Office boom centers on Williamson County

[bwithers1]

Perhaps the only way to make sure that only (or primarily) those who pay for a road are those who use it is to set up a toll road. Otherwise, the highways (and transportation taxation systems in general) help to defray the costs of moving goods, services, and labor within regions and across the country in ways that keep down prices, but perhaps also wages. (Does this partly explain why the cost of living is so high in island countries?) Even if you don't drive down a particular interstate, maybe your grocery store was stocked by trucks using that route, etc. With so much industrial and warehouse development along the I-24 corridor, this scenario actually seems highly likely.

[Relient J]

^ Good point.

[rocky top buzz]

Are there really THAT MANY people commuting from Murfreesboro to Nashville? I would think because of the distance, those people would be in the minority, unless they're commuting from M'boro to Bell Road or Harding. I suspect most people in m'boro either work in Rutherford or Williamson counties. I work in East Nashville, and that's why I chose La Vergne over M'boro (Maybe RJ really does have a GREAT JOB and can afford to drive all the way in to downtown; who knows!). I think it's ridiculous to claim that we who drive into Nashville don't pay our fair share of taxes.

Think about this: even if we didn't ever shop (food, gas, malls, etc.), go to sporting events, go to conventions, or conduct business with residents of Davidson county, we are still supporting Davidson County via our jobs. Obviously our employers are successful, and they pay taxes via either rent or owning our place of business, and that is money that goes to Nashville-Davidson county. If our companies weren't successful, they would have fewer employess and less expensive offices meaning lower taxes for Davidson. That's why so called "commuter" income taxes never work. If you tax me for working in Nashville and living in Rutherford, I'm not going to give up my nice house and move to some dump in NAshville so I can keep my job, I'll just work in Rutherford county, and business will leave Nashville. So don't hate the commuter; be glad we commute!

Of course, in my reply, I brought up another point. Why did I move to La Vergne, just on the other side of Davidson county? Better schools, nicer homes, nicer neighboorhoods (maybe not so much in Lake Forest, but I dont' live there so that's another thread), for less money. If I could get all that in Davidson, I might live there. But I can't afford to live near belle meade or brentwood, so if my income says choose between Antioch or La Vergne, it's La Vergne every time! Or maybe Smyrna too.

[cdub]

Have I ever used I24, yes, but I can count the number of times I used that route in the past three years on one hand. You're also assuming I'm in favor of providing construction money to Katrina victims to build right back where they previously were. That is simply unsustainable. How long until the next hurricane or levee failure and we're ponying up billions all over again. Everything manmade (ie. levees) has the potential to fail, and with most certainty usually will. The New Orleans area was asking for devastation. I'm not trying to be overly unsympathetic, but when you build in a bowl with water all around at higher elevations, come on. That's why insurance companies typically won't insure you to live in a floodplain unless you're paying a premium for the risk.

I'm also not in favor of tax money going to further expand interstate systems as that too, is unsustainable. Take the I65 corridor and the expansion there. All the expansion does is make it easier, for a short period of time, for more people to move to the outer fringes. This keeps pushing farther and farther out and in time, you're back to square one with clogged arterials and the need for further expansion. It's like loosening the belt on a fat man. I love that quote. In my opinion, having a pay-per use system is the most fair. I get charged if I use the interstate at the same rate you do, I'm just not paying for its construction, continual maintenance, and certain future expansion.

I'm not saying you don't pay your fair share of taxes, I just don't agree with me subsidizing where you live. I knew someone would mention the point about commerce (ie. goods), but we have a perfectly good alternative-Rail. Much more efficient in terms of what it can carry. 1 train = +/- 100 or so trucks on the road. Does all of the goods traveling city to city seem that efficient being spread out over a couple hundred trucks? I agree their are some goods (perishable) that probably have to travel via truck, but not as many as currently do. What happens in say 5 years, or 10, when gas prices shoot through the roof, much higher than we saw last fall? Will commerce fall apart because we are one-sided in terms of transportation options? I remember a couple of years ago the threat that truckers were going on strike due to high diesel prices, what happens then?

[Relient J]

You're also assuming I'm in favor of providing construction money to Katrina victims to build right back where they previously were.

I honestly don't recall whether or not I meant to imply that you were in favor of that or not. If so it was a large presumption on my part, and I apologize for it. It's still a relavant example though because it just gives one example of how our collective tax dollars are used to subsidize a small segment of the population. In the case of the Gulf Coast, the use of that money is unconstitutional. I'm honestly less sure how roads fit into the constitutional equation. I've heard conflicting things on that point (at least as far as interstate highways are concerned). I guess my point was partially to agree and disagree with your point if that makes any sense at all. Honestly my knowlege of whether or not using tax money to support the interstate highway system is constitutional is just not sufficient to truly answer that question.

