Florida High Speed Rail Option and Elimination

[Lunican]

From Jeb Bush:

Bush fielded questions from the group, including one about Gov. Rick Scott's decision to scuttle plans for a high speed rail in Central Florida.

"I'm surprised he didn't let the process go to a conclusion...before pulling the plug," Bush said, saying he was somewhat taken aback by Scott's timing.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/abel-harding/2011-02-17/jeb-bush-likes-mitch-daniels-2012-prospects

[JeffreyS]

I wish Florida had not been chosen for HSR funding.  If we had not been chosen our Governor would not yet have had the chance to throw a mud ball in the face of the Federal Government he is going to want to fund other things.

[fsujax]

I wish they would have funded the FEC/AMTRAK project and not the HSR project. I would have been happy with that.

[tufsu1]

I'm sure they will be very conseravtive in their ridership forecasts and if doesn't add up, they won't bid.

That depends on if they are bidding to build it or bidding to run it.

the RFP will be for design, build, oppertate, maintain, and finance...called DBOM+F

[tufsu1]

So Rick Scott thinks that the ports will get funded by rejecting high speed rail funding?

well he is smart like that!

[tufsu1]

From Jeb Bush:

Bush fielded questions from the group, including one about Gov. Rick Scott's decision to scuttle plans for a high speed rail in Central Florida.

"I'm surprised he didn't let the process go to a conclusion...before pulling the plug," Bush said, saying he was somewhat taken aback by Scott's timing.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/403455/abel-harding/2011-02-17/jeb-bush-likes-mitch-daniels-2012-prospects

and remember...Jeb is the one who killed this back in 2004...when the state was on the hook for most of the cost.

[Lunican]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/18/high.speed.rail/index.html?hpt=C1

[Clem1029]

You know...not to sound overly, say, conservative...it scares me that nobody has made the obvious suggestion, with the FL, OH and WI federal money, to simply not spend it on anything, regardless of state? Since we don't actually have the money and all?

I know...crazy talk.

[tufsu1]

You know...not to sound overly, say, conservative...it scares me that nobody has made the obvious suggestion, with the FL, OH and WI federal money, to simply not spend it on anything, regardless of state? Since we don't actually have the money and all?

I know...crazy talk.

that's fine...we can always do nothing and have more gridlock around this country.

but we all know the $ will be spent anyway...so wouldn't you rather have the tax dfollars you already paid (or will pay someday) to be spent in FL instead of CA or NY?

[Clem1029]

You know...not to sound overly, say, conservative...it scares me that nobody has made the obvious suggestion, with the FL, OH and WI federal money, to simply not spend it on anything, regardless of state? Since we don't actually have the money and all?

I know...crazy talk.

that's fine...we can always do nothing and have more gridlock around this country.

but we all know the $ will be spent anyway...so wouldn't you rather have the tax dfollars you already paid (or will pay someday) to be spent in FL instead of CA or NY?

No, I'd rather money we don't have not be spent anywhere. See, my problem is with the mindset of "this money is going to get spent, so let's get our piece of the pie." Moreover, at this point, it isn't tax money I pay/will eventually pay, but it's tax money my grandchildren already have to pay. "Spending" isn't "saving." It's not a matter of wanting gridlock. It's a simple reality - we are broke, and until we get our financial house in order, both as a nation and as a state, we shouldn't spend money we don't have. The federal money we've all been discussing isn't "free" money - at best, it's just funny money that will never have to be repaid.

Sure, it's just a couple of billion in the multi-trillion dollar deficits this administration is racking up. But taking on a questionable project like this with my grandchildren's money without fixing the other problems first is wishful thinking. This isn't a position of "let's build more roads instead" - it's just a realistic view that we don't have anything to work with.

We can all debate until the cows come home the reasons leading up to our current financial situation, and everyone would likely be partially right and mostly wrong. At the end of the day, it's an exercise in mental masturbation. The reality is that we are broke on all levels. Until we take care of the big picture items, little picture stuff such as the FL/WI/OH HSR projects shouldn't even be on the table. The biggest problem here is that it's going to be years until we're in a position to adequately address things from a fiscal perspective.

See, in general terms, I buy the position that properly planned rail will be a money saver in the long term. Unfortunately, the FL HSR plan is a) obviously not properly planned and b) a deficit sink in the short term. In this current environment, neither is palatable.

So no, I don't accept the mindset that "this money will be spent anyways." Call me idealistic, but I'm saying "this money shouldn't be spent anywhere until we have it to spend."

