Let's look at US 36, again, under the idea that the project AS DESIRED by CDOT and RTD cannot be built due to the State's inability to get the public to foot the bill nor get the federal government to put in a lions share.
Well, DON'T build it!
Ok, so how can we raise money to make such improvements?
Well, make US 36 a turnpike now, ran by the CDOT, and have the profits fix US 36! Throw the BRT out the window, and, just run more buses on US 36! Heck subsidize the buses- make them free- with turnpike generated money.
And all the revenue monies stay in State, and, out of a questionable corporation's hands.
************
I-70. Paint the viaduct, remove a few exits and improve other access methods for those exits. Paint the underside white and light it up. Add a couple of lanes to I-76 from Wads to I-25. Add a couple of lanes to I-270 (there's a lot of land available).
You get the idea.
CDOT WANTS TO BUILD THIS THING IT'S WAY but we can easily live with fairly simple repairs at a far lower cost. An affordable cost based upon current revenue streams.
IMO, CDOT on US 36 and I-70 has been following it's own agenda, not TABOR intent.
EDIT: Concerning your point on financing: as you are well aware, there are huge differences between financing private construction projects on private land and public projects on public property. In the first case, one has to get permits and the money, in the second, in a democracy one needs public approval of financing before the fact, not after the fact, then the financing and the permits.
Prev
Linear Mode
