Senator Thomas Calls for Suspension of East-West Highway Study

Good for you, Doug. I admire your dedication to the issue and for respecting the concerns of your constituents and other possible stakeholders.

I didn't know there were vampires up there!!

Doug Thomas would make a good Governor in 6 years. Honest, direct and willing to go toe to toe with anyone.

Unless it ( fill in blanks) apparently !

Your're right with in 6 months he'll be ready to try and be Governor.
With his flip flopping.
Like our republican elected officials do all the time.
No different on the others.
Just upsetting that we have to vote for someone who goes with the breeze.
Why I became an Independent.

...With his flip flopping.

Wait a minute! You all complain when a legislator fails to heed his constituents, and then when one does listen, takes their concerns to heart and acts upon same, you slam him for that. Get real! Doug Thomas is trying to do the right thing in this situation. His main concern is for the people's and the state's economic well-being. Nothing more.

Ok, I'll give you that.
Our legislators do fail to listen to us.
He may be strait up person, in doing so now.
Just looks bad because, of all the others before him.
--All of the others before him--.

Just like the guy down the street, when you hang with that crowd you expect the result.

He should have seen this reaction coming ahead of time.
Not true?
He could have had a change of heart, or he could have found more voters.
Maybe he just learned it was going to fail and now he said "no lets wait".

We peons, will never know

His support for property rights was rock steady through the 125th and he appears to have allowed this to trump his support for what is hoped to be an eventual economic enabler. Doesn't seem a flip/flopper to me. Let him clear this up and drive on.

Been pondering something. Sen Thomas advocates passing a Constitutional Ammendment to remove the "Eminent domain" powers from being used to help a private entity in any project in Maine.

LD 1639, is the "public/private partnership laws (which Sen Thomas was a co-sponsor of, that was passed by the last Legislature, with little fanfare, no public hearing and no public debate. Why wouldn't it be a lot easier to just ammend, or delete part of , those statutes so the "eminent domain" part could not be used for this. Seems to me that would be much simpler and much quicker.

I cannot understand the proposed "constitutional ammendment" proposal as it would not be quick, would have to obtain 2/3 vote of the people of Maine, which I believe would have to be done at the next general election after the upcoming one, besides obtaing 2/3 of the legislature to put it out to the people.

Why take this route? It seems like it would take a lot of time and be a very cumbersome way to do this. Laws are changed, routinely, by the legislature all the time, Why is this different?

Are the politicians just trying to "buy time" to get by this next election?

One has to ponder what is really going on here, especially after seeing the cumbersome method that has been proposed to deal with the public dissent.

WC

To go along w/ your post woodcanoe in case you didn't see it from other thread.

Given the fact that ED has already been run thru courts ,i.e. Conn. case which was railed against vehemently here abouts' and upheld as legal. I suspect,
there will be more than a few who will be reluctant to outlaw a legal practice that could come into play in their districts !
If one is looking for a public good elements to pass muster, this proposal has a thousand more things going for it , than that peace of crap did in Conn. !
Please remember this isn't going to be acted upon until after the election ,if it even makes it past submission phase !
Which always gives the author a "look it isn't my fault out"!

I commend Sen. Thomas for his respectful and responsible handling
of the eminent domain issue. I've been forced to fight Govt. on ED issues,
fortunately I was successful. With little effort one can find numerous cases
of ED abuse. The folks that suggest he did it for political reasons should
review his voting record while in elected office.

Before anyone makes a decision one way or the other on this issue, it would behoove them to take the time to study the decions of the judges and the reasons that Kelo made it to the Supreme Court.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freetradeopenmarkets/p/kelovlondon.htm

But he cannot support this and resolve all these issues if he isn't reelected can he !

The study that was commissioned with $300,000 of our money, is not active. It has not yet begun as no bidders on the project have emerged on that bid request, other than Wilbur Smith & Assoc. (now merged into CDM as CDM Smith) who was the author of 3 previous studies on the same topic. There is no active study to "suspend", only the bid process to suspend. Perhaps that is what Sen Thoman means here.

LD 1639 is the 'Public/Private partnership" act, passed by a previous legislature, Main sponsor was Sen Mcdonald of Boothbay, with several co-sponsors, including Rep Thomas.

Sen Thomas, and others, have stated that this bill was specifically tailored to the Wiscasset bypass. There is absolutely NO language in that bill that states that it is "particular" to the Wiscasset project. In fact MDOT sources have admitted that it (the statute) could be used for any similar transportation project, including the east west corridor project? Also Peter Vigue has repeatedly DENIED that he knows anything about that statute!

