Metro Orlando Headlines

[BVLian]

My first three words maybe insensitive, but I stand by the rest of my remarks.

My statement was towards an individual in that article who was a prostitue with a criminal record. If you feel sorry for him, thats your right. So lighten up with your political correctness.

The next DOP on September 18 will be hosted at Embers. I probably will check it out.

It's not about being politically correct. You cannot expect for your statements to be taken seriously however when you start off your sentence the way you did. You have a valid point, and one I happen to agree with, but it just gets eclipsed with the way you referred to that individual. Just something to keep in mind when you express a P.O.V. ;-)

Edited September 11, 2008 by BVLian

[RedStar25]

Speaking of giving out passes... how come the goverment can never create institutions (excluding social services) that are not self sufficient? Why do the rules of basic economics never apply... sigh...remember the amtrac fiasco earlier this year?

Profitability is a good thing.

[uncreativeusername]

^^

you make a good point. why should someone get a pass if they are a criminal just b/c they are an alternative lifestyler?

If a broad lack of acceptance of said "alternative lifestyle" has marginalized and pushed someone to the outskirts of society (i.e., it's impossible to find a decent paying job, etc) then perhaps society, as a whole, does deserve some of the blame for the criminal acts. I don't know this person's whole story, nor am I sure that any of us do, so I'm in no position to pass definitive judgment on this specific case. But in a general sense, it's not about "giving someone a pass" because they have an alternate lifestyle. It's about society stepping back and saying, hrm, it is perhaps possible that our unfair prejudice pushed this person to extreme measures.

Edited September 12, 2008 by uncreativeusername

[RedStar25]

If a broad lack of acceptance of said "alternative lifestyle" has marginalized and pushed someone to the outskirts of society (i.e., it's impossible to find a decent paying job, etc) then perhaps society, as a whole, does deserve some of the blame for the criminal acts. I don't know this person's whole story, nor am I sure that any of us do, so I'm in no position to pass definitive judgment on this specific case. But in a general sense, it's not about "giving someone a pass" because they have an alternate lifestyle. It's about society stepping back and saying, hrm, it is perhaps possible that our unfair prejudice pushed this person to extreme measures.

Could be... but there are lots of gays, lesbians, trans, etc... that have probably been pushed to thier limit but did not resort to criminal behavior. There are so many support and help groups out there. We can not force people to seek help, they have to seek it themselves.

I belive that as a society we should focus on developing strong indiviguals instead of trying to change the masses. While I belive that most bigotry is wrong we can not change ever single person. However we stand a grater chance of reinforcing

ones indivigualism. I'm sure many a liberal on here will agree with me... even tho indiviguality is a very basic traditional conservative value.

On a side note... its not societys problem that someone can not find a decent paying job. You are payed according to your ability, experience, and demand for your services. You do what it takes to move yourself up in the world. In the end you will be a better person.

Edited September 13, 2008 by RedStar25

[neon9]

Why should private companies be directly responsible for providing public transportation? If anything, the City of Orlando/Orange County should create tax policies that are reflective of the demands of its citizenry.

Transportation is as basic of a need as shelter and the provision of it should be viewed as an implicit responsibility by Orange County and the City of Orlando.

Generally I would agree with you, however I think there needs to be some special consideration for, say, Disney-who has built a low wage city out in what can still probably be described as the middle of nowhere. That is by design, too. So I'm tempted to say that major employers like Disney, which I believe has their own bus line running out there, should probably donate a little something at least. Orange County apparently thought so as well since they have budgeted a million to match other donations.

Jaybee, while I personally think that transporation needs to be subsidized, along with some housing, I don't think that either needs to be free. I think it's pretty well estabilished that there is need for both to be supported by the government, if only via buses and low income housing.

Unfortunatly I think you'll see most of the citizenry is largely focused on more roads and less taxes. I just got back from Chicago and was amazed by the practicality of running commuter trains down existing rail lines. It's amazing to me that were still arguing about it.

[neon9]

Speaking of giving out passes... how come the goverment can never create institutions (excluding social services) that are not self sufficient? Why do the rules of basic economics never apply... sigh...remember the amtrac fiasco earlier this year?

Profitability is a good thing.

Um, what 'amtrac fiasco' are you referring to? You mean the annual one some republicans subject it to because they feel that somehow the early 1900's era train service we have here in the US should be a profitable enterprise? Or the one where Amtrak trains have reached capacity and beyond in recent years as gas prices have spiked? The one where potential bailouts for the airlines and big three automakers make the tiny federal subisidy for Amtrak look like childs play?

