Wednesday, January 31, 2007

CorridorWatch.org also sends a Formal Complaint to Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice

Dear Mr. Stall:

Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Citizen Complaint Center has reviewed your complaint, and we have forwarded it to the appropriate legal staff for further review. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.

We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.

Sincerely,

Citizen Complaint Center

Antitrust Division

Department of Justice

-----Original Message-----
From: David Stall - CorridorWatch.org [mailto:davidstall@corridorwatch.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:34 PM
To: Antitrust.Complaints@usdoj.gov
Subject: Macquaire Media Group acquisition of American Consolidated Media

The recent offer by Macquarie Media Group to purchase American Consolidated Media (including Valley Newspapers Holdings) raises considerable concern in Texas.

CorridorWatch.org represents thousands of members who reside in 199 counties across Texas who are challenging the wisdom of the Trans Texas Corridor.

We bring the following facts to your attention:

All of this generates more questions than answers.

Naturally our chief concern is that Macquarie Bank, though one of it's MMG subsidiary, has put itself in a position to attempt to manipulate public opinion by using a virtual monopoly of rural Texas media to improperly benefit another of it's subsidiaries, MIG.

Your consideration is appreciated.

Respectfully Submitted,

David Stall
CorridorWatch.org

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

CAMPO Mobility Financing Task Force report

THANK YOU MARK!

CAMPO Mobility Financing Task Force report from Monday, Jan 29th, 2007
by Mark Kilgard:

In the course of trying to arrange a meeting with Senator Watson, his aide Steve Scheibal let me know about today's "CAMPO Mobility Financing Task Force" that Kirk Watson has initiated. The meeting was today at noon at the Capitol (room E1.016). It went for three hours (wow, I didn't know it was going to go that long).

The task force members are:

1. Senator Kirk Watson, chair
2. Mayor (of Buda) John Trube, vice chair
3. Commissioner Gerald Daugherty, Travis
4. Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt, Travis
5. Commissioner Cynthia Long, Williamson
6. Judge Liz Sumter, Hays
7. Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley, Austin
8. Dr. David Ellis, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M
9. Michael Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense
10. Greg Marshall, The Marshall Group (consultant), Business, Economic Development Capital City African American Chamber of Commerce
11. Frank Fernandez, Executive Director, Community Partnership for the Homeless

The meeting started (and ended) with Kirk Watson expressing his sense of purpose for the task force. He used the words "shelving the Phase 2 toll plan" to describe his actions at the last CAMPO meeting.

Watson provided three long paragraphs to describe the mission of the task force. In short, the claim is the task force is going to construct a "policy framework" for evaluating transportation proposals for Central Texas.

As near as I can tell, the group intends to invite experts to future meetings. Future meetings were proposed for Feb 9, 23, March 2, 12, and 26 with the March dates all tentative. The public is invited to all of them presumably.

It's rather unclear what the group actually provides back to CAMPO except that 7 of the task force members are actually CAMPO Transportation Policy Board members.

The "middle" of the meeting was spent hearing presentations from Bob Daigh (TxDOT District Engineer) and then Michael Aulick (CAMPO Executive Director). This was mostly a background briefing.

Bob spent his talk identifying funding sources for transportation projects. There was a bit of "funding crisis" to his talk when he described the "current balance" for the federal highway construction funding possibly going to zero in 2008. Talking about the "current balance" of something with as much cash flow as the federal construction fund is really beside the point. The slides give you the sense "we are almost out of money" when having a fund's "current balance" going to zero when the fund has inflows of billions of dollars a year is rather different than running out of money. No one on the task force pointed this out.

(Bob also seems to misunderstand the term "Private Equity". Equity implies some sort of ownership stake, but Bob used the term in his slides and discussion to describe any non-governmental financing. Basically he means "private capital" for financing.)

Michael went through his standard slide deck about what CAMPO is and discussed regional forecasts and the CAMPO 2030 plan.

At the meeting, there was a CD prepared by CAMPO with a large number of documents that were collected in hardcopy form in binders for the task force members.

The CD contains two PDFs: "Mobility Financing Task Force Binder.pdf" (492 pages) and "January 29 Final Presentation.pdf" (Michael's 57 slides).

The big document collected a bunch of CAMPO documents, studies, maps, etc.

It had two interesting documents I had not seen before.

Page 234 has a table of toll revenues CAMPO expects the Phase 1 and Phase 2 toll plans to generate. It's not clear when the table was prepared. The data claims to be 2003 dollar data so I assumed that's when the table was prepared. What's interesting is that the introductory paragraph suggests that CAMPO was/is expecting 50% of the construction cost of Phase 2 toll roads to be financed by toll-backed bonds.

They call this 50% "cost recovery". What's interesting is that the actual average capacity of the Phase 2 toll roads (according to the MAFS study) is 29% of the total construction cost, far below the 50% CAMPO hoped (in 2003?) to actually be able to recover.

Page 235 also confirms my working assumption that every 1 cent in gas tax brings in roughly $10 million per year. In 2005, fuel (gas and diesel) within the CAMPO region were 0.93 billion gallons total, forecast to rise to 1.8 billion in 2030.

After the meeting, Michael Aulick pointed me to the gentleman working at TxDOT responsible for the 17 cents/gallon estimate of what a local gas tax option would have to be to replace the Phase 2 toll roads. This estimate was prepared in response to a question posed by Rep. Mark Strama during a past CAMPO meeting.

What I learned for the discussion was that Mark's question was interpreted in an extremely broad way. Their 17 cents/gallon estimate was based on not simply paying for the total construction cost of the Phase 2 toll projects but also replacing ALL the projected revenue (not net income but revenue!) that such projects would provide in the future. This is a really bogus way of interpreting the Mark's question (the TxDOT claimed they asked Mark to make sure this was what he wanted but I have a hard time thinking Mark could have actually wanted his question understood the way TxDOT choose to understand it).

The TxDOT understanding of the question is bogus because there's no need to replace revenue that would go to operating a toll road if there was no actual toll road. This is what lead to a wholly excessive estimate, one repeated in the Statesman to help justify toll conversions. The TxDOT understanding also wanted to provide the FULL construction cost when in a toll financing scheme, toll-backed financing would only cover 29% of the construction cost according to the MAFS study (and 31% according to the 2004 project studies). So TxDOT apparently interpreting Mark's question to pay for 100% of the cost when actual toll conversion only paid for less than one third of the toll conversion construction cost.

I recall Mark asking the question at the CAMPO meeting and I really don't think TxDOT was answering Mark's question in anything approaching a reasonable way.

The gentleman went on to hand me a color TxDOT flier titled "The Texas Transportation Challenge" and point out the flier says a $1.40 per gallon gas tax "is necessary to expand our transportation system as needed over the next 25 years". It was a little odd for me to express my frustration about a gas tax estimate prepared by TxDOT being so out-of-whack and then be told about another estimate that was almost an order-of-magnitude larger than what I had just expressed frustration about.

Most of the task force members seem reasonable. Dr. David Ellis seems particularly appropriate member, very knowledgeable. One member I'm not so sure about is Michael Replogle ( http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=961) who doesn't appear to have any connection to Central Texas (he's from D.C.) and spoke repeatedly and, at times, verbosely about land use planning issues from an anti-sprawl perspective rather than really transportation funding issues.

Hope this gives you a little more sense of the continuing saga...

- Mark Kilgard

Monday, January 29, 2007

Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice responds to my Formal Complaint of Macquarie acquisition of ACM.

I spoke with the FTC this morning and emailed my complaint. They stated that the approval process is handled by the FTC or DOJ, and it's a 30 day process that is closed to the public. There is about 3 weeks left before final approval. The FTC forwarded my complaint to DOJ. I just received the response. Quick response compared to our local govt responses:

ATR-OPS Citizen Complaint Center wrote:

Subject: FW: Formal Complaint of Macquarie acquisition of ACM
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:18:25 -0500
From: Antitrust.Complaints@usdoj.gov
"ATR-OPS Citizen Complaint Center"
To: salcostello

Dear Mr. Costello:

Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Your complaint was forwarded to the Citizen Complaint Center(CCC). The CCC has reviewed your complaint, and we have forwarded it to the appropriate legal staff for further review. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.

We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of federal antitrust laws.

Sincerely,
Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Jennifer "Red Light Camera Scam" Kim wants special airport access (and comments)

Council member seeks special airport access
Jennifer Kim upset she can't go through security when she is not flying.


By Tony Plohetski
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, January 27, 2007


Austin City Council Member Jennifer Kim has a beef with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

She said it's "ridiculous" that she can't flash her council member badge to federal screeners at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, go through the same security as passengers and access the restricted terminal area — even if she has no plans to fly.

Jennifer Kim Council member says her request for airport employee badge was denied.

After all, she said, "it's our airport."

Records show that Kim, who is serving her second year of a three-year term, began asking city workers this month for essentially the same privilege as airport workers, who show special credentials, go through screening and then go to their jobs. Even Mayor Will Wynn and City Manager Toby Futrell don't have that access.

And when city officials told her that wasn't possible, Kim said, she then asked for — and was denied — an airport employee badge.

"There are times I want to escort (an official) visitor to the gate or meet them at the gate," she said. "It's not like I want to go shopping in there or anything or grab a bite to eat."

Kim said she never sought to bypass security screeners and is willing to stand in line, slip off her shoes for metal detectors and send her handbag through X-ray machines, just like anyone else.

But a memo from the city manager's office used to summarize council members' concerns and questions said Kim "thought her VIP badge at our airport would allow her to get through security without going through screening. She has now been told that's not the case and is not happy."

Almost everyone who goes through security at Austin-Bergstrom — or any other airport — must have a boarding pass, Transportation Security Administration spokesman Doug Johnson said.

Parents or anyone escorting a minor can get special permission to go through security without a boarding pass, as can someone accompanying a person with disabilities.

Airport spokesman Jim Halbrook said city officials who are at the airport for official business must register at a security desk in the baggage claim area and are given a visitor pass. A city airport worker then escorts them through security and directs them where they need to go.

Wynn aide Matt Watson said the mayor follows that procedure. Futrell said that if she needs to meet with airport employees, she does so off-site and never picks up or drops off people who are in town on city business.

Council Member Brewster McCracken said he can recall only one time when he scheduled a meeting at the airport. He said he remembers being escorted, but not going through security.

McCracken said that he isn't sure that he would support rules giving council members permission to use their badges instead of having boarding passes but that he "can see an argument for that."

Kim said she thinks it's possible for her to get a special pass from airlines to meet their passengers while still going through screening. However, she said she didn't want to do that because of the wait at the ticket counter.

She said she recently planned to meet a visitor from the Ford Foundation and was delayed because she thought she could go through the security screening line without a boarding pass.

"I didn't know it was a (Transportation Security Administration) issue," she said. "I thought since it was our airport and we own it, and if we are pre-cleared, we could get through.

"Now we just have to go through all this bureaucracy to extend politeness to other people."

tplohetski@statesman.com; 445-3605

Comments

By Richard

Jan 27, 2007 9:33 PM | Link to this

Having reviewed a few of the posted comments, all I can add is More of the Same. She was elected to the city council,not Sainthood.

By janew

Jan 27, 2007 8:22 PM | Link to this

absolutely not, enough exceptions renders security worthless. She should have to go through security the same way everyone else does

By Bobby French

Jan 27, 2007 8:19 PM | Link to this

This is an example of why Margot Clarke should have won this council seat!

By Elias

Jan 27, 2007 8:07 PM | Link to this

She wants to dine on cake while the ordinary citizens eat bread crumbs.

