Major Moves Stinks

i-69 or interstate 69 opponents, Count Us!

Major Moves Stinks

"I-69" is never mentioned in the bill. Every provision that would allow privatized tolling of I-69 would be granted to the office of the Governor over any and all roads in Indiana.

The Major Moves (HB1008) language would guide any future contract, written by any Indiana Governor, on any Indiana Road or Bridge, toll/ leased or lended, to any body, from any where, for any amount of money, for any number of years, up to 99 from the date of the signing, of any contract.

Here are some of the most troubling issues:

"MORAL OBLIGATION"
Guaranteed profits.
Roads and transportation improvements are seen as competing.

From the major moves House Bill 1008

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2006&session=1&request=getBill&docno=1008:

"Provides that, with the approval of the budget director after review by the budget committee, a public-private agreement may include a moral obligation of the state to pay certain costs incurred under the agreement."

As used in The Indiana Toll Road agreement, provides a "moral obligation"

if any action the state would take would cause a lower profit to the privateer
and provides the basis for conditions we are held libel for repayment of all payments and costs to the Concessonaire.

We-- the state of Indiana, are the IFA and the private toll road consortium is the Concessionaire:

"Concession Compensation" means compensation payable by the IFA to the Concessionaire in order to restore the Concessionaire to the same economic position the Concessionaire would have enjoyed if such Compensation Event had not occurred, which compensation shall equal to the sum of all Losses" ..."that are reasonably attributable to such Compensation Event plus (ii) the losses of the Concessionaire's present and future Toll Road Revenues that are reasonably attributable to such Compensation Event."

That quote is taken from page 4 of the Concession Agreement:

Ownership or our Interstate system: Read page 74, 75, 76 of the Indiana Toll Road Contract ("Concession Agreement") regards how difficult it might be to back out of this first agreement and the conditions when and how Indiana would have to pay the concessionaire back virtually all of the privateers historic investment. It is far from "change our mind and keep all the money" as Daniels has explained.

This is only the first contract written with Major Move Authority... imagine what will come in the future when there is zero oversight!

"Legalization and Validation" of actions already taken

SOURCE: ; (06)HB1008.2.44. --> SECTION 44. [EFFECTIVE UPON PASSAGE] Actions taken with respect to a public-private agreement before the effective date of this act that would have been valid under IC 8-15.5, as added by this act, are legalized and validated.

What actions already taken need to be "legalized". If they are not currently "legal" are they currently "illegal"?

What unknown agreements have been made that need to be "validated"?

Could that be part of Mitch's hurry to pass Major Moves? We truly don't know, there are many troubling questions unanswered as Major Moves is being pushed against undeniable public opposition in an environment of questions.

Unconstitutional

A quick law suit will prove the Indiana Constitution requires that the money from this sale of state assets must go to pay off state debt. It can not go to INDOT!

Article 10, Section 2 of the Indiana Constitution reads:

All the revenues derived from the sale of any of the public works
belonging to the State, and from the net annual income thereof, and
any surplus that may, at any time, remain in the Treasury, derived
from taxation for general State purposes, after the payment of the
ordinary expenses of the government, and of the interest on bonds
of the State, other than Bank bonds; shall be annually applied, under
the direction of the General Assembly, to the payment of the principal
of the Public Debt.

I-69 is barely mentioned in the coverage of Major Moves and it's importance is totally missed by the Media

The Carrot: The media coverage of Major Moves is only focused only on the Indiana Toll Road and mostly only the up-front money.

The Indiana Toll Road agreement with Cintra & Macquarie is based on the Illinois Skyway agreement with Cintra & Macquarie that included up front payment of some Billions.

But it is not all good news though:

It is a several hundred percent higher, unfair tax on a small section of Hoosiers for three generations whose future tolls will be spent by INDOT over 10 years or less.

It is a loan shark deal in a state whose constitution will not allow borrowing.

The Stick:

I-69 is the most expensive project in the INDOT ten year construction budget. At $2 billion dollars it equals the entire shortfall being addressed by INDOT with Major Moves. Daniels has moved I-69 from a 25 year project to a 10 year project and set aside $700 million to "Partner" with a privateer to build I-69. This $700 million represents a large portion of the shortfall in funds promoted as the reason for Major Moves.

The Stink:

Future contracts could take many shapes

As mentioned, Major Moves would allow I-69 Privatization, lease/ lending as a new power over our public roads granted the office of the governor with virtually no oversight.

See: Daniels turns to the flawed Texas toll/ privatization tactics for funding -- http://www.i69tour.org/privatization01.html

In the case of New Terrain I-69 the contract would not be based on the Illinois Skyway contract to Cintra & Macquarie, but it would instead be based on the Trans Texas Corridor contract to Cintra & Macquarie.

In that "build" agreement there is no up front payment. In fact the consortium is applying for more than their first payment of $300 million dollars as a U.S. Federal Highway Administration low interest loan. They take all development rights and profits for 50 years and build the project one payment at a time with money clearly called Public/ Private & Lend/Lease.

The public needs to ask Daniels what he means when he says "Lend" as in "lend/lease"!

This is part of a national effort to tax roads by the mile rather than by the gallon. Privatization is the mechanism that will allow higher taxation of our transportation system that politicians and our system of democracy and the vote will not support.

Hoosiers are uneasy with "Ownership" of "OUR ROADS", especially foreign ownership.

Perhaps just in time, My Man Mitch's former boss has approved the transfer of ownership of six of our nations ports to the United Arab Emirates.
News: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=ports&btnG=Search+News

His Man Mitch's Major Moves is no different. It can happen here in South West Indiana and spread to every road in the state with this Major Move of power to Mitch. This transfer of our ports to a nation so central to issues regarding the war on terrorism is certainly another reason in support for SLOW DOWN AND THINK!

Both Daniels and Bush have approval rating at record lows due in large part to their unpopular privatization of critical infrastructure schemes.

Many Hoosiers believe any product worth buying is not sold with pressure.
The STINK OF MAJOR MOVES IS UNDENIABLE!

Bill Boyd: "Major Moves is like a new trash can, shiny on the outside, but take off the lid and it stinks!"

We on I-69 see this perhaps more clearly, but regardless of what one thinks about I-69... Major Moves applies to every Hoosier and our roads. If passed, it could be applied anywhere, any time, in many ways.

That make this landmark legislation....MAJOR!

COUNT US! is thankful that the Republican lead Senate Appropriations committee had the wisdom to recognize the danger of the language in Major Moves (HB1008) that would allow I-69 to be privatized/ lended or leased to for 99 years.

While the state's media ignores the importance of I-69 in this story, even the most powerful in Daniels' own party where unwilling to look the other way, hold their nose and vote for this bill with the establishment of unregulated privatization and tolling of all Indiana Roads for up to four generations, granted to one officer, the Governor. Why can't our state's media recognize that they got the story too narrow and open their eyes, minds and hearts to what Hoosiers need to know?