Reform in dazzled eyes of beholder

11 Replies

Last night, the lobbyist for the Coastal Conservation League and its allies sent out this note to supporters about the House passage of the DOT plan that coalition had been pushing:

After
four hours of debate and consideration of 39 amendments, finally, the House
overwhelmingly approved the great DOT Reform bill,
H.3575, crafted by Representative Young and her AdHoc Transportation Committee by a vote of 104-3.

H.3575
has ALL 5 of our
DOT Coalition’s DOT Reform Priorities thanks to Representative
John Scott (D-Richland) Annette Young (R-Dorchester) and Christopher Hart
(D-Richland) who sponsored one final amendment this evening to require the DOT
to consider “reasonable transportation alternatives” prior to initiating new
construction of road and bridge projects. H.3575 also requires transportation projects to be justified and
prioritized according to engineering criteria, economic benefits, and
environmental impacts. Maintenance
funding is provided annually to address our $3 billion maintenance needs across
the state, and public hearings are required on large transportation
projects. WOW!

I’ll
set up a thank you note from our capwiz site, so we
can be sure to let House members know how much we appreciate their making reform
of the DOT a top priority this year. Please also help me thank Representative Young in particular for her
terrific leadership on this most important issue.  I am certain that we would never have achieved
the goals we set for DOT Reform without her constant efforts to push DOT Reform
forward every step of the way.

Thank
you Coalition members for all of your hard work on this issue and your support
through this rigorous process.  Our
Coalition could not have come this far without you!

Tomorrow
afternoon the Senate will continue debate on S.355, its
DOT Reform Bill. I am feeling very
hopeful about the Senate debate. I understand that amendments will be offered to
strengthen our Coalition’s priorities in S.355, and it seems Senators are
pulling together.  I’ll write again by
the end of the week with an update on the Senate’s progress.

Great
Job Everyone!
 

Patty
Pierce
League
Lobbyist
pattyp@scccl.org

Here’s my concern about that (aside from the fact that the coalition’s idea of great reform falls short of mine):

    But Patty,
didn’t they do a last-minute amendment that stripped out something that was
important to you? My understanding is that the amendment fixed it so that the
commission could change the priority list WITHOUT the recommendation of the
secretary. (This is something that apparently escaped notice in newspaper
reports.)
    It seems that
would pretty much undo the reforms y’all are seeking — not to mention not even
attempting to do what I see as essential. Even though it would take a 2/3 vote,
the commission would still be in the driver’s seat as to whether to continue
applying the reform y’all have worked so hard for.
    That’s the
trouble with these overly elaborate, fragmented governing structures — the
slightest change undoes all your efforts to change the way the agency does
business. That stuff is harder to hide with a Cabinet. That’s why structural
reform is, and has always been, the FIRST step — so you can enact deeper
changes with some hope that they will stick.
I wrote a note to Patty along those lines, copying it to Elizabeth Hagood. I haven’t heard back from them yet. For their sake, I’m hoping I heard wrong, or that they have a good reason to think it’s OK anyway (and aren’t just whistling in the dark).

I think what the House came up with was bad enough without the coalition’s agenda getting shafted, too. But that would be par for the course for the Legislative State.

 

11 thoughts on “Reform in dazzled eyes of beholder”

  1. Randy E

    Excuse me for the tangent:
    Richland One has a multi-million dollar shortfall from the last bond yet AC Flora and Crayton have big, certainly expensive, ornate entrances. Flora has curved, floor to cieling windows at the corners.
    Blythewood High school looks like a country club. Doug, I believe, referred to it as the “Taj Mahal”. Richland 2 will be chumming for more bond money in a couple years.
    Our schools shouldn’t look like Sam’s Club, but I can’t help but think about the money that can be saved from eliminating these apendages straight from Versailles.

    Reply ↓
  2. Doug Ross

    I don’t believe it was me who referred to Blythewood H.S. in that way. If I did, I’d look pretty dumb (not impossible!) since my wife works there, my daughter goes there, and my youngest son will be going there in the fall.
    The amazing thing is that we hear there will be portables at this two year old high school starting in the fall. Until someone stops the developers from creating the sprawl that will eventually destroy Northeast Richland County, expect things to get worse, not better in the schools.

    Reply ↓
  3. Lee

    The solution is simple: make real estate developers pay the entire cost of development, and up front.
    * New schools
    * New fire station
    * New police station
    * New roads
    * New interstate interchange
    * New sewer and water lines
    Then they would have put those costs into the price of the new houses and the rent of the new apartments and commercial buildings, which is where those costs should be.
    Instead of the thousands taxpayers subsidizing developers who lack the finances to properly and completely execute their projects, the customers would pay for what they receive.
    Instead of the taxpayers paying off loans in the forms of government development bonds, the homeowners and landlords would pay off their private loans for the same infrastructure.

    Reply ↓
  6. Randy E

    Doug, you think it’s ok for districts to spend extra on the ornate features? The fancy entrance costs a great deal more than those smart boards that you revile.
    You make a great point about the portables. I understand that it costs a couple grand just to move one of them. Why do these districts consistently underestimate space needed?

    Reply ↓
  7. Doug Ross

    I’m absolutely opposed to ornate extras in the schools.
    As for the smartboards, do you know how much they cost and how many there are across the district? My understanding was they were about $11K each and there are PLENTY of them. Bet there’s at least $1 million invested in them in the district.
    Keep your eyes open for Richland Two to get some type of Technology Award in the near future. I watched a video on R2TV last week that showed a conference that was held in the district with what looked like a couple hundred attendees being shown all the cool (expensive) stuff the district has for technology. At the end of the piece, they showed the attendees each receiving a brand new video Ipod to take home. Wonder if that will help them make their decision when it comes to giving out some “Technology Leader” award?
    Why would the district WANT to curb growth? More students = more tax dollars = more power = more publicity = more awards;
    By the time things get really bad five to ten years from now, the people in charge will be retired or on to other jobs.

    Reply ↓
  8. Randy E

    The district enjoys the headaches that come with such growth?
    They are probably behind the vast right wing conspiracy too. Hefner was on the grassy knoll. Fleming and Anderson put the Knicks ballot in the freezer to be pulled for the rights to Patrick Ewing…

    Reply ↓
  9. Ready to Hurl

    The solution is simple: make real estate developers pay the entire cost of development, and up front.

    Pigs will fly before this even gets close to becoming law.
    And, Lee will recant because it will mean that essentially eradicating an extremely rich industry of monied capitalists.
    However, it would have a great effect on many of our problems.
    Sprawl will stop. Redevelopment of urban/suburban areas will suddenly be “economically preferable” to paving over wetlands, woodlands and agricultural land.
    People won’t need to drive as much. Public transport will become more attractive. Production of greenhouse gases by cars will be reduced.
    Ah, it’s nice to dream…

    Reply ↓
  10. Doug Ross

    >The district enjoys the headaches that
    >come with such growth?
    Do you have any evidence of any statement from the current administration or school board expressing concern over the growth of the district?

    Reply ↓
  11. Lee

    Randy, I admit to dreaming. All progess comes from dreaming.
    You, on the other hand, are in a stupor.
    That’s why you are unable to address a single one of my reform proposals.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *