View Full Version : "Ready to Go" Projects



southernskye
12-11-2008, 01:48 PM
The U.S. Conference of Mayors (http://usmayors.org/), apparently not wanting to miss out on whatever monies could possibly be thrown to their respective cities by an Obama administration as part of its new New Deal, has hastily thrown together an incredible list of thousands of projects which are "Ready to Go", with info on funding requirements and jobs created by each project.
(See the PDF file (http://usmayors.org/mainstreeteconomicrecovery/documents/mser-report-200812.pdf) for more information.)

Moore , Norman and Tulsa are the only OK cities on the list. I would think OKC would have several road projects that could be funded with this money.

Kerry
12-11-2008, 02:04 PM
FYI - Obama has no plans to follow thru on the infrastructure improvements. Even if he did, the feds are out of cash. Job one for Obama is to save the UAW.

PLANSIT
12-11-2008, 02:41 PM
^Source?

There is a concerted effort by the MPO in this area to have a list ready for state approval by tomorrow. The state is looking to have their list ready by the first of the year.

shane453
12-11-2008, 03:51 PM
I see Ponca City but there are no Oklahoma City projects that I could find on the PDF. Which is weird because OKC (Mick) is a big deal in US Conference of Mayors.

BDP
12-11-2008, 04:32 PM
Maybe he's just trying to stay Republican.

bretthexum
12-11-2008, 04:53 PM
Good god. Can we have ONE thread without bashing Obama, especially with statements that have no base?

mecarr
12-11-2008, 06:57 PM
FYI - Obama has no plans to follow thru on the infrastructure improvements.

What are you talking about? Your statement is completely glib. If you've heard any news beyond what may be on Fox, you'd understand that the main arc of Obama's economic strategy is to invest in this country's infrastructure, including rebuiliding bridges, roads and schools.

shane453
12-11-2008, 07:03 PM
Maybe he's just trying to stay Republican.

Well public works is a lot more non-partisan than corporate "bailouts." However, there were some states/cities with serious budget issues clamoring for bailouts, and I'm not sure about something like that- Pay for projects, but don't give any budget correcting checks to local governments from the fed.

----

I bet OKC will be adding some projects to that list before inauguration though.

Tulsa has some interesting programs on there, including


MPOWER Youth (Mayor's Program for Opportunity, Work, Education and Recreation) ‐ Youth job program (ages 16 ‐ 22) in coordination with local companies in manufacturing, green jobs, and construction. Provides at risk youth employment training

and "strategic property acquisition" in the downtown area (we could use something like that for the C2S park)

jbrown84
12-11-2008, 07:47 PM
Why is "Heartland Flyer extension to Kansas" listed under Norman?

Other states have dozens and dozens of items and we only have maybe 40 or 50.

shane453
12-12-2008, 11:52 AM
^^ Because other states are really extremely desperate, and we aren't so bad off.

LordGerald
12-12-2008, 12:04 PM
The list is not complete. The final list will include OKC and OK Co. projects.

soonerguru
12-13-2008, 12:17 AM
Kerry,

The Feds may be "out of cash," but it's not stopping them from giving billions and billions of money for bailouts. They'll just print more.

Your post seems bitter and is fundamentally inaccurate. Obviously, you cannot hide your contempt for Obama but our state stands to gain from the stimulus package, as we have three major interstate highways crisscrossing, that's right, right here in OKC. Or maybe you would rather Obama just send that money to other states for their projects? I'm sure Benham Company and many other contractors that could be put to work tomorrow rebuilding these highways would prefer to work WITH the new president instead of sucking their thumbs because their desired candidate lost.

Question: where is Mick in all of this? The OKC Chamber? My friend and I were talking about this just yesterday. Couldn't we consider the new boulevard for this? Or a rail project? The infrastructure money is going to flow. It is a certainty at this point. We need someone making our case for it, NOW! We don't have Ernest Istook to deny it for us anymore!

LordGerald
12-13-2008, 12:07 PM
Kerry,

The Feds may be "out of cash," but it's not stopping them from giving billions and billions of money for bailouts. They'll just print more.