I would be interested in seeing what would happen to everyone in the metro area who commutes to Nashville if they demolished the interstates or forced commuters and truckers to pay to use them. It would likely disrupt commerce, at least temporarily. In my case I would simply stop commuting to Nashville and seek employment here in Murfreesboro most likely.

In general though I'm with you on taxation. Federal tax dollars are misspent by the trillions in this country. I'm hoping not to send my kids (should God bless me with kids) to a public school, yet I know I'll still have to support the public school system with my tax dollars. These things happen every day, but there are things we can do about them. We definitely need to return to Constitutional government in this country.

[Lukin]

Not to turn this into a political discussion, but I'm wondering if you feel that spending billions on attempting to rebuild and restructure Iraq is a better use of our tax money than rebuilding the gulf coast? While the war in iraq might be more "constitutional" (depending on who you ask) than rebuilding the gulf coast, I can hardly imagine that anyone would rather iraq be rebuilt than our neighbors? Right?

Sorry, I know this discussion has veered off from the original topic many times and don't mean to start a political debate. I'm just wondering if you would be in favor of one over the other, or if you feel both are wastes of money.

[Lexy]

Lexy, I respect your opinions about Murfreesboro. I even agree with some of them, but why insult me when we disagree? I forgive you, and I'd like to apologize if anything I said to you was personally offensive.

As for your comment on this being an urban forum, I agree. However, perhaps we are defining "urban" differently. According to the Oxford American Dictionaries, the word urban means, "in, relating to, or characteristic of a city or town." In that sense I think that Murfreesboro's Gateway project certainly falls within the concept of urbanity. Furthermore, as one of Murfreesboro's major initiatives, it certainly seems to me worth discussing.

Would you honestly like me to censor my views or leave?

Oh certainly not.

I must apologize for sounding like I was insulting you. I certainly wasn't meaning to sound that way at all. I appreciate all opinions on here, but I must say that Murfreesboro is heading in the wrong direction. The growth is fine with me, it is just the way it is being carried out that I have a problem with. City leaders are too worried about being the next Franklin to see the direction they are going. I am VERY VERY passionate about a more urban Nashville and a more urban suburb(s). Murfreesboro is, by definition, a suburb of Nashville either way you cut it. I just wish the developments around here would be more pedestrian friendly, and less car dependant. Again, my apologies for sounding harsh, but it strikes me on a nerve and I get a little crazy. Please forgive me, everyone.

Gateway was a true urban development, you would see the implemation of mass transit, parking garages, buildings that come up to the roads, and a more grid pattern in the road paths with mixed use facing the streets on the lower levels. As it is, it is nothing more than a glorified office park and shopping center with little, if any thought given to the walkability and livability of the neighborhood. Take a look at some of the hoods in Washington D.C or Toronto Canada and you will see a HUGE difference in them and with Gateway. Gateway is suppose to be a neighborhood of Murfreesboro, but it doesn't address core issues like it should.

[Relient J]

Not to turn this into a political discussion, but I'm wondering if you feel that spending billions on attempting to rebuild and restructure Iraq is a better use of our tax money than rebuilding the gulf coast? While the war in iraq might be more "constitutional" (depending on who you ask) than rebuilding the gulf coast, I can hardly imagine that anyone would rather iraq be rebuilt than our neighbors? Right?

Sorry, I know this discussion has veered off from the original topic many times and don't mean to start a political debate. I'm just wondering if you would be in favor of one over the other, or if you feel both are wastes of money.

I don't mind answering that question at all. Both the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast and the war/rebuilding in Iraq are unconstitutional. The war is unconstitutional because Congress never declared war. Plus, I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that authorizes the use of taxpayer dollars to rebuild anything in a foreign country. Private donations, churches, charities, etc. can all do these things (rebuilding, that is). States could even do it if they decide to and their state constitutions allow it, but the federal government is not authorized to do these things by the Constitution.

[Relient J]

Oh certainly not.

I must apologize for sounding like I was insulting you. I certainly wasn't meaning to sound that way at all. I appreciuate all opinions on here, but I must say that Murfreesboro is heading in the wrong direction. The growth is fine with me, it is just the way it is being carried out that I have a problem with. City leaders are too worried about being the next Franklin to see the direction they are going. I am VERY VERY passionate about a more urban Nashville and a more urban suburb(s). Murfreesboro is, by definition, a suburb of Nashville either way you cut it. I just wish the developments around here would be more pedestrian friendly, and less car dependant. Again, my apologies for sounding harsh, but it strikes me on a nerve and I get a little crazy. Please forgive me, everyone.

We're cool, Lexy. All is forgiven. Again, I definitely respect your opinions on Murfreesboro, and even agree with you to a point. I have no problem with you calling Murfreesboro a suburb. I have sort of a split view on that subject myself. In many ways it is a suburb, but in many ways it's not if that makes any sense whatsoever.