[thelakelander]

Why can't we open the door to private bidding and allow the private sector some flexibility?  What's with the either/or scenarios we back ourselves into? Anyway, ideology is one thing, reality is another.  That $2.4 billion will be spent in this state or another.  That's as clear as day right now. 

[peestandingup]

You know...not to sound overly, say, conservative...it scares me that nobody has made the obvious suggestion, with the FL, OH and WI federal money, to simply not spend it on anything, regardless of state? Since we don't actually have the money and all?

I know...crazy talk.

that's fine...we can always do nothing and have more gridlock around this country.

but we all know the $ will be spent anyway...so wouldn't you rather have the tax dfollars you already paid (or will pay someday) to be spent in FL instead of CA or NY?

No, I'd rather money we don't have not be spent anywhere. See, my problem is with the mindset of "this money is going to get spent, so let's get our piece of the pie." Moreover, at this point, it isn't tax money I pay/will eventually pay, but it's tax money my grandchildren already have to pay. "Spending" isn't "saving." It's not a matter of wanting gridlock. It's a simple reality - we are broke, and until we get our financial house in order, both as a nation and as a state, we shouldn't spend money we don't have. The federal money we've all been discussing isn't "free" money - at best, it's just funny money that will never have to be repaid.

Lemme guess though. You totally have no problem spending money we don't have on unnecessary wars fighting cave people & occupying entire countries/nation building. Do you even realize just how much we spend doing that daily?? Because I assure you that it absolutely dwarfs any of these piddly little projects we're arguing about here.

Kinda throws a monkey wrench in the whole "fiscal conservative" angle some people push, doesn't it.

[Clem1029]

Why can't we open the door to private bidding and allow the private sector some flexibility?  What's with the either/or scenarios we back ourselves into? Anyway, ideology is one thing, reality is another.  That $2.4 billion will be spent in this state or another.  That's as clear as day right now.  

Lake, I can buy the position of opening it to bidding from the private sector if that's all it was...but it's a complete red herring. The private sector won't bid unless the government spends billions, not just in our state, but nationwide. The private sector won't get involved until we spend money we don't have. If nothing else, that sounds like the housing collapse...spend a ton of money you don't have on a questionable investment under the assumption that it always goes up. That's just as much ideology as my position of not spending money we don't have.

Although, if I'm misreading the "private sector" argument, please correct me - are you suggesting putting it out for bid without the $2.4 billion guarantee? If that's the case, then yeah, let's have at it and see what can be done.

Keep in mind, my position isn't "don't spend money on rail anywhere ever." It's "get our financial house in order, and prioritize what we want to spend money we do have on." That $2.4 billion should not be spent, anywhere, until it's actually a real money budgeted line item, not a funny-money wishful thinking plan.

Lemme guess though. You totally have no problem spending money we don't have on unnecessary wars fighting cave people & occupying entire countries/nation building. Do you even realize just how much we spend doing that daily?? Because I assure you that it absolutely dwarfs any of these piddly little projects we're arguing about here.

Geez...that didn't take long. I was wondering when this non-sequitur would come up. This argument is completely useless given the 4 years of controlling the purse-strings, combined with 2 years of complete and total legislative and executive control. At the end of the day, it's obvious the wars are more useful as a cudgel (as you so aptly demonstrate) than as a position of principle that need to be eliminated. You want to fund national rail and other infrastructure projects nationwide? That's awesome...let's see the bill offered that ties it to ending the wars, and then let's see how Congress votes on it. Allowing an escape that let's politicians vote for money without any real concern for the consequences is a cop out.

Either way, it's irrelevant. The wars are a historical reality. The existing situation is a historical reality. The need for rail and other infrastructure projects are a historical reality. What is also a reality is we can't afford to do EVERYTHING certain groups want us to do. We need to have an honest debate in this country as to what our priorities are, and then build a financial structure around it. Unfortunately, "honest debate" is lacking as much as the dollars to fund all this wishful thinking.

So yeah..use the military spending as a stick to try and silence fiscal opposition.  It might make you feel better, but it does nothing to advance the position that we need to fund these projects.

[thelakelander]

Clem, I can understand your position (and I even agree to a certain point) but unfortunately, it isn't reality in this particular case.

[BridgeTroll]

You know...not to sound overly, say, conservative...it scares me that nobody has made the obvious suggestion, with the FL, OH and WI federal money, to simply not spend it on anything, regardless of state? Since we don't actually have the money and all?

I know...crazy talk.

that's fine...we can always do nothing and have more gridlock around this country.

but we all know the $ will be spent anyway...so wouldn't you rather have the tax dfollars you already paid (or will pay someday) to be spent in FL instead of CA or NY?

I dont travel in that area often... Was gridlock an issue between Orlando and Tampa?