Jump to content

Granholm Screws West Michigan Again


GaryP

Recommended Posts

Buzzkill, certainly you are a buzzkill... But you are thinking in the present man! As Much like all thoes who oppose this option of transportation, rather then future, they think here and now. Sprawling yes, but in the center city from downtown to the inner ring suburbs this form of tansporation is very viable, especially streetcar and light rail. Will we get light rail, hell no. (sadly) We will get rapid busses, which is lighrail as according to thoes who love busses. A 600 foot skyscraper downtown with a major business is a pipedream, not good transportation.

And there maybe better ways to spend 14 million, but this wasn't ment for other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Buzzkill, certainly you are a buzzkill... But you are thinking in the present man! As Much like all thoes who oppose this option of transportation, rather then future, they think here and now. Sprawling yes, but in the center city from downtown to the inner ring suburbs this form of tansporation is very viable, especially streetcar and light rail. Will we get light rail, hell no. (sadly) We will get rapid busses, which is lighrail as according to thoes who love busses. A 600 foot skyscraper downtown with a major business is a pipedream, not good transportation.

And there maybe better ways to spend 14 million, but this wasn't ment for other things.

I'm probably the most forward looking person on the planet, this money IS better spent elsewhere. I would propose a massive rail system connecting the major metropolitan areas in the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"IS," no I disagree. But I would like to know where this elsewhere is... Besides how would I benefit froma "massive rail system" to Detroit or Lansing? I would benefit more just by hoping on a rapid bus or streetcar to downtown then I would to Lansing or wherever rails would take me. I do wish there was rail to Charlotte,Mi, that would be cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great... Looks like the East side gets more of our federal money to sink into the never ending money pit known as Detroit. Add to this the $30 million that Detroit stole for the same project four years ago and then the $400 million Granholm pissed away for the 31 bypass and you see the trend.

There is pretty much one area of the State that has some hope for the future. Why has Granholm spent the last three years talking about how to improve the State while ignoring (or straight up pissing on) the only place that can possibly move forward into the future.

If she gets re-elected, Michigan is doomed... At this point I would elect a trained monkey to replace her. At least throwing darts would be more beneficial to the State as then some things might actually happen.

Light rail is a pipe dream in West Michigan. We are too spread out and sprawling for people to give up cars in the numbers needed to make something like this feasible.

That is the thought process in Detroit and the surrounding area. Over here there is actually a chance to fix the problem before it spirals out of control. Is it a risk - yes, everything is. Is it a risk worth taking - yes. Just because the backwards thinkers on the East side can't get it to work does not mean it will not work here. West Michigan is clearly the leader in Michigan when it comes to urban growth, development, and intelligent design.

Your attitude does nothing but surrendur before you have even seen the enemy.

Not to mention it is very feasible. There are many regions of the nation that line up similarly to Kent County that have made this happen. Yes, there is sprawl - it exists everywhere. However, there is also an urban core that could clearly benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOODTV has a take on the veto:

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4295388

...which actually sounds like Heartwell is a little more upset than let on by the Press. The $14.4 million, if not used by Grand Rapids, is gone. As WOODTV8 mentions, we were one of a select number of cities that were given the opportunity to receive these funds (if the State put up matching funds). It is a small pie, and other cities in other regions will gladly take our share.

Thanks a bunch for the nod gvsusean, but you just can't make enough money in politics to satisfy this guy :shades:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light rail is a pipe dream in West Michigan. We are too spread out and sprawling for people to give up cars in the numbers needed to make something like this feasible.

Granholm made the right choice. There are better ways to use the money in Michigan.

I'll agree with Rizzo. You chose the right screen name. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have seen the dart board voting system this woman uses to make decisions. i had lunch with her at mc. donalds a few years back...while eating my nuggets she leaned over a wispered to me "i dont have a fudgeing clue what i am doing at work" i told her dont worry about it....here have a nugget.

back then the nuggets were non-segregated -both white and dark meat parts living together in a interracial crispy coated shell. today all we have is white meat. no unity in nugget communities.

we need to get her out of office and bring back the multiracial nugget. before she bans the angus burger.

angus power!

angus-web-1.jpg

:rofl:

When I run for governor, I want you to be my campaign stategist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably the most forward looking person on the planet, this money IS better spent elsewhere. I would propose a massive rail system connecting the major metropolitan areas in the state.

I think most of us would like to see a regional rail system, (GR-Holland-Muskegon :whistling: ) but, not for the sake of starving the city's transportation, especially when the federal money is already set aside specifically for it.

An aside note, I was reading through the history books recently and discovered that there were a regular interurban rail lines between Grand Rapids-Holland and Grand Rapids-Grand Haven/Muskegon...in 1902!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOODTV has a take on the veto:

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4295388

...which actually sounds like Heartwell is a little more upset than let on by the Press. The $14.4 million, if not used by Grand Rapids, is gone. As WOODTV8 mentions, we were one of a select number of cities that were given the opportunity to receive these funds (if the State put up matching funds). It is a small pie, and other cities in other regions will gladly take our share.