Your post seems bitter and is fundamentally inaccurate. Obviously, you cannot hide your contempt for Obama but our state stands to gain from the stimulus package, as we have three major interstate highways crisscrossing, that's right, right here in OKC. Or maybe you would rather Obama just send that money to other states for their projects? I'm sure Benham Company and many other contractors that could be put to work tomorrow rebuilding these highways would prefer to work WITH the new president instead of sucking their thumbs because their desired candidate lost.

Question: where is Mick in all of this? The OKC Chamber? My friend and I were talking about this just yesterday. Couldn't we consider the new boulevard for this? Or a rail project? The infrastructure money is going to flow. It is a certainty at this point. We need someone making our case for it, NOW! We don't have Ernest Istook to deny it for us anymore!


The Chamber and the City are heavily involved. Just because they haven't had a press conference or issued a statement doesn't mean that they aren't working on it. The list ultimately will come from ODOT.

The Boulevard is not "ready to go," so it won't make the list. There are dozens of OKC projects that will be included on the list. Everybody needs to relax and wait until Jan. 20.

Kerry
12-13-2008, 02:56 PM
Change you hope to believe in. I am not bitter about Obama being President - he is going to be just as ineffective as I thought he would be. Let me ask you though - where are these millions of construction workers going to come from? This is not 1935 when 90% of the work force worked in labor oriented trades. Todays workers exist in the information age. Do you think the 35,000 people being laid off from Bank of America with college degrees are going to start building roads?

1. We don't have the money
2. We don't have the workers.
3. Even if they built all of the road, bridges, and water projects - what are we going to do when they are done - just keep building more.

BTW - I hope you don't really believe the Fed is just printing more money to cover the costs. If they did that then inflation would go through the roof and we would be back in the Carter years.

USG '60
12-13-2008, 05:45 PM
Inflation WILL go through the roof........darn it.

venture
12-14-2008, 02:17 PM
All i see from those complaining are just...well complaints. What are you ideas to fix this mess? Right now Oklahoma isn't hurting, but there are many areas with 8-10% or more unemployment rates with people that are will to work and do whatever they can to feed their families. You would be amazed what happens when things get desperate. If rebuilding the nation's infrastructure is the way to help get us through this downturn, then so be it.

Things will catch up to us here before too long, and hopefully you aren't in the position of worrying about being laid off or how to pay your bills next month.

Superhyper
12-14-2008, 04:50 PM
I find it interesting that everyone makes the (correct) point that rebuilding infrastructure is good for generating jobs, but no one mentions the fact that we actually need to rebuild our infrastructure just for the sake of doing so. Crumbling bridges, collapsed highways, and slow-as-molasses rail service do not make for a thriving first world economy. As for you Mr. Kerry, i'm glad your crystal ball has such impeccable accuracy that you can make such bold statements. I suppose you saw the morbid disaster of the last 8 years coming too? Give the guy a chance, he's not going to be perfect, but neither would anyone else. I don't see you or anyone else throwing out any better ideas.

Kerry
12-14-2008, 04:53 PM
All i see from those complaining are just...well complaints. What are you ideas to fix this mess? Right now Oklahoma isn't hurting, but there are many areas with 8-10% or more unemployment rates with people that are will to work and do whatever they can to feed their families. You would be amazed what happens when things get desperate. If rebuilding the nation's infrastructure is the way to help get us through this downturn, then so be it.

Things will catch up to us here before too long, and hopefully you aren't in the position of worrying about being laid off or how to pay your bills next month.

My plan for getting us out of the economic crisis - tax cuts across the board: personal income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes. The country needs cash flow - not low interest loans, bailouts, make work jobs, etc. Until capital is freed up we will never recover.

PLANSIT
12-14-2008, 05:34 PM
My plan for getting us out of the economic crisis - tax cuts across the board: personal income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes. The country needs cash flow - not low interest loans, bailouts, make work jobs, etc. Until capital is freed up we will never recover.

Give the man a job! Haha

Midtowner
12-14-2008, 06:15 PM
With my student loans, I hope we have massive inflation.