Roads are subsidized by all taxpayers also, not just those that use it, so I'm not sure I see a difference, or that either policy is necessarly in need of change.

To me this policy of reducing or eliminating taxes and privitizing everything is really a throwback to the way this and other countries lived back in the 1800's and early 1900's. Can you name one 'first world' country that operates this way?

[spenser1058]

Um, what 'amtrac fiasco' are you referring to? You mean the annual one some republicans subject it to because they feel that somehow the early 1900's era train service we have here in the US should be a profitable enterprise? Or the one where Amtrak trains have reached capacity and beyond in recent years as gas prices have spiked? The one where potential bailouts for the airlines and big three automakers make the tiny federal subisidy for Amtrak look like childs play?

Roads are subsidized by all taxpayers also, not just those that use it, so I'm not sure I see a difference, or that either policy is necessarly in need of change.

To me this policy of reducing or eliminating taxes and privitizing everything is really a throwback to the way this and other countries lived back in the 1800's and early 1900's. Can you name one 'first world' country that operates this way?

He also neglects to note that government-owned OUC is more reliable and charges less per kilowatt hour than Progress Energy and takes in enough extra to contribute funds to the City's general fund.

[JRS1]

^^

most gays that I know are fairly sophisticated and gainfully employed.

with regard to the more extreme alt. lifestylers, I know one in particular that is a principal at a school south of Orlando, and I give "him" kudos.

as for blaming society a little for someone being outcast... it happens; it's wrong; but, just b/c someone suffers from the Michael Jackson syndrome and hates themselves or wants a sex change, then you can't blame society if people (99.9% content with their sex; how they look or whatever) don't take kindly for that person's actions. go to Prague.

[neon9]

He also neglects to note that government-owned OUC is more reliable and charges less per kilowatt hour than Progress Energy and takes in enough extra to contribute funds to the City's general fund.

Since you mention it, OUC was also one of the first utilities in the state to use net metering (allowing people to sell back alternative energy to the grid) which private enterprise fought for years. OUC today will pay you a premium for that same energy, 2-3 cents per KWH if I recall correctly.

Corporations, which have all the rights of 'people' with little of the responsibilities, and are legally obligated to maximize shareholder profits, aren't always the answer.

[jack]

OUC and other municipal utilities are at a competitive advantage over private companies and can charge less. depending how you look at it, private companies charge more but pay lots of money in taxes. Consumers pay more but government get more money becaause of property taxes, corporate taxes, etc. Municipals charge less but do not pay real estate taxes etc. They do contribute to City coffers annually but the overall contribution is less then what a private company would through taxes at the state and local level.

[spenser1058]

OUC and other municipal utilities are at a competitive advantage over private companies and can charge less. depending how you look at it, private companies charge more but pay lots of money in taxes. Consumers pay more but government get more money becaause of property taxes, corporate taxes, etc. Municipals charge less but do not pay real estate taxes etc. They do contribute to City coffers annually but the overall contribution is less then what a private company would through taxes at the state and local level.

Private utilities receive a variety of tax breaks and depreciation allowances which greatly reduce the actual amount of taxes paid. Further, private utilities are famous for utilizing through accounting measures the guaranteed cash streams in the utility for non-regulated schemes (for example, the Baltimore utility holding company that invested in Church Street Station and provided to run it in the ground). Further, OUC provides infinitely more reliable service than other privately-held utilities with whom they compete.

My point is that his blanket notion that all government entities are bad is a woeful generalization. When Buddy first became mayor, the idea of spinning off OUC was floated - the citizens of Orlando made quite clear how they felt about that.

In any provision of services, there will be good and bad players. There are corporations like Publix and yes, even Wal-Mart, that create great value and provide services and products that people want and desire. And then there are companies like Lehman Brothers and Enron and HCA that abuse the public trust. There is nothing magical about profit-making entities in the abstract, it has to be handled on a case by case basis. In economics, there are different models, and each community will reach its own conclusions as to what works best for them.

[RedStar25]

The fedral goverment put 80 billion into amtrac because it can not sustain itself. That is the fiasco I was talking about.

Do your homework.

And Chicago... its alittle denser than Orlando... It makes perfect sence to use existing rails there.

And why are you bringing up OUC? Am I supposed to laundry list every single goverment run agency? As I tryed to say... some work.. but most tend not to be fiscaly sound.

And no... I am not a republican. I even like Buddy Dyer

I wish you "liberals" would stop labeling people and making such huge generalizations.