[Lexy]

I don't mind answering that question at all. Both the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast and the war/rebuilding in Iraq are unconstitutional. The war is unconstitutional because Congress never declared war. Plus, I don't think there's anything in the Constitution that authorizes the use of taxpayer dollars to rebuild anything in a foreign country. Private donations, churches, charities, etc. can all do these things (rebuilding, that is). States could even do it if they decide to and their state constitutions allow it, but the federal government is not authorized to do these things by the Constitution.

FWIW, we agree on this 100%. LOL!!!

[Relient J]

Gateway was a true urban development, you would see the implemation of mass transit, parking garages, buildings that come up to the roads, and a more grid pattern in the road paths with mixed use facing the streets on the lower levels.

The Gateway area isn't big enough to require mass transit. It has a very small geographic footprint, relatively speaking. All of those other things you mentioned I would be in favor of seeing though. However, even as it stands I think the Gateway is a good thing for the city.

FWIW, we agree on this 100%. LOL!!!

Sweet!

[LA_TN]

LA_TN, first of all, I would very much like for this not to be a "Lexy vs. Relient J" fight. I just want to get my opinion out and make my case, that's all.

Secondly, I am a Murfreesboro resident who moved to Murfreesboro so that I can attend school at MTSU. It makes sense for me to live here for that reason. However, I have an awesome job which happens to be in Nashville. I feel no shame in living this way. I find it works well, and I'm satisfied with it. Perhaps one day I'll live in Nashville, but for now I like where I am and don't think I should feel the slightest bit guilty about where I live or work.

I know you were being very general in your post, but I'd like for you to know that I don't drive an SUV. I drive a relatively fuel efficient Volkswagen Golf. I'm with you on the SUV front. I think they're great if you really need them, but rediculous if you don't. However, I will defend anyone's right to buy one if they want to.

First of all, I'm just poking a little fun at you and Lexy. You two are providing both insight and entertainment! Sorry if I upset you.

We (hopefully) all settle based upon the various requirements unique to each family: distance to work, affordable housing, etc. But a quick look at I-24 (or I-65) in the mornings will quickly dismiss RTB's post 'Are there really THAT MANY people commuting from Murfreesboro to Nashville?'. The answer is yes, there ARE a lot of people that are moving out to have the house/yard/schools/etc. that drive into Nashville for work everyday - I know a few personally. I'm not getting into the debate on this, just stating some facts. Also, I know a lot of the Murfreesboro traffic is only commuting to the LaVergne area.

I get the feeling you are doing what is right for your situation; if you're going to MTSU, you need to live close by. Nobody should condemn your choice for your circumstance.

Blackmon is a 'hot' area now, people are moving there and driving into Nashville (or Cool Springs/Brentwood) for work. These people are choosing long work commutes over other factors in their lives. I know if Davidson Co. had lower taxes and the schools had better public perception, this would not be the case. But the bottom line is that extending the infrastructure to support these people costs us all

[LA_TN]

The earlier mention of freight traffic along I-24 is a good topic. Here is some facts I ran accross once upon a time concerning barge traffic:

- Barges transport $1 billion in products, annually, representing 15% of all U.S. freight.

- Barges consume less than 2% of America's transport costs.

Barges carry:

- 5 times more than air freight

- 15 times more than railroad cars

- 60 times more than semi-trailers

- The average barge tow today consists of 15 barges, equally the carrying capacity of a three-mile long freight train, or a line of semi-trucks 35 miles long.

Barge Info

I'm posting this to show the difference between (barges and) rail and truck freight. Ask Illinois what their view of truck traffic is. The answer is: they build lots of roads for trucks to destroy.

Anyway, the point is that Nashville is served by truck freight and the interstates serve as a pass-thru medium. I've long stated the need to route this traffic onto SR 840 to save wear and tear on Davidson Co. infrastructure and for safety concerns. Although we each don't drive on all the interstates around Nashville, we are all served by them. Good or bad, but they don't need to be eight lanes for this

[Relient J]

First of all, I'm just poking a little fun at you and Lexy. You two are providing both insight and entertainment! Sorry if I upset you.

You didn't upset me. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not trying to fight just to fight.

But the bottom line is that extending the infrastructure to support these people costs us all

Have there been any proposals to extend the interstate infrastructure? I'm not aware of any. Would, for example, the addition of the Manson Pike exit to Murfreesboro count in that category?

[LA_TN]

Have there been any proposals to extend the interstate infrastructure? I'm not aware of any. Would, for example, the addition of the Manson Pike exit to Murfreesboro count in that category?