I have a digital copy of this bills legislative history, including copies of the testimony on the bill from its sponsors and others in favor. In this bill Sen McDonald THANKS CIANBRO for writing the bill!

I would suggest that what exists in the written record of what took place when developing and passing LD 1639 is at odds with many public statements made by those who promote and defend the east west corridor proposal.

I would respectfully ask that Sen Thomas, instead of pursuing a long drawn out process such as a Constitutional ammendment, work to "undo" LD 1639 completely and then work for open and honest debate about all aspects of the "public private partnership" idea for transportation projects in this state.

The entire enterprise is odorous, both for how it came to be, and how it is referred to by the principals. When something in my house is "rotten" I throw it out and start over.

A total redo of "public/private partnership" laws in Maine is way overdue!

WC

WC

In the interest of saving bandwidth here on AMG, answer this;

Is there anything about the East/West highway that you think would benefit Maine and it's people ?

Posted: August 13
Updated: Today at 9:04 AM
East-west highway advocate now wants to suspend feasibility study
Sen. Doug Thomas, R-Ripley, says his constituents are worried about having their properties taken away through eminent domain.
By John Richardson jrichardson@mainetoday.com
State House Bureau

"The governor has supported the east-west highway project since day one, and that has not changed," said Adrienne Bennett. "At the same time, the governor acknowledges Sen. Thomas' concerns and recognizes there may be potential issues here."

It wasn't clear Monday whether LePage could delay the study, or for how long. The Maine Department of Transportation is still in the initial fact-finding stage of the study, Bennett said.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Lawmaker-wants-to-slow-down-east-west-hi...

East-west highway proponent asks LePage to slow down feasibility study
By Christopher Cousins, BDN Staff
Posted Aug. 13, 2012, at 12:41 p.m.
Last modified Aug. 13, 2012, at 7:33 p.m.

AUGUSTA, Maine — Concern about whether the construction of an east-west highway through rural central Maine would require the taking of private and public land has prompted a longtime supporter of the project to ask Gov. Paul LePage to slow it down.

Democrats characterized Monday’s development as “political cover” against a concept that has proven to be unpopular.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/08/13/politics/east-west-highway-propone...

DOT in initial stages of fact finding? What facts were they looking for on what ?

Good.....If this is such a no brainer money maker....get the private investors to put up the cash and move forward....otherwise the Maine taxpayer shouldn't end up footing the bill in any way shape or manner for this big dig.....

I tend to agree that the proposal could be a benefit for Northern Maine! Actually I tend to have more faith in the things in corridor doing so more than trucking but am willing to wait and see.
At this point I am curious as to just what has been slowed down. In todays PPH the Comm. of DOT is quoted as saying "Our job ,of course , is to conduct the economic feasibility study in a fair and responsible manner" .
The gov. says,"We must explore the facts and go on a fact finding mission,and that is what the state is going to do" .
Both of these statements call in question the supposed need to have an independent impartial study of feasibility which was announced when this was first brought up to get the money for it.
Is it me or is the study going ahead w/out spending the $300,000 on a private separate entity w/ the exception of clarification of the ED !

To recap here is where we are at this time?
We haven't spent the $300,000 ( which is actually the second time we have saved this money ).
We have gone into a holding pattern on the ED issue before ED was ever mentioned by any supporters of the proposal !
The resolution of ED issue is dependent on the legislature to change laws .

This appears to be taking on a certain Abbott and Costello aura.
"Who is on first" ?

deleted double thing!

......."The study that was commissioned with $300,000 of our money, is not active. It has not yet begun as no bidders on the project have emerged on that bid request, other than Wilbur Smith & Assoc. (now merged into CDM as CDM Smith) who was the author of 3 previous studies on the same topic"........

As far as I know, from the best sources I can find, there is NO currently active study of this being done by any "outside impartial consultant". As you can see only one firm has expressed interest in bidding on same, and he has done all the previous studies.

........"In the interest of saving bandwidth here on AMG, answer this;.....Is there anything about the East/West highway that you think would benefit Maine and it's people?".......

The short answer is NO, not to any great extent, other than to help fill the pockets of any Mainers who may invest in this project.

Since you seem to infer that I have been wasting bandwith.......I wish to offer some thoughts.

Yes, I live in the area that could be very negatively impacted by this project, along with a lot of friends here. That does compell one to act with some sense of urgency for sure.

Politicians do something that is common to them all.....they talk all the time. The more they wish to sell an idea, the more they talk. Everytime you pick up a newspaper you can see the promoters of this......talking. Politicians, and the promoters such as Mr Vigue, are using the same tactic. Tell the people what you think they want to hear!