Of course he's upset. I am too if you couldn't already tell :P . Total BS. Granholm's logic of wanting the rest of the state to have 'the same tools' is garbage. I don't want the county governments to have the right to pass 25 year levees. I think Kooiman was actually doing the counties that don't have the option of mass transit a favor (everywhere but Kent, Wayne, and Livingston).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kooiman was actually doing the counties that don't have the option of mass transit a favor (everywhere but Kent, Wayne, and Livingston).

Huh? :huh: Almost every county in the State has mass transit of some kind. Most of it is demand-response instead of fixed route, but lots of areas have it.

While there are always better ways to spend $14 million, you've gotta start somewhere. Maybe it'll work out, maybe it won't. I also think its total BS that Granholm vetoed that bill. If the money was already earmarked for GR, and all she had to sign was that bill allowing 25 year bonds or whatever, why in the world would you not sign that bill? If she just wants "broader legislation" then sign this bill anyways so ITP can get the funds now and worry about broader legislation later. It seems like she did GR a major disservice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She did a diservice not only for GR, but the metro. Should we be more upset about this issue? I feel angered and not suprised that we got shafted, atleasts thats how I feel about this. I will tell her to how to screw off, just in more civil words with lots of CAPS. Thanks for thelink GRCityKid

Heres a linky to keep in mind: http://www.devosforgovernor.com/ I think this guy knows what hes talking about. Atleast he knows what we need to keep Downtown rollin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She did a diservice not only for GR, but the metro. Should we be more upset about this issue? I feel angered and not suprised that we got shafted, atleasts thats how I feel about this. I will tell her to how to screw off, just in more civil words with lots of CAPS. Thanks for thelink GRCityKid

Heres a linky to keep in mind: http://www.devosforgovernor.com/ I think this guy knows what hes talking about. Atleast he knows what we need to keep Downtown rollin'

I'm very very much against DeVos in soooo many ways... but at some point someone is going to have to tell me how Granholm hasn't turn her back on our city.

:angry::angry::angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The language was specific to any Michigan county with 500 - 750K people (Kent County was the only one). The legislature (I believe) was afraid of how this would be used if the authority was given to Wayne-Macomb-Oakland Counties due to past history. Also, the Detroit Metro area was ear-marked $100 Million in the Fed. Bill to study mass-transit between Detroit Metro-Ann Arbor-Downtown corridor. I know there are many groups who would like that money as well. I believe there will be opportunities to re-draft something next year, but I'm sure the time is tight. I don't know when the Federal Transportation Bill runs out. At least someone finally put something together for this. The Federal Bill was passed last summer. Geezz!

Andy, here's an answer to your question about line item veto power within the MI Gov's office:

http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-2...2663--F,00.html

edit: echo, echo, echo...............sorry Andy :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both for the links. I guess I am realizing this legislation dosen't matter. Why does this matter when we weren't going to get LRT anyway?...

No, it does matter in a way. But if you can't get a bill passed a certain way, then you have to look at other alternative plans and try again. The $14 million is to take the next step (a critical one), and do engineering studies as to what is the next best step (routes, ROW's, etc.). But it won't be for LRT, it will be for a scaled down version such as BRT (fixed-guideway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Dad for the info.

BRT, ahhh so stupid. LRT, ahhh so expensive. I hope we get BRT, then the Rapid and the folks who champion for this as an investment for Grand Rapids realize that it dosent tend to create its own market... I know Kid will laugh at me, but I would like to see Streecar as an alternative to this crap idea of BRT...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading about this bill from all sides of the state, I understand, though not agree with, why Granholm denied this bill. It goes back to the same theory that I used to battle over with my professors.

Even Playing Field.

An interesteing read:

Detroit Free Press: Transit Politics

Set no special roadblocks for southeast Michigan

December 24, 2005

Gov. Jennifer Granholm ought to veto a transit bill that would deny southeast Michigan, and other regions around the state, the same taxing options as the Grand Rapids area. As it stands, the bill is another slap by Republican leaders at southeast Michigan's efforts to improve public transportation.

The bill, as originally introduced by Rep. Jerry Kooiman, R-Grand Rapids, gave certain transit agencies uniform authority, with local approval, to levy property taxes for up to 25 years for rapid transit and rail projects. But other Republicans pushed to change the bill to apply to Kent County only. Current law limits transit levies to five years.

The best remedy is for Granholm to ask the Legislature for a bill like the one Kooiman initially introduced, giving transit agencies the same extended levy authority for rapid transit and rail projects.

Grand Rapids should have the authority provided in the bill. The region's Interurban Transit Partnership plans to develop a streetcar or rapid transit bus corridor serving its downtown and is seeking a

$14.4-million federal grant for engineering work on the project. The Grand Rapids area has become the state's leader in transit and land use planning, and the Legislature ought to encourage its efforts.

But, without change, the bill on Granholm's desk could also block a proposed Detroit-Ann Arbor rapid transit line that would also serve the Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

Congress has already approved $100 million to design the system. The federal government could also chip in up to 80% of the costs of building such a line, but not if the region doesn't have a long-term plan to pay for operating costs. The Legislature's bill would prevent such a plan by limiting levy authority to five years. Either way, local voters would have to approve any plan to pay for transit systems through property taxes.

Other than petty politics, there's no reason to give only one region the tools to move ahead on major federally funded transit projects. Michigan's local finance law should apply uniformly.

Legislators must fix the bill -- after Granholm vetoes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.