When I'm making $100,000/hour, my massive student loan debt won't seem so massive.

Of course, a loaf of bread will probably cost $5,000 or so.... at least we can get rid of those damned pennies!

mecarr
12-14-2008, 08:09 PM
My plan for getting us out of the economic crisis - tax cuts across the board: personal income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes. The country needs cash flow - not low interest loans, bailouts, make work jobs, etc. Until capital is freed up we will never recover.

Seriously? More tax cuts? Why is tax cuts Republican's answer for every problem? We definitely need a economic stimulus. However, people and businesses are afraid to spend and invest right now. Thus, government needs to start spending money on things that create jobs, like projects relating to infrastructure.

Kerry
12-14-2008, 09:02 PM
Seriously? More tax cuts? Why is tax cuts Republican's answer for every problem?

Because tax cuts work every time they are tried.

The problem with government spending is 3 fold. First, when the government spends money the money supply shrinks by about $2.30 for every dollar it spends. When the private sector spends that same dollar the money supply increases by about $4.50.

Second, government spending doesn't contribute to the GDP. When I buy a Whirlpool washing machine the purchase goes into the gross domestic product. An item was manufactured and sold. When the government taxes me the federal government doesn't produce anything in exchange for the money. A recession is when we have negative economic growth for 2 quarters. How are we going to get out of the recession if the government keeps driving down the GDP?

Third, at what point does the federal government stop paying for the make work jobs. After the great depression the make work jobs lasted 10 years until WWII (and some are still going strong). Are we going to be providing make work jobs until 2019 or longer?

Take a look at world history. Which countries do better, ones with high taxes or ones with low taxes? Even Obama said today that tax cuts were going to be part of his $trillion stimulus plan and already backed of his "tax the rich" pledge. Obama might be a lot of things but he isn't stupid.

jbrown84
12-14-2008, 09:32 PM
If we're going to do New Deal 2.0, let's bring back the CCC and have them upgrade our National and State parks, which are in dire need of improvements.

venture
12-14-2008, 11:17 PM
Kerry thanks for the response. Too often people on here when challenged just do nothing but fling the same crap they always do.

I agree with you as far as tax cuts go that do help out. I think we've all see how the bailouts didn't do what they were suppose to. The grand "public" hope was giving the banks money they would feel safe to loan money again. Instead, all they are doing is using it to pay down debt or to sit on the cash and haven't opened their pockets at all. Honestly, the banking situation was done completely wrong. I'm not wanting to get into a debate on crap home loans and stuff. However, they should have forced a complete overhaul of these institutions much like they want from the car makers.

1 - Secure getting lines of credit open again for those that can afford it.
2 - Get lines of credit flowing for new or growing small businesses.
3 - Refine the personal and small business banking system. Look everyone is responsible for balancing their checking account and such. However, even I have run into an issue where a check hit twice, taking my account too low to cover bills done on autopay. What resulted was those lovely NSF fees for a couple bills, and some fast food charges using my bank card.

Expanding a bit on this last point. Right now in that situation you are going to get hit with a fee for each charge, no matter the amount, that is anywhere from $25 to $39 each. One of the charges I had was for Sonic for like $8. That meal ended up costing me almost $40. The banks consider these NSF coverages as courtesies and pretty much instant loans. If i'm trying to charge something to my credit card that is over because a payment hasn't it, i'm required to call them and ask them to let the charge go through. Checking cards...not so much.

So my solution there would be to eliminate all these courtesy NSF coverage programs and require the customer to give verbal authorization to have the charge go through. I'm pretty good at know to the penny what I have available, some don't...but really things shouldn't be setup to make it easy for people to mess up. The other thing would be restricting the amount of the NSF fees. It can be no more than 100% of the total amount of the transaction up to $39 and it is capped there. If the bank doesn't want to offer coverage above that, that is their choice. Banks of course would hate this because, especially now, they are making TONS of cash on these fees.

