Comment

Comment by tamara stephenson on March 3, 2011 at 6:44pm

FLSCT said they would have an opinion by 9 am tomorrow.

Comment by tamara stephenson on March 3, 2011 at 8:47am

FLSCT is supposed to rule by Friday which is the deadline given by LaHood.  For better or worse, we should have an answer and end to this by Friday.

Comment by tamara stephenson on March 3, 2011 at 8:46am

Oral arguments today before the FL Supreme Court on the HSR issue at 3 pm today.  You can watch the oral argument live at http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/

Comment by Lewis Veal on March 2, 2011 at 11:54am

Gov Scott was on Fox News' Bill O'Reilly Show and smilingly stated again (paraphrased), "If I can be shown how this project (High-Speed Rail) will not end up costing Florida taxpayers, I will take another look."  The Governor is sticking by his guns in a stalwart but non-combative, diplomatic manner.  He knows that Nelson, Mica, US DOT, and any other comers cannot honestly show how the "benefits" will come even close to justifying the construction overruns and operating and maintenance costs.

PLEASE, drop Governor Scott a quick e-mail and tell him you support his refusal of HSR and that you appreciate his resistance to this boondoggle that Nelson and others would selfishly force upon us.  You don't have to compose a letter.  Just e-mail him that you support his stand.  He needs to know that!

Comment by Lonnie Smith on March 1, 2011 at 5:14pm

If forced to take the money and build, could Florida say 'NO' to paying any salaries, operations, or maintenance costs with State revenue?

Comment by G richard hill on March 1, 2011 at 4:44pm

Based on the great success of Jacksonville’s Automated Skyway Express, how can we not want a federally initiated high speed rail system?  As a life long Jacksonville resident, I can remember in the 1980’s when we couldn’t afford to let all the FREE federal money go to another city, a matter of pride.  I remember the forecasts of 56,000 riders a day, and the assurance it couldn’t cost the taxpayers of Jacksonville.

 

I also remember the feds put up $182 million and we put up another $170 million to build a .7 mile train “from nowhere, to nowhere, with no riders”.  Big, federal “my bad”, we only need to finish the system.  I remember spending how many more millions more10 years later so we could have 2.5 miles of “express rail” now moving 1700 riders a day from nowhere to somewhere and losing $10,000 a day or about $6.00 a rider.  If we just paid for taxis for riders we would have at least stimulated Jacksonville’s economy not France’s or Canada’s where the trains and equipment was manufactured.  The fed millions have probably cost Jaxons a billion and rocks along at $3,000,000.00 a year.  Stimulating isn’t it?

 

Our politicians want us to forget that their projections of use was 3% of actual usage, that the costs were three times the government projections and that every dollar spent to build and operate this and the next fiasco was OUR money.  I am shamed by any politician who would hawk  this third rail in the hopes of being re-elected just as I am proud of a governor unwilling to take the bait and unafraid to take the heat.

Comment by Kerry Kelley on March 1, 2011 at 4:20pm

Can we find the details of the HSR lawsuit that I heard was filed either yesterday or today?  Who are the plaintiffs and where is the money coming from to pay for this suit?  I hear that Nelson and Mica are doing this.  Is it possible that this could be malfeasance (the performance by a public official of

Comment by tamara stephenson on March 1, 2011 at 3:21pm

Just read that Billie J. Tucker, our fearless leader, spoke to the House Tea Party Caucus last night!  Can't wait to read what happened and hopefully see some pictures.  Way to go!

Comment by David J Macfarlane IV on February 28, 2011 at 1:00pm

I wouldn't put it past them because they do have a certain lack of imagination and the Interstate Commerce clause is the only part of the constitution they have stretched out enough to fit a train through.

Everyone who says it is not intended for that is right as well. I think their law suit is without merit. Our senator has filed a frivolous law suit in order to make hay for his up coming re-election bid.

Comment by michael gable on February 28, 2011 at 11:40am

I'm not a constitution scholar by any stretch but other than the fact it has been misinterpreted by the courts, and unfortunately there's some precedent, the commerce clause should be irrelevant to HSR.

 

The commerce clause was only intended to keep commerce "regular", e.g., such things as prohibiting states from levying duties/tariffs against one another, coining their own currency, etc.  It was never intended for the fed. govt. to get otherwise involved in ruling over commercial endeavors.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page