Indiana Highway leased to Spanish and Austrailians for 3.8B $

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Do you want roads that work, but are owned by *gasp* foreigners? Or would you rather have American owned...well not much really! If you own a 4x4 you might be okay mind!!

Actually the high State and Federal taxes along with Toll revenues and Gas taxes easily would and have maintained the American Highways. However so many political leaders and associates have their hands in that till as well so less goes for the actuall roads themselves. Again our Republican reps at work again robbing the poor to give to the rich. They are an assbackwards Robin Hood.

First and foremost I am glad you posted this dg....as my posts seem to go nowhere but I digress

I have been following this story for quite a while now (being in the trucking industry this is old news). The $3.8 Billion collected for this is projected to be recovered by the consortium by increasing tolls over the next five years, which the lease agreement allows them to do.

Currently an 18 wheeler pays roughly $43 to run I-80 end to end in Indiana. In five years that will increase to around $150. In other words, the Indiana State Government gave up 70 years of revenue for what could have been made in 5 years time by following the toll increases that the consortium will be implementing.

Ken Blackwell, most-likely to be elected governor of Ohio this year, has watch the whole thing in earnest and will support a similar deal in Ohio. This will give both the Spanish and Australian companies (together or separately) control of the tolled portion of I-80 corridor from NYC to Chicago.

As for the comment about the water…Japanese investors purchased Talawanda Springs in Oxford, Ohio in the 80’s and closed it down to save it as a future water reserve. It was said at the time that Japan was doing that all over to create a clean water reserve for Japan. So yeah, it has already happened.

the Indiana State Government gave up 70 years of revenue for what could have been made in 5 years time by following the toll increases that the consortium will be implementing.

The people would not stand for it if the State Gov. did this. Now the drivers have no choice and the State got a big chunk of cash up front.

Well done by the state

I actually feel sorry for you guy's cause we cant even look after our own roads here, yet you guys are letting us look after your roads. God help you all!!

Please dont send them back.

Originally posted by hornitosmonster


The people would not stand for it if the State Gov. did this. Now the drivers have no choice and the State got a big chunk of cash up front.

Well done by the state

Which People?

The general population of Indiana was kept in the dark until the deal was complete.

The group that mounted a legal opposition to the deal was told by the IN Supreme Court that they had to follow the Gov. suggestion of posting a $3.8 Billion Bond to have their case heard by the Court.

If I were a citizen of Indiana I would demand that the case be heard by the courts. Any objection would be met with the imediate request of official censor of the elected official or body objecting until the matter could be heard by an independant arbitor. Failure to agree to arbortration would be met by charges of abuse of the public trust and call for a recall election just like was done in California with the condition that refusal to comply would be a declaration of rebelion against the intrests of the People of Indiana.

When a question of a concerned group (and they were questioning the use of the $3.8B, not the lease itself) is supressed to such an extreme. Bigger questions need to be addressed. Under Indiana's Constitution the sale of public lands can only be used to pay off State debts.

Unfortunately I must agree, the State played this very well. Why should the State give a rat's about the people when they can supress opposition so freely? Posting of a $3.8B bond so your case can be heard is not (and I stress NOT) proving that justice is blind nor is it allowing for equal protection under the law.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by Ahabstar]