[prahaboheme]

^I fail to see how this discussion is liberal vs. <insert whatever you are here>.

Who is really making generalizations?

[Boomer136]

^I fail to see how this discussion is liberal vs. <insert whatever you are here>.

Who is really making generalizations?

Because pigeonholing is easy and examining facts is tedious? Because greed and fear produces better solutions than ideals of public service?

I've misstated one of my question/statements I feel. But for the record I am not so much a liberal, as a progressive in the vein of the 1912 Progressive Party Platform.

[jack]

Private utilities receive a variety of tax breaks and depreciation allowances which greatly reduce the actual amount of taxes paid. Further, private utilities are famous for utilizing through accounting measures the guaranteed cash streams in the utility for non-regulated schemes (for example, the Baltimore utility holding company that invested in Church Street Station and provided to run it in the ground). Further, OUC provides infinitely more reliable service than other privately-held utilities with whom they compete.

My point is that his blanket notion that all government entities are bad is a woeful generalization. When Buddy first became mayor, the idea of spinning off OUC was floated - the citizens of Orlando made quite clear how they felt about that.

In any provision of services, there will be good and bad players. There are corporations like Publix and yes, even Wal-Mart, that create great value and provide services and products that people want and desire. And then there are companies like Lehman Brothers and Enron and HCA that abuse the public trust. There is nothing magical about profit-making entities in the abstract, it has to be handled on a case by case basis. In economics, there are different models, and each community will reach its own conclusions as to what works best for them.

Good point. I am not saying that OUC should be private. I am a big fan of privatiation. Not because I believe private companies are better, but rather I believe in competition.

Edited September 16, 2008 by jack

[neon9]

The fedral goverment put 80 billion into amtrac because it can not sustain itself. That is the fiasco I was talking about.

Do your homework.

And Chicago... its alittle denser than Orlando... It makes perfect sence to use existing rails there.

And why are you bringing up OUC? Am I supposed to laundry list every single goverment run agency? As I tryed to say... some work.. but most tend not to be fiscaly sound.

And no... I am not a republican. I even like Buddy Dyer

I wish you "liberals" would stop labeling people and making such huge generalizations.

Except...you seem to be replying to me, but I never 'labeled' you as anything. I said Republicans are the ones attacking Amtrak every year and that is a fact. John McCain, for instance, is a constant critic.

My homework? The numbers I seem to find, and I've posted them here before I believe, is Amtrak gets about 1 billion per year. The most recent funding bill seems to have about 15 billion over 5 years for them, but that included some major capital improvements.

Personally I doubt that Amtrak has gotten 80 billion over their entire existence but you're welcome to try and prove me wrong. Either way that is a far cry from the 'fiasco last year' that you mentioned.

As for commuter rail, the argument you stated, if taken literally, makes no sense. Density might matter for, say, the 'el' train since we're talking Chicago. It doesn't matter so much for commuter rail because it wouldn't stop until it gets out or almost out of Orlando anyway. What would matter is the density at the stop, and there is at least as much density in DeBary as there is in Geneva IL. We are already seeing some projects to increase density at some of the future stops and the project is on hold!

Edited September 16, 2008 by neon9

[RedStar25]

I wasn't actually replying to you directly. I just lumped a bunch of comments together and mixed in some sarcasm.

cloudship... who build the rail lines that the freight and Amtrac share? I think that might clear up who has the more right to use them as they see fit. However it is a catch 22. You need the freight to deliver the goods so the commuters have supplies to meet thier needs. Maybe seperate tracks are needed?

Neon9.... I was refering to H.R. 6003. Otherwise known as The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvment act of 2008. This bill, as far as I can tell, only refers to Amtrac and increasing the taxpayer's subsidies to 2.2 Billion FY 2009, 2.6 Billion FY 2010 and so on. The total cost of this bill over 5 years is 15 billion dollars.

Amtrac lost 3.2 Billion Dollars FY 2007.

Since 1970 the federal goverment has pumped some 30 billion dollars into Amtrac to keep it afloat. With H.R 6003 this figure could tripple in less than 10 years.

This is the fiasco I was talking about. All this money being pumped into a failing rail system... and it dosn't do our proposed rail system any good.

When it works... I think mass transit is wonderfull... but man Amtrac is hemoraging a alot of money.

[cwetteland]

When it works... I think mass transit is wonderfull... but man Amtrac is hemoraging a alot of money.