By jim

Jan 27, 2007 7:54 PM | Link to this

it's important that those that propose additional laws/ordinances comply with those very same rules. only when they have to live like those they represent will they weigh each and every proposal as to what effect another rule will have on all of us. i agree many of the changes since 911 stink, but they should apply to all

By betsy

Jan 27, 2007 7:52 PM | Link to this

Ms. Kim needs to stop whining and work on REAL issues that are important to the City. Get in line with the rest of us and get over it!

By Colorado Kool-Aid

Jan 27, 2007 6:57 PM | Link to this

get over yourself lady! you're an elected official, not queen of austin!

By Thomas

Jan 27, 2007 6:20 PM | Link to this

I think that councilwoman Kim has a valid point. I think that city council members, the city manager, and the city mayor should be granted the privelege to go through security with little trouble so they can greet corporate businessmen and goverment officials to Austin in a professional, friendly manner.

By Olivia

Jan 27, 2007 5:54 PM | Link to this

this request it is for personal reasons and she just needs to wait in line like everyone else no special treatment
who is voting for dumb people like this?

By Ron

Jan 27, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Dave: a yokel here--there is a system in place to handle her request, sign in like the mayor and be escorted. Don't need another special system for one person. Yokel out.

Comments

By Ron

Jan 27, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this

Dave: a yokel here--there is a system in place to handle her request, sign in like the mayor and be escorted. Don't need another special system for one person. Yokel out.

By Jerry

Jan 27, 2007 5:26 PM | Link to this

You know, I don't particullarly like waiting in long lines either. My time is important to me also. Also, since 9-11, she should realize that increased security is an absolute necessity for the security of this great nation of ours. So, if it inconveniences the city council person along the way, it can't be helped.

By Sue

Jan 27, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

NO, no way!

By Steve Simmons

Jan 27, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

From a person who has a badge at the Airport, we are prescreened(by the FBI) and given a badge that allows us to wait in the same lines and be screened so we can do our jobs, isn't all Ms. Kim is asking for; to be prescreened, issued a badge, so she can do her job?

By marvin

Jan 27, 2007 3:34 PM | Link to this

not just no but hell NO

By JLM

Jan 27, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Jennifer Kim is special, special, special. She should not have to wait in line for popcorn at the movies, pay to get into Barton Springs or clean up after her dog. Because she is special, special, special and you --- you are not special!

By Alan

Jan 27, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

I have to take exception to the comments that she is starting to act like a corrupt politician, she has acted that way since her election. She obviously feels that rules don't apply to her and she should receive special treatment not available to ordinary citizens. Her supports resort to personal attacks on anyone who does not agree with the view that she is 'special'.

By southside observer

Jan 27, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

First there was her championing of the all-important "bring your dog to a restaurant" ordinance. Then she spent city money to help upgrade her personal, self-promotional website. Now she wants special privileges at the airport. Serving or self-serving?

By Linda

Jan 27, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this

She is willing to go through security, but does not want to stand in line (beaurocracy)to get a pass. "Just flash her badge" as she put it, or throw her weight around would be another way to say it. This is an abuse of her office. I don't believe any of her guests to the city expect such abuse on their behalf.

By Kevin

Jan 27, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

To "dave": No yokel here. But I do detect a political toady there. Hitched your wagon to Jen's political star (such as it was) in an effort to get through life without doing any real work, I bet. Typical of political flunkies, you are using insults to obfuscate the truth. Good luck with that.

Comments

By Bennie

Jan 27, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

After reading the article it seams to me that there is a procedure for this kind of situation as Jim Halbrook states. Maybe this lady needs to get some education on the matter and stop complaining about a security procedure that is in place FOR ALL OF US. And by the way Dave maybe you need to read the article or get somebody to explain it to you. She is asking to byp****security ( bureaucracy as she calls it) (Skip in line) and not stand in line like the rest of us do.

By ceecy

Jan 27, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this

Ummm.... what's the big deal? So what if she wants to meet someone at the gate on behalf of the City (some of y'all elected her!)? She SAID she would want to go thru security like everyone else. It's not as though it's for personal reasons. I don't see how her request for clarification on TSA policy and City if Austin protocol desrves the attack on her character. Most of y'all responding sound like the whiners.

By Fred

Jan 27, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

"Airport spokesman Jim Halbrook said city officials who are at the airport for official business must register at a security desk in the baggage claim area and are given a visitor pass. A city airport worker then escorts them through security and directs them where they need to go."

It's obvious that she wants access for personal reasons. If she were on official city business, she would simply comply with the procedure outlined above.

By rhonda

Jan 27, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

are you serious..?? so do People who are in the military that serve our country get special passes like that ?? I think not..she aint that special..

By D. Slater

Jan 27, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

No!! She puts her pantyhose on, one leg at a time, just like the rest of Austin. Rules are rules and we are all equal. It appears Ms. Kim feels that she is en***led to be more equal than others.

By dave

Jan 27, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this

Again, Nowhere in this does the councilmember ask to skip the line.

Yokels: please read the whole article before posting a comment to something you really don't understand fully.

By keith

Jan 27, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

How does she think she is so special that she can byp****TSA rules. Just cause you have a little badge saying you're a council member doesn't get you anywhere - then again this is the one that pe***ioned to get dogs allowed into bars and eateries....just another dumb thing for her to do - next thing it'll be "i can drive as fast as I want on Mopac cause I'm a council member"

By Walter

Jan 27, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

She said she stands in line like everyone else and is willing to continue to - so the question just has to do with being escorted without a boarding pass. I don't believe she wants special treatment - just a more efficient process to do her job.

By John Doggett

Jan 27, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

She is clueless. Worst, she is beginning to act like a corrupt politician. It is very simple. She works for us. We pay her salary. She should not have "VIP" rights that her employers, us, don't have.

