BTW, something that opened my eyes to the problem of local spending on infrastructure happened when I lived in Portland.
Remember that bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a bunch of years ago? Well I was living in Portland at the time and that bridge collapse meant that suddenly everyone was very concerned about bridge safety. And the DOT or some other organization had a report that rated basically every bridge and overpass in the country on a scale where zero was perfect and 100 meant the bridge had already collapsed or something close to that. A bridge in the Portland are scored around 95ish… extremely dangerous. It was located in and maintained by Multnomah County, the county containing Portland. But the taxpayers in Multnomah County did not want to pay for it. The County posted a few employees by the bridge several days (I actually saw them doing this as my chiropractor was on the other side of the bridge) and they recorded all the license plates driving over the bridge and looked up the addresses of the cars. Something like 80% of the cars were from neighboring Clackamas County. The suburban folks were driving over the bridge to get to / from work in the city. So Multnomah County says “hey Clackamas County, how about ponying up and paying for part of the bridge repairs” and Clackamas County responds “your bridge, your problem” and they were at a face off for a while.
I switched chiropractors for unrelated reasons and later moved so I don’t know the details of how it all ultimately shook out. They did eventually replace the bridge. Not sure if it got federal funding as one of Obama’s “shovel-ready projects” or something else. But it took a lot longer to deal with than it should have, at significant risk to a lot of people as the bridge was open to traffic while basically being in danger of collapsing at any moment for quite some time.
Thankfully no one was hurt as a result of keeping it open way too long. But it highlights the issues with the people responsible being different from the people who benefit.
We have similar things with tunnels/bridges connecting NJ and NYC. They usually share the cost and argue over it, although I think the Federal government chipped in for a recent tunnel.
Yeah, when bridges and tunnels are right on borders then clearly both sides should pay for part of it, although you can certainly get into squabbles over how much.
In the Portland case, both sides of the bridge in question were in Multnomah County, but the bridge was situated fairly close to the border between Multnomah & Clackamas Counties, such that most of the traffic was from Clackamas County residents.
It’s basically getting your neighbor to pay for half the fence on a larger scale.
I wonder how they’re taxed, perhaps the commuters pay taxes because they work in the the city? I’d think a higher level of government would be involved, perhaps as high as the state level.
Well there is no City or County income tax. There’s a city tax of something like $0.08 per day that you work in the city, which I believe funds public transportation but I’m not positive.
I researched it at one point because I couldn’t figure out why I’d get like 7 paychecks in a row for the exact same amount and then one paycheck would be like 8 or 40 cents higher and then back to the regular amount. It was because of that silly tax, which you don’t have to pay on days you take sick/vacation or holidays. But at like $18ish per person per year it obviously wasn’t generating a ton of revenue.
I think the fact that congress made mistakes in the past does not justify making new mistakes today.
If the “community” is too poor for water it is too poor for everything - roads, schools, police, fire, …
The first line of support should be the state, not the federal gov’t. I can imagine very poor communities in poor states. In those cases, I can see direct federal aid, looking at the entire need. But, that might be 5% of all the places in the US. I expect the bill is providing money to plenty of places that aren’t in the poorest 5%.
I think that bill was never intended to be passed into law. It’s more of a message and political play. “We can run in 2022, and say the incumbent was against infrastructure.”
But the bill itself has way too many parts… look at that list…and that’s just
te highlights. Lord only knows what kind of silly expenses would end up in the final version.
I blame the Ds for doing more posturing than legislating. And yes, I kno, theDs have a lot of factions and special interest groups inside the tent. But still…arguing that broadband is infrastructure is a stretch.
I would think broadband (or, at least some sort of decent speed internet access), is about as much infrastructure as telephone lines. Not sure where you stand on those.
Not sure how the telephone lines fit in this. The vast majority of them are privately owned. state and local districts approve right of way, but they don’t own them.
WRT to broadband, that too is privately owned. The carriers have been effective at lobbying to make it somewhere between difficult and illegal for municipalities to offer for free what they charge money for. Can’t blame them for protecting their very livelihood.
So just saying “money for broadband” is very vague. Who gets this money? What qualifies as an infrastructure spending vs a general investment in a company? These are the nits and lice of putting together a piece of legislation. When those are left unexamined, it’s just a slogan, not a proposed law. If you want to restructure the broadband sector, make it a separate bill, and expect a ton of debate.
I don’t know if the actual language of the proposed bill is available, but the “fact sheet” says a fair bit more than “money for broadband”. Looks like an appropriate section of a 21st century infrastructure bill.
There are several “I’m not sure if that’s infrastructure” parts of the proposal, but the broadband stuff seems like it fits very well. I’m not sure why people fixate on that one.
Because it’s too complicated a subject to be part of a giant package.
Here’s the fact sheet on the topic.
the President is committed to working with Congress to find a solution to reduce internet prices for all Americans, increase adoption in both rural and urban areas, hold providers accountable, and save taxpayer money.
That’s not very explicit. I have not read the bill itself and is in undoubtedly longer. But it’s a big deal, with a lot of vested interests. It could take a long time to pass even a stand alone version of a bill that restructures the telecom industry.
The question isn’t if it needs restructuring, it’s whether putting it inside this huge bill makes it more or less likely to be enacted. I say it hurts the chances.
It’s a stretch. Roads,bridges, ports, even airports to some extent seem government owned. Broadband…not even a little. That’s the rub.
I’m saying the US needs to look at the issues raised in the fact sheet. A good start would be to understand why capitalism isn’t working here while it does Lee’s where. Maybe anti trust activity?
Happy to see this. My city was absolutely red-lined by a highway and it’s deepened problems in a poorer neighborhood mostly owned by POC. The city pretty much acknowledges it today but hasn’t done anything (to my knowledge) to fix it. They really just rammed a highway into the middle of a mostly Black area and now the place is mostly liquor stores/check-cashing/predatory loans/etc.
So what does a fix look like? I assume they’re not going to re-route the highway. Are they going to build a pedestrian bridge over the highway? Put up walls to block the noise? Compensate the people who owned nearby property at the time and review the compensation for the owners who got eminent domain money?
I don’t deny that redlining happened; I’m just not sure what the right thing to do about it is given where we currently sit in the time-space continuum, and I’m curious how this money will be spent / what the goals are for that money.
I’m also not sure what’s best in that context - they kind of destroyed a historically Black (and other POC) neighborhood. It’s not all what I’d call “infrastructure” but things such as improved public transportation, a couple of parks, some governmental buildings (DMVs/SoSs/etc.), a library, maybe some community events such as a music festival or farmer’s market, and improved policing (not just more policing) could go a long way.
But I’m no sociologist or public policy planner, there are smarter people for that kind of stuff.