What Could Possibly Be Special About It?
Well, Gov. Rick Perry's chief of staff has told staffers to get insurance if they're making summer travel plans. The big guy is dangling the specter of a special session if the Legislature doesn't listen to him on Texas highway legislation.
Other blogs also are echoing that the governor assured Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Speaker Tom Craddick this morning that he would call a special session on the topic.
Right now, HB 1892 is sitting on the governor's desk. It does a whole slew of things he hates. The two-year moratorium on privately funded toll roads in the bill is, relatively, no biggie. There are so many exceptions to the moratorium, that virtually everything currently being planned could go forward. It would have virtually no effect on the building boom.
What has the gov's goat are provisions that would wrest control from TxDOT and give it to the Harris County Toll Road Authority to determine where and what roads get built in and around Houston. There are other Harris County grabs, such as not having to pay TxDOT for the use of right-of-way.
Here is his own statement about the bill:
“The legislature claims Texas needs a moratorium on private financing of toll roads, yet seeks to exempt every privately planned toll road on the drawing board from their moratorium. The legislature states that we need to pause and reconsider public private partnerships to build roads, yet expand this concept by granting this exact same authority to local toll road authorities all over the state.
“This bill appears to do little to address the serious concerns raised by the Federal Highway Administration earlier this week. Instead, it jeopardizes billions of dollars in federal funding for Texas and clean air compliance in Houston. Both consequences would be devastating for the Texas economy.
“I will review this bill carefully because we cannot have public policy in this state that shuts down road construction, kills jobs, harms air quality, prevents access to federal highway dollars, and creates an environment within local government that is ripe for political corruption.”
He is apparently poised to veto it, but the bill passed by overwhelming majorities, so his office is negotiating. Part of what the governor would like to see is that his veto is upheld on this bill, and then he could entertain provisions he considers less odious in other highway legislation that are still in the pipeline.
Of course, if Perry does veto HB 1892, and the Legislature does override it, then I'm not sure what the governor could accomplish by forcing them back into session. He cannot make the Legislature undo something they want done. And if they return for a special session and do nothing, well I guess that has happened at least five times before on his watch.
Comments
Aren't the Dallas and Harris County delegations almost big enough to bust a quorum by themselves? They might need a little help, but it sure would be entertaining for Perry to throw a party that no one comes to...
Posted by: Bubba Galt | May 9, 2007 4:32 PM
If a special session is called, can other bills be brought into that ... or only the bill that he calls it for?
Posted by: Dan M | May 9, 2007 5:20 PM
Dan M:
Only the bills he calls for.
Posted by: choppe | May 9, 2007 6:01 PM
One of the provisions in HB 1892 requires TxDOT to let the NTTA construct and run SH 121 in Collin and Denton Counties if it offers a better financial package than TxDOT's private partner, Cintra. The NTTA has already committed $500 million in cash more than Cintra, plus $1.3 billion that will be returned to this region, instead of being pocketed as profits by Cintra. Perry wants to kill the bill, because he can't stand letting local control override Austin, even if the NTTA's commitment is demonstrably superior to Cintra's. He has a strong sense of priorities: and he's always #1; what's best for the state doesn't make the list.
Posted by: Malabar Jettison | May 9, 2007 11:11 PM
NTTA is just using capital already in the system to provide an upfront payment to TxDot for SH121;upfront payment that will be re-invested in the region. Does not make sense to let fresh private capital in the system and allow NTTA to use his in other projects. The message to the private sector will be terrible and will cause DFW and the State of Texas to disappear from the world map of infrastructure private equity. Why do we deserve this????
Posted by: Alistair rosen | May 10, 2007 10:07 AM
"Fresh capital" isn't an issue. Cintra and NTTA would both use the same source to make the upfront payment to TxDOT: anticipated revenue from operating SH 121 for the next 50 years. It's not like the NTTA has $2.5 billion sitting the in bank that it could either use to pay TxDOT for SH 121 or use on other projects.
The road -- which is a sure moneymaker, given the demographics of the area -- will throw off more money than either Cintra's or the NTTA's guaranteed payments to TxDOT. Cintra will pocket that excess, while the NTTA will return it to the region for other transportation projects. Far from providing "fresh capital," Cintra's proposal will remove more than $1.8 billion (npv) from the public coffers over the term of the project.
On the other hand, public-private partnerships can be useful tools on projects where the private sector's innovation and efficiency can squeeze a profit out of a project that would be too risky for a public entity to undertake. And in those projects, the private developer should be fairly -- even handsomely -- compensated for taking the risk and providing the expertise that makes the project feasible.
But that's not SH 121, which is a bird's nest on the ground. SH 121 is a public asset; the NTTA is a public entity; the public -- rather than overseas investors -- should benefit from the income SH 121 generates.
Posted by: Malabar Jettison | May 10, 2007 9:34 PM