If she wants to be a special, corrupt politician, she should resign and go live in Chicago.

I'm disgusted.

By Mike, Westlake

Jan 27, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

No. This is a great example the arrogance and sense of en***lement that permeates our country. Little wonder our children are growing up to be bombastic self-absorbed brats - just look at the example set for them by publicly elected civic leaders.

Comments

By Mel

Jan 27, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

If it really is "our airport" then everyone should be allowed to enter the boarding gate area without a boarding psss. I think not! There is a reason why the security rules are in place. Is it so much trouble to go sign in and get a visitor p****and be escorted as Mayor Winn does? If the Mayor has to do it, what makes you think someone beneath him doesn't? Get your head on straight.

By Dave

Jan 27, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this

Nothing about what Councilmember Kim says here implies that she wishes to enter the airport and byp****security. The way you frame the "story" it seems like she wants to pop into the airport to grab an overpriced lunch at the Salt Lick or pick up her grandmother at the gate.

By Brad

Jan 27, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

No. They can just escort their guest to the security line like everyone else. The days of walking your guest/loved one to the gate is over, we all know that! If a Council member has business at the airport that doesn't include flying they can follow the procedures laid out of TSA. They aren't that special.

By J.R. Vaughn

Jan 27, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

The Austin area reaps the benefits every time a major company extends their operations to the city. Meeting visiting execs as they get off the plane is a no-brainer. If the mayor and city manager aren't doing that, they need to take lessons from Ms. Kim. She never asked to by-p****security.

By Christine Rose

Jan 27, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

Ms. Kim consistently demonstrates a very unbecoming at***ude of being better than the citizens who elected her to SERVE them which reflects poorly on her and the city.

Next time, she'll be unelected.

By Linda

Jan 27, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

If she is given special access to the gate area, where will it end? Everyone should then be able to go to the gates to meet loved ones or anyone else. Security rules are in place for a reason, and she certainly does not deserve any special treatment just because she is a elected official. She might not ever be elected to anything again after acting like a spoiled child.

By Frank

Jan 27, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

No. No. No. With my very own eyes, I have seen a British High Commissioner go through the regular line just like everyone else. An Austin Councilmember? Give me a break.

By Kevin Brady

Jan 27, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Note to Jen: there is no ruling cl****here. Why is someone from the Ford Foundation more importatnt than my nephew from New Hampshire or my best friends from California? By the way, we all found each other easily in baggage claim and we probably aren't nearly as smart as you and your guests. Also, as a public servant, try leading by example, you might find it very rewarding. Let the TSA do their thankless jobs. And you do yours while you still have one.

By rita williamson

Jan 27, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

miss kim should get the taxpayers to fly these politicos in on a private jet that should could then meet at a private airport......such a waste of her time to have to go thru all the same waste of time exercises that us commoners enjoy!

By ceecy

Jan 27, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

There's nothing wrong with her request. She's asking to p****thru security, to be there on official business. We aren't supposed to live in a friggin police state.

By Aaron

Jan 27, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

What an idiot! Who put that woman in office? She's an example of what's wrong with American politics. What kind of unbelievably inflated ego would allow her to think that she's above airport screening and rules.

By Robert

Jan 27, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

I wish the Statesman would post her picture, that interview was unbelievable

By Jason

Jan 27, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

WAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Grow up Ms Kim -- despite what you think, you are NOT better than the rest of us. You are not en***led to get around what everyone else has to deal with. Matter of fact, you should be delayed even more so you can see how it feels to be a citizen trying to get something done by the city governement. Work on cutting that red tape instead.

By Roger

Jan 27, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

While I am sure Ms. Kim shares in the level of frustration that ALL of us have experienced with the security screening process, I don't believe she is being selfish in asking the question. I would have truly enjoyed the opportunity to be able to escort my Grandmother to and from her flight recently. Don't blow a simple request out of proportion people.

By Don Joe

Jan 27, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Who voted her Queen of Austin?
She's gotten too big for her britches.
But I'm not sure this is top of the Web page worthy information.

Time to vote her and Mike Martinez, both beholden to the AFD Union, out of office and get some public servants in office.

By Fred

Jan 27, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Kim's most recent escapade is just the most recent of a long list of abusses that city employees are aware of. She is under the illusion that she answers to no one and abides by no rules. To the people that admire her I say watch what she does not what she say's.

By CH

Jan 27, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Yes, only if she is on an official city function and if done according to a protocal established by the city and the aiport. I am sure the city can come up with a practical solution which helps efficient use of citizens' representative while maintaining proper security measure.

By Robert

Jan 27, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

I remember when she first ran for the Council, I made the misrtake of voting for her. this just one of many things i have heard that makes me regret my decision.

By Patsy

Jan 27, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

I think Ms. Kim believes she's "all that", and once agains demonstrates her "greater than though" at***ude towards our City. It is an embarassment to the City, and it's taxpayers. She should get over herself, and just follow the rules. What's truly embarrasing is her waste of all our time and money with this silliness for an airport the City owns, and not HER....

Comments

By Anonymous

Jan 27, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Sounds like another Cynthia McKinney to me. Self-centered people like that have no business in a public service job. It's not our job to serve her, it's hers to serve us. She needs to be voted out next round, and this incident will cause her to be discredited and voted out. I hope she realises that this is harming her public image.

By Tom

Jan 27, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Looks like the beginning of the common disconnect between politicians and citizens. It's public servant, not public ruler stupid!

By CB

Jan 27, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Whine, whine, whine, me, me, me! Ms. Kim appears to be placing herself in a cl****above those who elected her. She doesn't have time to waste standing in line for an airline pass, and it is so hard to find someone at the airport! Airport security has a job, and so do our council members, let security do theirs and someone teach Ms. Kim what her duties are to the citizens.

