An article I noticed this morning said how little will be said about the anniversary of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis collapsing, in light of the GOP convention there next month. Oh and also because Gov. Palawnty could be a McCain VP choice (why not make the ticket even more liberal??) As if the GOP should be ashamed of the bridge collapsing? I say they should use it as a teaching moment, to highlight what happens when the government gets tax dollars that should go to infrastructure, and instead go to wasteful projects like the light rail system in Minneapolis. It is not to politicize the deaths of the people from the tragedy, but rather to make sure it doesn't happen ever again.
Ignoring things doesn't make them go away, and if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it.
The Z Platform
1 day ago
13 comments:
Man oh man has alot happened in that year as a result of that bridge collapse. I hate to say it Beth but it's already been politicized.
Of course, liberals take the bridge collapse as a sign that government isn't doing enough, instead of proving that it can't do what it it is supposed to now.
Soapie - have there been lawsuits from the victim's families, and who do they blame if yes?
Daniel - bingo!
The state paid out $38 million for a "victims compensation fund" which is (pardon the expression) retarded because the investigation wasn't even complete. In doing so, it basically says the state is responsible when in fact the fault may lie more appropriately in the design of it.
I think if I remember, victims could opt out and sue the state if they wanted but they could not collect from the fund and sue at the same time.
"...and who do they blame if yes?"
I hate to say it but that would be whomever has the deepest pockets. And, in this case that would be the state.
The light rail wasn't wasteful. It's well beyond its predicted wayb to pay for itself ... in reality, 60% or so beyond the projections.
Seems to be you're just against progress when it's fueled by liberal ideas. I can't think of another reason why you tried so hard to get the facts wrong on this one.
What I am against is using funds meant for infrastructure for use on something unrelated, like a light rail system. As someone who nearly could have been on that bridge, I would think you would demand better from your local government.
OK, I see the point you wish to make.
But I don't believe our light rail was funded at all by the federal dollars earmarked for interstate highway maintenance. If you have information otherwise, I's be very interested to see it.
I didn't say anything about federal dollars, it was your legislation giving funds from the highway appropriations to go towards the light rail system.
Can I have a supporting link? I don't follow state politics very closely, but to the extent I have am unaware of any county, state or federal funds earmarked for the state or interstate highway system being diverted toward light rail.
And can you respond to the fact that revenue generated by the light rail has wildly outpaced projections? Thanks.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/11150621.html
And why would the profitability of the light rails have anything to do with diverting money to the light rails? Does the lives lost on the bridge collapse justify a profitable endeavor??
There's nothing in the opinion piece you linked to claiming highwa dollars were being diverted to light rail.
Sorry, but you don;t have to try again. You're wrong.
Public transportation beyond roads for cars is way cool.
I've the feeling that in the past, you'd be argung against rail in NYC and Chicago. Doesn't Cleveland still have the Rapid Transit?
What's wrong with those rails?
So using tax dollars because Erik thinks public transportation is "way cool" seems like a perfectly great argument!
Post a Comment