Matthew Tully has a column on a dust-up between Logansport mayor Michael Fincher and Mishawaka Representative Craig Fry. Fincher broke ranks with fellow Democrats by sending a letter to every state legislator asking them to support Toll Road privatization.
Politically, this was probably stupid of Fincher. Fry wrote to him, suggesting he was a traitor. At a purely self-interested policy level, Fincher’s desire for Toll Road privatization makes sense. The money used from the multi-generational lease will be used to pay for the continuation of the Hoosier Heartland Highway which runs from Fort Wayne to Logansport and which is scheduled to continue on through Delphi to Lafayette. With privatization of the Toll Road, the people of Logansport get the people of Mishawaka to pay for a highway benefitting Logansport. That’s a no-brainer from the Logansport perspective (a no-brainer from the Mishawaka perspective too — why would they want to pay more tolls and get nothing much in return?)
This highlights one of the reasons behind Indiana’s prohibition against special legislation (typically legislation specific to a particular area of the state). While I’m reasonably confident the Toll Road privatization does not run afoul of the prohibition legally, I think it runs afoul of the same policy concerns. It’s unjust for one region of the State to be taxed at a higher rate for the benefit of the remainder of the State, popular as taxing someone else may be in those other regions.
Mayor Fincher almost rises to Daniels’ level of duplicity on this one. On the one hand he paraphrases as saying that: [h]e sent it because Daniels’ controversial roads plan would provide cash to finish the Hoosier Heartland Highway. That project runs between Lafayette and Fort Wayne, crossing Logansport, 70 miles north of Indianapolis.
Tully notes later from a telephone interview that Fincher added:
[t]hat the Toll Road bill affects people throughout Indiana — not just those in Northern Indiana.
Fry’s letter, he said, “showed a lack of vision for the whole state.”
Just what sort of statewide vista was Fincher employing when he gave his reason for supporting the bill?
ah, Craig. He never did know how to be politically correct in his correspondence. But he’s right about Fincher.
What I’m still trying to figure out is how the story rated a full Sunday column rather than a two-paragraph topic-changer at the end of one. The legislature’s in session. Tully can’t find anything else to write about?
The bigger part of this story is I-69. It is never mentioned in Major Moves HB1008, but the House version would empower any Indiana Governor, to toll/ privatize/ lend or lease, any Indiana road or bridge to any body, from any where, for any amount of money or none, for any length of time up to 99 years from the date of any contract signing.
Luckily, even the Republican Senate Appropriations Committee recognized this fact. Too bad our states media only focuses on two points. “$3.85 B” and “foreign”. “Ownership” and “I-69” are at least as important and are brushed over in one sentence per story.
The privateer supporters are getting such an easy ride by the media, they have hardly had to use their specialized political vocabulary… http://www.i69tour.org/glossary.html