By CB

Jan 27, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

Sounds to me like Ms. Kim believes she should have priviledges above and beyond those who elected her. She doesn't want to wait in line, she has trouble finding people at the airport, she likes it like before 9-11-whine, whine, whine! Is not meeting a Ford Foundation member at the gate going to risk chances of donations? It would be nice to see our elected officials use their time as well as press time on matters important to us citizens. All this me, me, me really wears a person out!

By rachel

Jan 27, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Not only do I think city council members should be able to p****through security without a boarding p****- I think everybody should be able to! I've always liked this lady, and I admire her for speaking up about this issue.

By Pat

Jan 27, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

City Council members should NOT be allowed to enter the airport without a boarding p****and certainly not without waiting in the security line. They can wait like everyone else in baggage to great visitors.

By Joseph Palmer

Jan 27, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

No she shouldn't! If council members are allowed passed security everyone should.

By roscoe

Jan 27, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

I would like to remind Ms. Kim that, yes the city owns the airport but she does not. As a matter of fact she works for us so her status is not as elevated as she might like to think. There are a lot of things that Ms.Kim has had to realize about the en***lements that her job does not bring. She should get off her high horse and put this new realization in the same place that she put the realization that city funds are not to be used for buying her dog food.

By Steve D.

Jan 27, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this

I don't think anyone should be allowed to go to the Gate without first going through security, Its a security measure thats in place for a reason. With all due respect, just because you're on the City Council that honor alone shouldn't allow you to byp****waiting in any lines. I wish they would allow everyone to go to the arrivel/departure gates again, but only after going through security check points.

By Marc Levin

Friday, January 26, 2007

Former fundraiser for Kirk Watson, Alfred Stanley, gets pro-toll letter to editor published on 1/25/07.

Since phase I tolls opened the Statesman won't print letters that oppose tolls. But, former fundraiser for Kirk Watson, Alfred Stanley, gets pro-toll letter to editor published on 1/25/07:

Tolls help pay for growth

The mantra of anti-toll activists is "No tolls on existing roads," and it doesn't make sense. I can still drive north on MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) and take Texas 45 to get to Interstate 35 without paying a toll. Or I can take the new toll lanes to get there. Tolls are being used to pay for new lanes to deal with the population explosion that's taken place around Austin.

I've been an active environmentalist in these parts long enough to remember when our mantra was "Make growth pay for itself." The idea was that older neighborhoods shouldn't have to foot the bill to extend infrastructure out to new subdivisions, thereby subsidizing them.

Tolls are a fine way to help make growth pay for itself. Allowing low-emission and high-occupancy vehicles free access to toll lanes provides a tangible behavioral incentive that will help reduce air pollution — a critical problem here.

ALFRED STANLEY
astanley@astanley.com
Austin

Report on Road to Texas Independence Confab, featuring Paul Burka of Texas Monthly

REPORT BY SUSAN RIDGEWAY OF Anti-Corridor/Rail Expansion (ACRE):

GROUPS ATTACKING CORRIDOR FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS,
FLURRY OF LEGISLATION FILED


Report on Road to Texas Independence Confab, featuring Paul Burka of Texas Monthly

The Road to Texas Independence Confab, organized and hosted by Linda Curtis, Independent Texans, was held Sunday, January 21, in Austin. The meeting room at the Crowne Plaza Hotel was filled with over 200 attendees, including, as Linda says, “a very wide variety of people, from farmers and bikers, to urbanites from Dallas and San Antonio to horse ranchers from
Gainesville, including leaders and activists of ALL political stripes!”

Attendees from our area included Sylvia Summers and me, from Coupland, Jody Krankel, of Blackland Prairie Concerned Citizens, Jane Van Praag from Bartlett, who is active in several anti-Corridor endeavors, Dan and Margaret Byfield, Texas Landowners organization, and Blackland Coalition members Ralph and Marcia Snyder and Judith Renker.

The event was covered by Austin’s KVUE-TV and KXAN-TV, KLBJ-AM radio, and the influential political site Quorum Report.

Linda presented a panel of very diverse speakers, who discussed many Corridor aspects from various viewpoints.

The first speaker was Gina Parker Ford, from the Eagle Forum. Her presentation dealt mainly with the efforts to combine our country with Mexico and Canada into one North American union, which she called the “underlying force moving the Trans-Texas Corridor and the NAFTA
superhighway.” She spoke about the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (spp.gov) and the Supercorridor. (See North America SuperCorridor Coalition, nascocorridor.com).

Next to speak was David Stall, who Linda Curtis introduced as the “undisputed opposition expert on the Corridor.” David, who with his wife Linda Stall, founded the first and largest anti-Corridor organization, Corridor Watch, said, “The TTC represents a dramatic shift in public policy. It’s about revenue, NOT transportation.” David reported the first bills
that have been filed that can help us against the Corridor are:

SB 149, by Sen. Carona, the new Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, which seeks to prohibit non-compete clauses from being put in toll road contracts with private corporations, such as Cintra. A non-compete clause in the contract means that governmental entities are
forbidden from repairing, maintaining, or building a public road that might compete (provide a free route) with the private toll road. This bill will remove the non-compete clauses, and allow free, public routes to be continued. SB 245, by Sen. Carona, giving first option to local toll entities. This means that if a toll road is to be built in a certain area, a local entity that builds roads, such as a county, would be given the first option to build the toll road, in preference to a private corporation.

HB 154, filed by Representative Pickett, which abolishes the appointed Transportation Commission and mandates that the office that is now the Chairman of the Transportation Commission be a state-wide elective office.

The latest anti-Corridor legislation was just filed by Representative Leibowitz on January 25. It is HB 857, “Relating to repeal of authority for the establishment and operation of the Trans-Texas Corridor.”

You can read and follow this legislation at Texas Legislature Online, capitol.state.tx.us. You can sign up to receive email alerts when there is any action taken on a bill.

