Comment

Comment by Paul Davis on April 8, 2013 at 7:05am

All public projects over a nominal level are required to be bid to he lowest bidder, and Florida is an open shop state where union rates are applied just to a few federal projects. If one is interested in saving tax dollars the military would be a good place to begin. 1st coast is certainly a net beneficiary of total tax dollars paid versus dollar amount returned to the local community. 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 5, 2013 at 7:10pm

You are right Amanda, but it also did not get built at the best possible price or within the confines of competition which might have helped get us the best possible price without being forced to pay union scale which sometimes is far above the going rate or cost of living scales for the area, so it is not done economically and with this president, anything they drop a dime (of our money into) most be paid for at the highest scale going!   Not exactly how I buy things and probably not how you buy things either if you have any sense at all.  We look for the most bang for the buck and the government is not inclined towards doing anything economically since they feel they can just raise taxes again to pay for pretty much everything.

Comment by amanda choate on April 5, 2013 at 4:51pm

.....and one more thing. ALL public transportation, whether it be buses, trains, planes or cars. I-95 didn't  get built at a profit.

Comment by Paul Davis on April 5, 2013 at 1:44pm

Who says that private property is a "sacred right"?  Just wondering. Let me know who was promoting that idea. It doesn't seem to tie into scripture very well. On the other hand, sustainable principles pertaining to land allocation, equity, civil authority and protection of resources do.

My understanding is that there has always been public control of property use going back to land allocation decisions by the earliest primitive societies (Indians who designated territories, village  and field locations, layout and configuation), management of New England commons, and the terms included in royal charter grants to proprietors such as Penn, Oglethorpe, and the Lords Proprietor and Sir George Carteret in South Carolina, and here in Jacksonville by the King of Spain under the "Laws of the Indies" (which included city planning and building controls, by the way). Control of land to one degree or another within the jurisdicational limits of a government is a fundamental function of governance from before the time before the Pharoahs. In the U.S., those decisions are made through the normal democratic-republic constitutional process and cannot legally be made by an international organization.

Current sustainabilty theory does consider economic factors (such as tax impacts and long term debt) as a very significant part of the sustainability model, compared with long term efficiencies of proposals.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 5, 2013 at 12:38pm

AGENDA 21 AND THE UNITED NATIONS SYNOPSIS

Agenda 21 is a 300-page, 40-chapter, "soft-law" policy document adopted by the delegates to the United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.  President George H. Bush attended and signed the document they produced. The document is not legally binding;*** it is a set of policy recommendations designed to reorganize global society around the principles of environmental protection, social justice, and what is called "sustainable" development.  At the heart of the concept of sustainable development, is the assumption that government must manage society to ensure that human activity conforms to these principles. Historically, the right to own and use private property in America has been considered to be a sacred right.  The right is being usurped by government, which now dictates to private property owners how their land may-or may NOT be used.  This paradigm shift from sacred private property rights to government-managed land use, is a perfect example of how sustainable development is transforming America into a government-managed society.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 4, 2013 at 6:54am

Michelle, this needs to be put out to the membership.  Many of us already fought this once, and many folks are well aware of what this is.  Any chance it could go out?

Thanks Hank.  I kind of did get carried away, but when someone makes a comment like Mr. Davis', I have to wonder if they are living in a total vacuum.  All of this information we get about Agenda 21 has been on the UN web site and many of us are well acquainted with the language used.  Although the UN carefully moves things around the minute a cry of "foul" goes up by one group or another, and they start spreading the word, it is out there.  The so called meetings and agreements are also out there.  I wouldn't touch the UN with a 10 foot pole and would like very much for them to be asked to find another location for their offices (and for them to take all these other organizations they have planted in many communities with them................NEVER to return).  I also do not understand signing treaties with an organization.  You sign treaties agreeing to various things with other countries and those treaties are supposed to be mutually beneficial.  Nothing the UN does fits that description, but treaties with the UN do etch away at our soveirnty as a country and that is a huge mistake from where I am sitting.

