View Single Post
Old 04-12-2013, 10:45 PM   #28
lawn psycho
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: On the move...
Posts: 987
Thanks: 113
Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts

This thing was primarily spearheaded by Nashua and area legislators who want I-93 widening. And they have no problem letting the rest of the State pay for it. My family uses the Spaulding Turnpike (tolls), and I-95 (tolls) and now these idiots want me to fund their highway too.

Also, the studies that David Campbell (sponsor of bill) frequently quotes were done by an organization that has nothing but contractors on its BOD.

When I had dialogue with him (several occasions) about his bill, he had long shut off any openness to consider other options such as targeting bond directly for I-93 for the widening so the extra increase in costs after construction doesn't become status quo. And he could not rebut that fact that spreading it out over the state, rather than tolls for the roads user was a way to deflect tolls from I-93 as people would expect that to help offset the bonds.

I have no problem improving roads and fixing bridges but just giving the state a bigger pot of money rather than line item justification is what I strongly oppose.
lawn psycho is offline