Also speaking was Sal Costello, founder of Texas Toll Party, who critics call “abrasive” but “effective.” Sal said that the Corridor/toll issue “is about corruption and accountability,” involving among other things campaign contributions and contracts. Sal has succeeded in stopping some Austin toll projects and has been involved in election campaigns that have replaced pro-toll officials with anti-toll officials. On Monday, January 22, an effort in which Sal played a large roll saw a major success, when the CAMPO board voted to table the Austin Phase 2 toll roads, pending further study.

Hank Gilbert also spoke. Hank lost his bid to become Texas Agriculture Commissioner, but did win the most votes in November of any state-wide Democratic candidate. He will be hosting a Texas Independence Day Rally on March 2 on the Capitol grounds, against the Corridor and the National Animal Identification System.

Pointing out the negative environmental impacts of the Corridor and other area toll road projects were Annalisa Peace, executive director of the Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, and Colin Clark, communications director of Save Our Springs.

Paul Burka, senior executive editor of Texas Monthly, has covered 20 of the 80 Texas legislative sessions, one-fourth of all the sessions in the history of the state, making him indeed an expert on the background, the personalities, and the maneuverings of the legislature. He began with some anecdotes, including the recent joke, “What do Rick Perry and Tony Sanchez have in common?” Answer: “39 percent of the vote.” Getting only 39 percent of the vote has led to the perception that Perry will be a weak governor, but Burka thinks that Perry will probably do what he wants to do.

Regarding the Senate, Burka said that in the last session on a couple of occasions Dewhurst lost control of the Senate. He predicts that in this session, “We will see a lot of tension, not on a partisan basis.” Burka interviewed Carona, the new Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, who said, “The Corridor system will be the ruination of the free roads of
the state.”

After the unsuccessful effort by Pitts to replace Craddick as Speaker of the House, there might not be smooth sailing in the House. There are two issues that Burka is watching this session. One is higher-education tuition, related to past tuition de-regulation. The second important issue is highways. HB 3588, the legislation that created the Corridor, “came up late in the ‘03 session. Nobody had any idea what was in it.” Now, legislators have become concerned about it.

Burka pointed out that parts of the Corridor contract with Cintra still are not public. He speculates that Perry was not pleased when Attorney General Abbott ruled that the contract was public record.

The recent report from the Texas Transportation Institute showed that “TxDOT exaggerated, to put it politely, their needs and costs. The TTI label is so strong that it called into question all of TxDOT’s claims.”

Burka mentioned the special session that was supposed to strengthen the rights of property owners against condemnation, but that exempted the Corridor from the legislation. “We had a special session on eminent domain which allowed that very thing.”

Regarding the Corridor/toll issue, he said, “This meeting is the tip of the iceberg. A huge constituency has built up, and the legislators are aware of it. They voted for 3588, and they’re worried about it. This session will not end without a hearing on this.”

Following Burka’s talk, attendees discussed “How to lobby your legislator,” including letter writing, phoning, and taking community groups to visit the legislator or his or her aides. Linda Curtis, founder of Independent Texans, discussed how attendees could start local groups—“Starting an Indy ‘Fusion’ Club in your community.”

Below, please find links to the sites of many of the organizations that were represented at this meeting. Burka’s blog is:
texasmonthly.com/community/blog/paulburka

Other sites to keep you informed are:
CorridorWatch.org
IndyTexans.org
TexasTollParty.com, which includes Sal Costello’s blog with continuous
coverage and analysis, or go directly to
salcostello.blogspot.com.

Linda Curtis, Indy Texans, and David Stall, Corridor Watch, have both issued reports on this meeting, including legislation to support, and I will forward these to you over the next few days.

Friday, January 19, 2007

183A ROW (Right of Way) Acquisitions

Owner Contract Signed Sales Amount
Wong, Tai Keong,
Et. ux., & Kwok-
Wai Chiu Et. Ux. 2/3/05 $867,829.33

Harvey, C. Dudley
& Sharon 8/3/04 $226,739.00

Kopecky, Willie J.,
Jr. and Erwin F. Kouba 9/26/04 $245,091.64

Stasko, Lilith Cooper 12/30/04 $211,000.00

Seaman, Gary Worth
& Joel R. & Sharon Dolores
Seaman Lockhart 8/6/04 $146,048.00

Bob Wunsch
Waterstone Development
2/3/05 $1,485,544.30

West Tex Trading
Retire LTD. (Robert W. Strauss)
6/24/05 $478,474.00

Bryson, LC and
Ruby Estate 8/10/04 $20,000.00

Meyer, Louese C. 8/6/04 $227,827.00

Meyer, Michial Lee 3/24/04 $30,000.00

Meyer, Roy Andon 3/24/04 $30,000.00

Meyer, Patrick
& Dolores 3/24/04 $30,000.00

Meyer, Timothy Liston 3/24/04 $30,000.00


Mel Mathis 10/29/04 $1,035,444.00

Fab Con Products,
Noel Larson $90,550.00

Frederick A. Jay 1/27/05 $115,000.10

Michael L. Davenport
Lois E. Davenport 9/14/04 $208,000.00

Walker, Weldon Stephen & Tammy $238,000.00

Agnes Stevens Wade $365,000.00

Leander Voluteer Fire Dept N/A

J C Evans Construction
Holdings Inc.- Zane Hudson 5/1/05 $160,000.00

Leander Developers LLC
Noel Larson $280,000.00

LWB Joint Venture 8/27/04 $310,545.00

Jeffery Dean Leavitt &
Kimberly Lynn Leavitt 10/17/04 $6,500.00

B. W. Pruett
& Carlene Pruett
Samuel J. Pearson
& Ida Nell Pearson $600,000.00

Steven L. Unruh
& Donna A. Unruh 7/30/04 $200,050.00

George Dill 11/25/04 $410,000.00

Craig Nemac 11/13/04 $172,529.00


Wallace Scott $208,970.58

Floyd Cantwell 12/20/04 $600,000.00

Albert F. Bredthauer
(deceased) &
Mavinee L. Bredthauer 12/15/04 $343,046.00

LENNAR HOMES OF TEXAS 11/24/04 $67,900.00

CONTINENTAL HOMES
OF AUSTIN, LPdba
MILBURN HOMES
Richard Maier &
Stacy Small 8/10/04 $186,500.00