The other point I made is the credit lines for small business. I work two jobs. One is for another company, the other is my own. I could be doing so much more if a line of credit was available for me. Unfortunately this company is fairly new and I shy away from doing any personal guarantees - I learned that lesson fast about 15 years ago with my first company. So I just make do with what I can, and hold off on any expansion abilities until the cash is on hand first. Not really a bad thing.

Last part I'll hit on is the tax stuff. I like Obama's idea for cutting taxes for everyone making less than $200K/yr. Right now i'm in that bracket and it would help me. When I jump over that, which only takes one unexpected large deal in my line of work (computer/software wholesale/resale)...I still won't mind since if I'm making more, I expect to pay more. Will I be happy about it, probably not. :)

I have always liked the idea of a simplified tax code that gets us away from double taxation. I don't really like that I'm losing about 25% of my gross pay off the bat. Then another 7% or so for anything I buy. If i wanted to buy a third of my pay right away, I would be donating it to a charity that I know will use it for something good. Not so much that it goes to help bailout people making 10-100x what I am that don't really worry about any of their bills day to day.

But alas these are the choices in our lives and I picked my path and wouldn't do any different. However, back on topic a bit, if we are stuck in the situation of the government blowing a ton of China's money...then if it is going to go to rebuilding roads, railroads, the power grid, etc...and it puts Americans back to work - go for it.

PennyQuilts
12-15-2008, 05:45 AM
I'm also wondering who is going to be doing all this work on the infrastructure. A lot of young people who aren't working aren't working for a reason - criminal background, drug use (and presumably there will be drug tests to get the jobs). In my work, some of my kids try to get into Job Corps, which is a domestic program a little like Peace Corps only in the US. Sounds great but to tell the truth, I hate seeing my kids go in. It is full of thugs. Those are the kids who can't find a job. Some of my kids do okay but the majority just end up hanging with their thug friends and drop out, eventually.

If a young person has a strong back and a clean record, they are usually working, anyway, for more money than the government can provide. The older people who have lost their jobs are less likely to be the ones to get out and dig ditches but they could if they wanted to, I guess. Just how much money is the government planning on paying these folks? We don't have money for big salaries on a grand scale.

Face it, there were a lot of promises made that got people excited that their lives were going to get better because it would be laid out for them like a banquet - they were going to get jobs, their mortgages covered, student loans in place, etc. I don't know how in the world this is going to be paid for unless people are willing to work practically for their keep. We simply aren't in a Great Depression economy where people lack a safety net for such things as food and shelter and are willing to work just to have a roof over their head and a chicken in the pot. People these days want electronics, McMansions and movie tickets. You really can't compare their wants with the CCC ers's needs. Most people "depending" on a public works program don't even bother to grow a garden to help defray their domestic food costs.

I posted on another thread that I needed coffee and was cranky this morning. I have had coffee but I am still cranky...

rinni
12-15-2008, 06:02 AM
3 - Refine the personal and small business banking system. Look everyone is responsible for balancing their checking account and such. However, even I have run into an issue where a check hit twice, taking my account too low to cover bills done on autopay. What resulted was those lovely NSF fees for a couple bills, and some fast food charges using my bank card.

Expanding a bit on this last point. Right now in that situation you are going to get hit with a fee for each charge, no matter the amount, that is anywhere from $25 to $39 each. One of the charges I had was for Sonic for like $8. That meal ended up costing me almost $40. The banks consider these NSF coverages as courtesies and pretty much instant loans. If i'm trying to charge something to my credit card that is over because a payment hasn't it, i'm required to call them and ask them to let the charge go through. Checking cards...not so much.

So my solution there would be to eliminate all these courtesy NSF coverage programs and require the customer to give verbal authorization to have the charge go through. I'm pretty good at know to the penny what I have available, some don't...but really things shouldn't be setup to make it easy for people to mess up.

You can easily eliminate overdraft protection but you will still pay when you write a hot check. If someone has caused your checking account to be overdrawn, pass on the costs. But if the problem is poor book keeping, the OD fee is the price to be paid and was fully disclosed.



The other point I made is the credit lines for small business. I work two jobs. One is for another company, the other is my own. I could be doing so much more if a line of credit was available for me. Unfortunately this company is fairly new and I shy away from doing any personal guarantees - I learned that lesson fast about 15 years ago with my first company.