I-24 is eight lanes now and it used to be four. That's a pretty clear sign of an infrastructure upgrade. And yes, Manson Pike is as well. But let's not forget the new sewers/water/electricity/etc. that has to be extended beyond city (Murfreesboro) boundries to support communities like Blackmon. Even Franklin/Williamson Co. have stated that their infrastructure costs are a cause for concern because of the low density of these developments driving up costs.

[Relient J]

The Manson Pike exit was, I think, pretty necessary for Murfreesboro. Now, you can say that's mostly because the Old Fort/Cason Lane/St. Andrews area is such a mess (and you'd probably be right) but hopefully it is and will help with the congestion problem on Old Fort. Also, it provides a more aesthetically pleasing gateway to the city. Now, I don't know where the money came from to fund the creation of that new exit, but I don't think any of it should come from the federal government, and I'd be ok with Rutherford County getting the check.

[Lexy]

The Manson Pike exit was, I think, pretty necessary for Murfreesboro. Now, you can say that's mostly because the Old Fort/Cason Lane/St. Andrews area is such a mess (and you'd probably be right) but hopefully it is and will help with the congestion problem on Old Fort. Also, it provides a more aesthetically pleasing gateway to the city. Now, I don't know where the money came from to fund the creation of that new exit, but I don't think any of it should come from the federal government, and I'd be ok with Rutherford County getting the check.

Agreed.

I think the new exit on 24 that is just down from highway 96 is a more industrial exit that will take truckers to the industrial parks over by the jail, no?

[Relient J]

Which exit is that? Is that exit 84 to South Church St.?

[Kheldane]

Just a few thoughts, just didn't want people to think oil was a completely private enterprise.

Thank you Cdub, you're right that "big oil" has received many subsidies and favors from the government. I already knew about most of those programs in your links, but thank you for adding that. I even mentioned in my post that government restrictions on new refinery construction made refined hydrocarbons more expensive than otherwise. This monopoly move by the government to keep competiton out of the market is a huge benefit for oil refining companies.

But let me set the record straight: I am against all government subsidies, including the ones you brought to our attention. I simply used gasoline as an example because it's mostly owned by private companies. The oil in the ground, for example, is owned by companies, not the government. The means of extraction, refining, distribution, and retail provision are owned by private companies - who, as you highlighted, often receive government conveyed benefits. I am against that for the same reasons I'm against government owned utilities.

[sleepy]

Rebuild the Gulf Coast, not Iraq.

As a lawyer, I can tell you those are political questions--yea or nay--not constitutional questions.

[Relient J]

^ In that case, can you site the provision in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to fun the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast using the public treasury?

[Kheldane]

Perhaps the only way to make sure that only (or primarily) those who pay for a road are those who use it is to set up a toll road. Otherwise, the highways (and transportation taxation systems in general) help to defray the costs of moving goods, services, and labor within regions and across the country in ways that keep down prices, but perhaps also wages. (Does this partly explain why the cost of living is so high in island countries?) Even if you don't drive down a particular interstate, maybe your grocery store was stocked by trucks using that route, etc. With so much industrial and warehouse development along the I-24 corridor, this scenario actually seems highly likely.

Yes Bwithers1, I do think toll roads would be very common in a free-market society. However, you never can tell what kinds of arrangements the market will work out. It is conceivable that in commercial districts, businesses will pool together to maintain nice roads to attract customers. Also, developers who have empty land will build nice roads to attract buyers. I can definitely imagine a toll-free roadway in a commercial district designed to attract consumers. Roadways in residential areas would most likely be funded by homeowner organizations. But interstates - definitely toll.

[sleepy]

^ In that case, can you site the provision in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes Congress to fun the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast using the public treasury?

The commerce clause.

[rocky top buzz]

yes, but in my opinion, the commerce clause has been interpreted way to liberally. Why is it a benefit for me to re-build New Orleans? 1- I've never been and may never go, and 2- Whose to say another hurricane won't come and destroy it again in 5 years! More Importantly, as our population continues to explode around coastlines, damage caused by hurricanes will continue to increase; Am I as a resident of Tennessee going to have to pay to rebuild FL, AL, MS, LA, and NC every year???

And as far as the constitutionality of war in Iraq, it's not a declared war! But congress has in many situations voted to support our troops efforts there. The media tells you Iraq is on the verge of civil war, but soldiers on the ground say otherwise. They say the media is just trying to make big news. I would rather the Iraq money be spent domestically or returned to the taxpayers, but the amount we've spent in Iraq is chump change compared with the expense of another 9/11.

[Relient J]

The commerce clause.

The "commerce clause" found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states the following:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

I see nothing there about subsidizing the construction of homes and businesses lost to storms.

And as far as the constitutionality of war in Iraq, it's not a declared war! But congress has in many situations voted to support our troops efforts there.

If it's not a declared war, it's not a legal war. Article 1, Section 8 says the following regarding that:

"To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

That's the only way to legally do it.