Briefs filed in Toll Road lawsuit

Tom Coyne has an AP article entitled “Arguments filed in Toll Road fight.” It more or less summarizes issues that had already been raised.

The plaintiffs argue that Articles 10 & 11 of Indiana’s Constitution were designed to prevent this sort of public/private partnership involved in this case.

The defendants want Judge Scopelitis to impose a $3.8 billion bond. To receive that sort of order, the defendants would have had to convince the Judge that the Indiana Finance Authority, which isn’t, strictly speaking, a government entity, is covered by the public lawsuit statute, that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits, and that the defendants would suffer more from bond not being required than the plaintiffs would suffer from the bond having been required.

On the last point, the State is claiming it would lose $3.8 billion if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed and it’s deal with the foreign consortium falls through. The plaintiffs, however, contend that if the state keeps the Toll Road and applies the same toll increases it would allow the private operators, it could collect more than $11 billion over the next 75 years.

The lawsuit argues that the Indiana Constitution says any proceeds from the Toll Road privatization must be used to pay down state debt.

I’d love to dissect this a little more, but my baby daughter is busily trying to kill herself, and I’d better make sure she survives long enough to enjoy a future of paying high tolls to travel the roads of Indiana — perhaps even the roads of the United States. According to this article, the U.S. House Transportation Committee is looking to hold a lovefest with Governor Daniels in the guise of a committee hearing inviting him to speak about how he “addressed the infrastructure funding shortfall in [Indiana] through a creative new mechanism” and to look into whether such deals are the future of infrastructure financing.