Why would you shy away from a personal guarantee? Even when credit was much looser, a personal guarantee was required in most instances. Why would a bank take a risk on your business if you won't?

Kerry
12-15-2008, 07:02 AM
You made lots of good points East Coast Okie. I am with you on the "who is going to do all of this infrastructure work" question. We are not a 1930's society. These jobs will pay about $25,000 and there are not a whole lot of laid-off people who use to make $50,000 or more ready to surrender all hope and work in a job for $25,000 when that job will go away at some point anyhow. The truth is, these jobs will go to same people that have been working construction jobs in the past 15 years - Mexicans. You think we had an illegal immigration in the past just wait until 3 million low paying construction jobs show up overnight. If they don't take make work jobs directly they will back-fill a low paid employee that does.

As long as I keep seeing people in Starbucks, people still have cell phones, and movie tickets costing over $10, we are not a society in need of a New Deal style solution (not that a New Deal solution would ever work anyhow – after all it didn't work last time). But hey, maybe we can get a new government is great slogan out of it. Instead of the original "chicken in every pot" we could have "a cell phone in every pocket".

Ventrue79 - you are spot on about needing to reform the banking industry. The problem is that many of the people in the governent that have the power to do so came from the banking industry and plan to go back to it after there service is over. That wouldn't be a problem if these were honorable people but many of them are not. Just look at how many Goldman Sachs employees are in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama camps. I don't want a Goldman Sachs employee counting the money in my change jar, much less advising me on fiscal policy.

FYI - I just found this story on Yahoo News. I think it ties in with the infrastructure jobs debate nicely.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081215/ap_on_re_us/return_to_mexico

mecarr
12-15-2008, 07:31 AM
Because tax cuts work every time they are tried.

The problem with government spending is 3 fold. First, when the government spends money the money supply shrinks by about $2.30 for every dollar it spends. When the private sector spends that same dollar the money supply increases by about $4.50.

Second, government spending doesn't contribute to the GDP. When I buy a Whirlpool washing machine the purchase goes into the gross domestic product. An item was manufactured and sold. When the government taxes me the federal government doesn't produce anything in exchange for the money. A recession is when we have negative economic growth for 2 quarters. How are we going to get out of the recession if the government keeps driving down the GDP?

Third, at what point does the federal government stop paying for the make work jobs. After the great depression the make work jobs lasted 10 years until WWII (and some are still going strong). Are we going to be providing make work jobs until 2019 or longer?

Take a look at world history. Which countries do better, ones with high taxes or ones with low taxes? Even Obama said today that tax cuts were going to be part of his $trillion stimulus plan and already backed of his "tax the rich" pledge. Obama might be a lot of things but he isn't stupid.

Tax cuts do not work every single time they are tried? Bush passed a huge tax cut increase just a few years ago and look where we are now. And what about that tax rebate that everyone received a few months ago? That worked wonders...

The government would stimulate the economy by creating jobs for people so that they have a sustained level of income that provides them the ability to get out and make purchases.

As far as which countries do better, the scandanavian countries are rated as having the highest standard of living of any western country and their taxes are higher than ours.

I'm not saying targeted tax cuts never work, but I do not think that tax cuts are the answer to every economic problem that we encounter.

Kerry
12-15-2008, 08:16 AM
Tax cuts do not work every single time they are tried? Bush passed a huge tax cut increase just a few years ago and look where we are now. And what about that tax rebate that everyone received a few months ago? That worked wonders...

The government would stimulate the economy by creating jobs for people so that they have a sustained level of income that provides them the ability to get out and make purchases.

As far as which countries do better, the scandanavian countries are rated as having the highest standard of living of any western country and their taxes are higher than ours.

I'm not saying targeted tax cuts never work, but I do not think that tax cuts are the answer to every economic problem that we encounter.