183 PECAN
GROVE L.L.C.
GPA Partnership 5/4/04 $882,714.00

GPA Partnership &
Chingros Family
Trust 5/4/04 $323,274.00

Dale Lee Jaschke 6/8/04 $75,000.00

Continental Homes
of Austin LP/DBA
Milburn Homes
Richard Maier &
Stacy Small 8/10/04 $0.00

William G. Holford 3/4/04 $30,000.00

Charles A. Betts 3/4/04 $30,000.00

William J. Hudspeth Jr. 3/4/04 $30,000.00

Joseph C. Sparks 3/4/04 $30,000.00

John Robb Southerland
c/o Charles Betts 3/4/04 $30,000.00

Jim & Jill Chadwick 2/3/05 $24,665.00

Hurst Family Trust
c/o Janice C. Hurst 8/25/04 $5,452.00

Williamson County 7/31/04 $767,500.00

V-S Cedar Park LTD.
Mr. Henry Stewart 6/15/04 $1,446,000.00

Carssow Family Partnership Ltd
c/o Carssow Land Mgmt Inc. $2,358,801.00
under contract

John Fields, Trustee $35,926.00
Possession & Use

City of Cedar Park 1/19/05 $0.00 Doc

Lada One LTD
Dwight Forrister; 3/10/05 $15,900.00

Robert Lawrence
& Roy Schuelke 7/22/04 $195,049.29

Earnest L. Willis,
Nedra O. Revocable
Living Trust 8/6/04 $7,929.00

Robert Lawrence 7/14/04 $135,000.00

Darice (Gene) Wilkinson 9/7/04 $95,000.00

Larry W. Domel
Janell Domel 6/23/04 $97,201.00


Danny R. Goodrum
& Joni Goodrum 7/13/04 $25,000.00

C.D. Goodrum
& Betty Goodrum 6/29/04 $20,000.00

MTV Forest Oaks, L.L.C.
Curtis Hayes
Gary Hancock $40,000.00

Joe D. Miller 7/30/04 $120,000.00

Forest Oaks Owners Association, Inc.
c/o Liddiard Management Co.
Blake Magee 9/28/04 $11,000.00

Cedar Park Townhomes, Ltd. 5/4/04 $510,174.72

Williamson County
Park Foundation Inc. 2/4/04 $0.00

State of Texas,
General Land Office 2/4/04 $0.00
Acquired by TxDoT


Pebble Creek Joint Venture
Edward R. Rathgeber 2/4/04 $0.00
Acquired by TxDoT

Continental Homes of
Austin LP/DBA Milburn
Homes
Richard Maier &
Stacy Small 6/15/05 $0.00

FROM CITY OF CEDAR PARK

MTV Investments Limited Partnership
$80,927 12/21/1995

Americo Financial Holdings
$100,776 11/09/1994

RSRF Forest Oaks, L.P.
$84,796 9/30/2002

Sutton Quest, Ltd.
$66,027 3/15/1996

Foxworth-Galbraith Lumber Company
$200,198 9/15/1995



If you see a connection with corruption here
email sal@austintollparty.com

Thursday, January 11, 2007

CNN's LOU DOBB's TAKES AIM AT HOW WE ARE SELLING OUR ROADS!

CNN 1/9/07

DOBBS: Coming up next, critically important parts of our national infrastructure are being sold. And this administration wants those roads and highways and throughways and tollways to be sold. The Bush administration's very exciting -- very excited about the state selling away taxpayer bought and paid for infrastructure. We'll have that report.

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Wall Street is paving the road to highway privatization, with help from the Bush administration. Nearly 50 investors submitted bids to buy or lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Indiana and Illinois have already signed over its toll roads to a group of foreign investors. And other states are eyeing privatization as a quick fix.

ROBERT POOLE, REASON FOUNDATION: People are frustrated, both public sector people and citizens are frustrated that their roads are very congested, they are overcrowded with trucks. There's not enough capacity. And yet nobody really wants to raise gas taxes.

SYLVESTER: Transportation Secretary Mary Peters offered model legislation, encouraging states to tap into the billions of dollars that the private sector and lenders have amassed to invest in transportation.

But Congressman Peter DeFazio says it is a deal for corporations and investors, no deal for taxpayers.

REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D), OREGON: These private interests would have the power of eminent domain, and they basically would have unlimited authority over the term of the contract to raise tolls. A private entity beyond the reach of any future state legislature, governor, or Congress under contract.

SYLVESTER: Critics also call it fiscally irresponsible. States receive a lump sum up front. Future generations receive no toll revenues. And public sentiment is solidly against selling off taxpayer-owned assets. especially to foreign companies.

In Indiana, more than twice as many people were against the deal than were for it. The transportation groups are dismayed the Bush administration has officially backed these private-public arrangements.

TODD SPENCER, INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSN.: We were stunned. We were amazed, but I'd have to say, unfortunately, we were not shocked. They have been shopping this idea, this draft legislation, this proposal to states for over a year now and, you know, to them, rather than responsible transportation policy, their answer is to sell-off our highways. (END VIDEOTAPE)

SYLVESTER: Despite the many concerns, privatizing highways is gaining momentum across the country. Legislation is expected to be introduced in Pennsylvania in the coming weeks that will call for a long-term lease of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Right now, Lou, the leading bidders are from Australia and Spain -- Lou.