I respectfully disagree. Part of any economy is infrastructure, in that regard "it works." 3B/year for a nation-wide passenger rail system above passenger ticket revenue seems like a bargain compared to the alternative of adding roadway. What is the total cost of running this system and what percentage is being subsidized?

Why when we subsidize motorists by building roads, do you not call that "hemoraging money," and when we subsidize rail it's a fiasco? I'd lean in the other direction if anything.

[JFW657]

I said Republicans are the ones attacking Amtrak every year and that is a fact. John McCain, for instance, is a constant critic.

Republicans attack everything that isn't privately owned & raping the public while making a few people at the top unimaginably wealthy. Like the oil, healthcare & insurance industries.

[bulldogger]

I know we have a vast country, but I think an interstate high speed rail system would get more and more people to ride Amtrak. At least connect the major cities and then leave some old Amtrak lines in place for regional travel.

[cwetteland]

I know we have a vast country, but I think an interstate high speed rail system would get more and more people to ride Amtrak. At least connect the major cities and then leave some old Amtrak lines in place for regional travel.

There is only a narrow range where it can have an impact:

Too far: then the speed of air wins (even with the airport wait).

Too close: then having the use of your car at the destination wins.

I think the beneficial range for high-speed rail is miami (short) and atlanta (long)

Tampa is too close and Washington DC is too far.

[RedStar25]

I respectfully disagree. Part of any economy is infrastructure, in that regard "it works." 3B/year for a nation-wide passenger rail system above passenger ticket revenue seems like a bargain compared to the alternative of adding roadway. What is the total cost of running this system and what percentage is being subsidized?

Why when we subsidize motorists by building roads, do you not call that "hemoraging money," and when we subsidize rail it's a fiasco? I'd lean in the other direction if anything.

But roads don't lose money. They just need to be maintained. They do not have nearly the staff overhead that mass transit does. Amtrac is unionised. The union has over inflated the pay rate and price of oversite.... thus adding to Amtracs wows.

In the bill I mentioned 15 billion will go to amtrac over the next 5 years. Amtrac now loses MORE than 3 Billion a year. They can not sustain themselves.

And it's not exactly nationwide. I mean the vast majority of amtrac is located from the Mid Atlantic up into the north east.

Amtrac is one of those funny goverment/private company combos that just don't work.

A good example of a goverment/private company that can sustain itself is our own Expressway system or Phillidephia's SPETA.

JFW657... Why are you doing business with companies that "rape" you? You have the right to do business with anyone you want... no ones forcing you. Ever herd of caveat emptor? And what's wrong with making money? Don't you want to achive a higher social standing in life? I do.

Edited September 17, 2008 by RedStar25

[bulldogger]

Are you suggesting we get rid of the US Post Office, too? Isn't that in the same predicament? I know it was.

On a personal note, I booked a pair of Amtrak tickets for my girlfriend and I to visit her mother in Raleigh this Thanksgiving. I will be overnight travel. There are advantages. No security BS like the airport. Closer drive vs. the airport. Cheaper. Way more legroom. I can plug in my laptop and while I cannot get wifi, I can play chess vs. the computer. Dining car with bar (hells yeah).

Edited September 17, 2008 by bulldogger

[Boomer136]

But roads don't lose money. They just need to be maintained. They do not have nearly the staff overhead that mass transit does. Amtrac is unionised. The union has over inflated the pay rate and price of oversite.... thus adding to Amtracs wows.

Yeah,much better to have 15 year old illegal immigrants work cheaper. That's Capitalism baby! Democracy should only go so far, eh?

[FrigginGr8est]

Yeah,much better to have 15 year old illegal immigrants work cheaper. That's Capitalism baby! Democracy should only go so far, eh?

I do not understand your comparison of a conductor on Amtrak making $75K a year plus full benefits (more then a pilot on AirTran makes) to punch tickets, to "15 year old illegal immigrants work cheaper". Just what is your point? Redstar does have a point that with salaries that average $59K per year on Amtrak, it will never be able to cover the expenses of running passanger trains. Tickets are ridiculously overpriced to cover these salaries. Who in their right mind would pay $250 one way to Orlando from New York City when you can fly for about half of that (or drive for that matter)??? Railroad travel should be affordable to the average person in order to get people to use it and get them out of their cars. Im all for subsidizing rail travel for the better good of our society and the enviornment but the rail unions ARE crushing Amtrak and its ability to compete with other forms of transportation. If these unions had any sense they would see that by making Amtrak unaffordable, less people will use it and therefore, less trains will run with fewer union members employed.