Mecarr - Bush passed those tax cuts 7 years ago and we enjoyed a pretty good economy until the last year when all of the people that shouldn't have gotten home loans in the first place started defaulting on them. Regan and Kennedy also passed large tax cuts, the problem is on the spending side of the government. No matter how much money is raised through taxes congress will always spend more than it has. Every single time taxes have been cut revenue to the treasury has gone up and economic expansion has taken place. That isn't my opinion, it is historical fact.

Why do you loves taxes so much that you can't see the answer to economic problems when it has worked so many times in the past by Presidents from both political parties? Kennedy, Regan, Clinton (target tax cuts), and Bush Jr lowered taxes and saw healthy economies for most of their presidencies and Johnson, Carter, and Bush Sr raised taxes and saw the economy decline on their watch.

mecarr
12-16-2008, 01:05 PM
Mecarr - Bush passed those tax cuts 7 years ago and we enjoyed a pretty good economy until the last year when all of the people that shouldn't have gotten home loans in the first place started defaulting on them. Regan and Kennedy also passed large tax cuts, the problem is on the spending side of the government. No matter how much money is raised through taxes congress will always spend more than it has. Every single time taxes have been cut revenue to the treasury has gone up and economic expansion has taken place. That isn't my opinion, it is historical fact.

Why do you loves taxes so much that you can't see the answer to economic problems when it has worked so many times in the past by Presidents from both political parties? Kennedy, Regan, Clinton (target tax cuts), and Bush Jr lowered taxes and saw healthy economies for most of their presidencies and Johnson, Carter, and Bush Sr raised taxes and saw the economy decline on their watch.

Not really, we have continually had a netloss of jobs through Bush's tenure in office. And to blame the economic crisis on the homeowner is going too far. The real problem was that banks were making loans they shouldn't have been allowed to make in the first place. The banks have a responsibility to not offer loans with terms that they know the borrower won't be able to meet.

You conveniently left out Bill CLinton from your equation. I remember the economy being great when he was in in office and he wasn't a big tax cutter like W. I don't love taxes but I see a need for them. Would you be happy if we had zero taxes? Apparently you would be. But taxes plays an important role in improving our nation's infrastructure. It'd be nice if people took a little more pride in their country and wouldn't automatically balk everytime a new tax is proposed that seeks to improve our country's schools, health care system, etc.

metro
12-16-2008, 01:55 PM
Not really, we have continually had a netloss of jobs through Bush's tenure in office. And to blame the economic crisis on the homeowner is going too far. The real problem was that banks were making loans they shouldn't have been allowed to make in the first place. The banks have a responsibility to not offer loans with terms that they know the borrower won't be able to meet.

You conveniently left out Bill CLinton from your equation. I remember the economy being great when he was in in office and he wasn't a big tax cutter like W. I don't love taxes but I see a need for them. Would you be happy if we had zero taxes? Apparently you would be. But taxes plays an important role in improving our nation's infrastructure. It'd be nice if people took a little more pride in their country and wouldn't automatically balk everytime a new tax is proposed that seeks to improve our country's schools, health care system, etc.

In that case, you're leaving out the fact that the home loan lending practices were relaxed during the final year or so of the Clinton administration. So you're admitting the banks should have the responsibility, but not pointing to who helped them relax guidelines.

mecarr
12-16-2008, 08:43 PM
In that case, you're leaving out the fact that the home loan lending practices were relaxed during the final year or so of the Clinton administration. So you're admitting the banks should have the responsibility, but not pointing to who helped them relax guidelines.

I'm not sure that's the case. I believe many of the regulations relating to a banks ability to extend risky loans was created during the bush years.

Kerry
12-16-2008, 09:09 PM
I'm not sure that's the case. I believe many of the regulations relating to a banks ability to extend risky loans was created during the bush years.

Then you need to take a crash course in financial history. Just do some research on the Community Reinvestment Act. There is lots of blame to go around and this is what happens when politicans get involved with the fundamentals of capitalism.