Comment by Hank Heinold on April 3, 2013 at 9:22pm

Home Run by Patricia McBride!

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 3, 2013 at 9:01pm

And the UN has tentacles in the form of organizations and the like all over this country, because they felt that as a country we would never accept it, but if they could start implementing things in communities, sooner or later they would have flipped enough of them to make the final push to their little hell on earth they want everyone living in.  But the Obama's of this world are convinced they will continue to live the good elitist lifestyle and only the peasents like you and I will be turned into surfs.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on April 3, 2013 at 8:56pm

Paul, you either don't get it or you choose not to get it.  We already have enough unelected folks making the rules for us.  The transportation system right now wants to develop something called "regional" transportation centers (but don't take my word, check the federal department of transportation.......there is a ton of info with all the agenda 21 catch phrases.......I know because I have been there and seen all this) which are to be run by union members (which most of the folks working in JTA and various other segments of the state and federal transportation system are) that are not elected and are not accountable to the taxpayers who will be paying for all these transporation centers and modes of transporation that to date are heavily subsidized.  With no accountability to anyone, what wonderful results do you expect?  Certainly it won't be leaving anything decent for the future generation, but don't take my word.  Do some checking on Atlanta's system because they have all this garbage and can not afford to finish the transit system even with the new regional taxes people are paying to a system they have zero control over for budgeting or anything else and the people in the suburbs paying for most of it will never see the light rail systems they were promised when they agreed to this stuff.

We have already fought against having "it" located in our downtown.  We fought against them being given (and note I said given) land to put it on, so they could add several different modes of transportation and even impact the conference center if they felt they needed the space.  They were planning on putting businesses in the center etc.  Right now JTA is subsidized and all the parking garbages they run are losing money, and expanding this into a huge transportation center that has amtrack (another loser and heavily subsidized), the expanded overhead rail they are no longer running on weekends to cut loses (another losing proposition) etc etc and then, adding spaces to rent to businesses when the landing is half empty, many building downtown are empty, and limiting the convention center to boot will help the next generation?  Currently, the downtown only pays about 3% of the total taxes collected that are used to run this city (it was at one time 17%..........from Mayor Brown himself when he was running for office), because the city has bought up pretty much everthing and torn down many buildings, because they were "unsightly".   Parking garages and empty lots seem to appeal more to sensibilities of some folks I would guess?  But you are right, we do have an obligation to future members of society.  We have an obligation not to leave so much debt behind they can't even get their minds around it.  We have an obligation to make sure they enjoy the same freedoms we had (which are rapidly being eroded by tyrants and zeolots).  We have an obligation to leave water ways clean and clean air for them to breath.  We do not have an obligation to jump on board the "green" agenda to the point, the next generation ends up wishing they hadn't even been born because they can't even take a walk without getting permission from someone in the government and the only job they can have is one assigned to them within walking distance of the 2 by 4 room they call home on the 20th floor of a stack and pack where they eat what they are told to eat, only get the medical attention someone person in government allows them to have, can't go into certain areas of the country because it is not legal to do so.....................again, don't take my word for any of this.  Read  up on Agenda 21.  Go the UN website and start looking at some of the agreements our presidents got us involved in and then follow the bread crumbs a little.  Start with the first Bush, because although he initially wasn't going to sign the agreement, the president of another country worked on him until he did sign it, but then, he didn't do anything about it.  Obama however is not Bush and he has started implementation as if on steroids.

Comment by Paul Davis on April 3, 2013 at 10:27am

Just what is the issue that you are trying to address?

Do you believe that the First Coast should not have a vision for the future? Do you believe that we should not contemplate transportation options for the future? Do you think that state government should not finance transportation? Do you believe that we have no obligation to future members of society to leave them with resources with which they can sustain themself? Do you believe that the United Nations is behind some sort of nefarious conspiracy to take over the worlds governments?  Do you have a personal vendetta against Doug Conkey? Just what exactly is the problem?

Yes, the state transportation system has deep roots going back to construction of Kings Road in the time of George III, but I really do not understand your concern.