DOBBS: It -- I mean, this is just -- it's incredible. The ideas that are being put forward to avoid public responsibility, the idea that a state government or an authority of any kind could sell infrastructure, highways, it just boggles the imagination.

SYLVESTER: This, if there's ever been an example of where private corporate interests and the Bush administration are sort of working hand-in-hand, this is a perfect example of that, Lou. And, unfortunately, the average person, the average consumer, may not be a winner out of all of this, Lou.

DOBBS: Well, if they're not aware, we're going to do our best to make them aware. The idea that whether it's Indiana where it's 2-1 opposition and yet they went ahead and sold that highway in Indiana, the fact that people haven't got the energy and the commitment to stop these kinds of -- I mean, this is public treasure infrastructure, national assets, that are being given away, sold away to interest, private interests.

It's, as I say, mind-boggling. Lisa, thank you very much. Lisa Sylvester from Washington. Lisa will be following this story throughout.

That brings us to the subject of our poll question tonight. Do you believe U.S. highways and roads should be owned by private companies? Yes or no? Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results for you later. I may add something for the suggestion box tonight. What do you think should be done with the public officials who approve and encourage such things? But we'll save that for a later time.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

State Rep. Burnam Asks DA to Open Formal Investigation on Craddick Corruption!

The Honorable Ronnie Earle
Travis County District Attorney
509 W. 11th St.
Austin, TX 78701
[Via fax and mail]

District Attorney Earle:

I am writing to request that you immediately open an investigation into the business practices of the current Speaker of the Texas House, Tom Craddick. I believe he is using his public office for his own personal monetary gain.

Specifically, an entity owned by Mr. Craddick is collecting rent from a state contractor who has been paid tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for various projects in the state. This type of financial arrangement—where an elected official in a position of power is deriving income from a state contractor—simply does not pass the smell test.

To aid with your investigation, I am providing you with the following set of facts and preliminary research.

According to Mr. Craddick’s most recent personal financial disclosure, he has a “beneficial interest” in an entity called “2000 Rollingwood, LTD.” Mr. Craddick’s disclosure form states that this entity owns 4.871 acres of land in Travis County.i

According to a form filed on September 20, 2005, with the Texas Secretary of State, “The 2000 Rollingwood, LTD partnership should be cancelled as a result of the assets being transferred to Rollingwood Mira Vista, LTD.” Thus, Mr. Craddick has a “beneficial interest” in Rollingwood Mira Vista, LTD. (Daniel Herd, a general partner in Live Oak Development, Inc., was the signatory to this document.ii)

According to the Travis Central Appraisal District, “Rollingwood Mira Vista Ltd” owns a $20+ million commercial building located at 2705 Bee Caves Road in Austin, Texas (LOT 3 BLK A DELLANA ROLLINGWOOD COMMERIAL SUBD). The mailing address for Rollingwood Mira Vista is “c/o Live Oak Development Inc., 2630 Exposition Blvd., Suite 203, Austin, Texas, 787031763”.iii This paper trail proves that Mr. Craddick has a “beneficial interest” in the aforementioned commercial building located at 2705 Bee Caves.

What makes Mr. Craddick’s “beneficial interest” in this particular commercial building corrupt at best—illegal at worst—is the fact that the entire top floor of the building is being rented by a state contractor to whom the State of Texas has paid tens of millions of dollars. In his current position as Speaker of the Texas House, Mr. Craddick has a unique ability to exert undue influence on state contracts. The income Mr. Craddick derives from a state contractor should immediately be stopped.

According to a press release available on the website of Carter and Burgess, “Carter & Burgess recently signed a seven-year lease agreement with Live Oak Development to be the lead tenant in its planned $22 million, 125,000-sq.-ft. office development at 2705 Bee Caves Rd. in Rollingwood. Upon completion in February 2002, the full-service, architectural/engineering/construction management firm will occupy 60,600 square feet of the facility, including the top floor, part of the second and one office on the first floor, which will accommodate its field survey department.”iv

According to the Comptroller of Public Accounts, the State of Texas, mostly through the Texas Department of Transportation, paid Carter and Burgess more than $23,000,000 in 2006, while Mr. Craddick was Speaker of the Texas House. While Carter and Burgess has been putting tens of millions of state tax dollars in one pocket, they’ve been paying an entity owned by the Speaker of the House rent out of their other pocket. The Speaker of the Texas House simply cannot be allowed to continue lining his pockets with rental income from a state contractor.v

Of the millions of square feet of office space available in Austin, Texas, it is simply unreasonable to assume that a multi-million dollar state contractor coincidently chose to office in a building that just happened to be owned by an extremely powerful elected official—an elected official who unquestionably has the power to aid in obtaining state contracts.

This is the most recent example of a long and disturbing pattern of corrupt and unethical behavior by Mr. Craddick. I know your file on Mr. Craddick is extremely robust from your investigation (and subsequent indictments) of Tom DeLay, TAB and TRMPAC. However, using an elected office for your own personal gain is perhaps an even more egregious violation of the public trust.

I hope you will immediately open an investigation into these business dealings of Mr. Craddick. No public official in a position of power should be allowed to use their position of power to enrich their own business via a state contractor. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
State Rep. Lon Burnam

i See enclosed page from Tom Craddick’s most recent personal financial disclosure form ii See enclosed document from the Secretary of State’s Office iii Available at http://www.traviscad.org/travisdetail.php?theKey=494912 iv Available at http://www.c-b.com/news/story_news.asp?ArticleNum=277&v=5 v See enclosed document from the Comptroller of Public Accounts

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

failed T & R Forecast

I was just looking that up Sal - Hyder Consulting UK and Masson Wilson Twiney an Oz company.

P Sam


On Jan 2, 2007, at 10:20 PM, sal costello wrote:

Hello Peter,

What company did the failed T & R Forecast
for the Cross City Tunnel?

Happy New Year!
Sal
http://salcostello.blogspot.com/