Now to the question, would I like zero taxation? I would like to see the direct taxation of the people repealed (13th amendment). I would prefer the government get funded the way it did for the first 175 years. I also wish the money would go to fund the consititutionaly mandated functions of the federal government and not what we have today.

mecarr
12-16-2008, 10:37 PM
Now to the question, would I like zero taxation? I would like to see the direct taxation of the people repealed (13th amendment). I would prefer the government get funded the way it did for the first 175 years. I also wish the money would go to fund the consititutionaly mandated functions of the federal government and not what we have today.

That's the longest answer to a yes or no question I've ever read, and I'm still not sure if that is a yes or no. So if you are taking about money just going to constitutionally mandated functions, then does that mean education, transportation, and health care cannot be funded? I don't see anything about these listed in the constitution...There's a reason why your political philsophy has been thrown onto the ash heap of history.

blangtang
12-16-2008, 10:38 PM
rail, transmission lines, bridges/roads, what would be a big bang for the buck in the okc/oklahoma zone?

we should call 2009 the 'year of the pork'.



Barack Obama's new public-works programme | Days of open wallet | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12773148)

"State and local governments say they have thousands of “shovel-ready” projects that could be started as soon as federal money becomes available. The Conference of Mayors, seizing the moment, released an 803-page report this week listing 11,000 projects which, they claim, would create more than 800,000 jobs over the next two years. But the economic merit of many is dubious. Their list includes $1.5m to coax prostitutes off the streets of Dayton, Ohio, and $200,000 for a dog park in Hercules, California. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former economic adviser to John McCain, says many unfunded projects are “ready to go because they were drawn up, reviewed and rejected” by government. Mr Obama has promised not to spend money the “old Washington way” but those ways are hard to change."

southernskye
01-09-2009, 02:43 PM
An Open Letter to Barack Obama on Behalf of Sidewalks (http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2009/01/an_open_letter_2.html)

Michael Ronkin is the former Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Mr. President-elect
Thank you for taking the time to listen to suggestions on how best to invest in our infrastructure. You have heard from many about repairing bridges and highways. You have been receiving many "shovel-ready" wish lists of projects. Big highway projects are rarely shovel-ready; there will always be legitimate environmental and political hurdles to overcome, requiring robust public debate.
However, there are many small-scale projects that require little or no red tape, provide tremendous benefit/cost, and create the greatest number of local jobs per dollar spent: sidewalk repair, infill and construction, and bringing existing sidewalks up to ADA compliance. Sidewalk projects provide many economic benefits for communities large and small:


Most of the sidewalk cost is labor (60-80%);
The labor force is usually local; the bulk of the materials (sand and gravel) can be found locally too;
The wages are living wages, but not too high for financially strapped communities;
The minimal amount of design needed can be done in-house or by small local engineering firms.
Local small contractors can perform the work;
This provides work for small contractors hurt by the housing downturn, as they are doing less small concrete work for house foundations, driveways etc.;
These are opportunities to make good use of existing incentive programs such as Emerging Small Businesses, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, Minority-Owned Businesses;
But most important are the positive results for the community:
Sidewalks improve property values, make it easier to walk for short local trips, reduce municipal liability for trip and fall injuries, and help make the transportation system accessible to all pedestrians, including those the Americans with Disabilities Act was intended to help bring into the mainstream.



The backlog of sidewalk infill and repair is huge in most cities. When I worked as Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Manager for the Oregon Department of Transportation, I managed a small grant program (approximately $3,000,000/year statewide) that funded sidewalk infill projects. Every year we had to turn away many worthy applicants, as the requests exceeded available funds at a 5:1 ratio. Thank you,
Michael Ronkin
Designing Streets for Pedestrians and Bicyclists LLC
1602 Center St NE
Salem OR 97301Oklahoma City still doesn't have any projects on the list.
Sidewalks and repaving existing streets should be on the list. the roads here are in BAD shape.

danielf1935
01-09-2009, 02:48 PM
Infrastucture repair/improvement means "jobs that require physical labor", today's youth and the ones that claim "they can't find a job", are too lazy or unskilled to perform these job functions.

Spartan
01-09-2009, 05:30 PM
FYI - Obama has no plans to follow thru on the infrastructure improvements. Even if he did, the feds are out of cash. Job one for Obama is to save the UAW.

Unfortunately you're dead-right.