The problem with this is that they talk so much.....that they cannot remember today what they said last week, or last month or last year. All of their appearances have written records of one kind or another. I like finding and collecting these records as it makes it easy to see the conflicts in what the principals are saying as they keep changing what they say, and denying what they said before.

Example: Peter Vigue and Sen Thomas have denied that the public private partnership laws have anything to do with this corridor proposal. But, in his testimony on LD 1639 Sen McDonald THANKS CIANBRO for writing the bill! It simply borders on "incredulous" here, to think that Cianbro, Vigue's company, could have prepared the language of that bill........and Peter Vigue would know absolutely nothing about it? Where I come from that tells me something unusual here is going on! Someone certainly is being less than forthright for sure.

I think the fact that Mr Vigue denies knowing anything about LD 1639 while the Main Sponsor thanks his company for writing the bill is a very important thing for the people of Maine to know. In fact I believe that the people of Maine have every right to know everything they want to know about just what this "corridor proposal" is really all about, and those kinds of facts have been very hard to find as the principals do not wish to discuss them.

I try to keep abreast of what is going on here, and when I find information I think people should know, I do my best to publicize it. I have spent some time trying to think about all of this with some logical thought, and have tried to write some peices based on what I consider to be logical thought, in the interest of perhaps inspiring others to think more about this themselves, and ask lots of good questions about it also.

I have not attacked anyone personally, in fact I have tried very hard to keep this to a debate of the ideas behind this proposal. I hope I have been able to add something to the debate so that is it not quite as one sided as it was.

I have said that, if it truly is a "private venture" with willing buyers and willing sellers, and the entire project can be put together on that basis, and the power of the state is not used to take land from unwilling sellers, that I could probably support it. But in reality, I don;t believe, in my heart, that that is. or was, the original intent. Politics have caught up with the promoters here so now we will have to wait and see what is going to happen next.

I am sure that if Scott thinks I am saying too much and using too much bandwith on something that does not really matter, that he will let me know.

My main goal is to try and keep people informed, as best I can along with efforts in this direction that many others are doing.

I close with the same question I have asked before: Why propose to deal with this with a Constitutional Ammendment, when it would be much easier just to ammend LD 1639, or delete some of its language, tactics that are routinely used in every legislative session?

I have to ponder why Sen Thomas has proposed this particular route.

WC

WC
I chose this route because I don't think eminent domain should be used for private projects period. This is needs to be looked at highway or no highway.

Thank you, Senator Thomas.

Best,
skf

Well after reading this mornings PPH , http://www.pressherald.com/news/road-study-bids-sought-well-before-law-s.... It is apparent that
no one knows who is on first much less what is going ! Including Sen. Thomas .

Now there is a simple bureaucratic reason for this timeline thing w/ bids etc. etc. . Given the bill was signed in April that changed the purpose of the funds(from previous intended uses) there would be a
need to get the funds encumbered( spent or committed) before the end of the fiscal year. Usually unencumbered funds become surplus. That could have but a need to get this done,out to bid etc. etc. in place, given end of fiscal year was
approaching. In past when I dealt w/ this I had to have all my training budget spent by June 20th. .

It is time to stop and start all over again and put it in a frame of reference that can be understood .
First tell the parties involved a study is going to be done!
If I own a trucking company in Southern Maine I have an interest in this being a taxpayer I am entitled to the bill(study) being carried out.

Second it will be a feasibility study for a Private road from here to here .
The study will cover all aspects of feasibility, ED use or not , permitting etc..

Third after the study all issues can be raised and addressed after they are identified.
After a study would allow people to deal with specific information versus unknown, unspecified , as well as false accusations ,unsubstantiated rumors ,hallucinations and what not!

Actually this got off on the wrong foot when it was stated this was a feasibility study.
Is it feasible ? Yes .
A better use of language would have been Study of impact of a Private road proposal , because that is what the issues are .No one really cares if a group of people can come up with money
to do it ,they can ,probably already have ( at this time none of anyones' business).

Do the study then let all hell break out in opposition ,which will happen anyway and deal with facts !

If nothing else this will be an example where gov. and taxpayer money should have stayed as far away from the idea as possible for as long as possible.
The road to hell is paved w/ good intentions,looks like we are close !

You can’t help but laugh at poor Herbie Clark these days. On the stump, Clark’s contrived outrage over the bill getting “pushed” through his committee while he was in the men’s room is just silly. He was so “outraged” he ran down for a photo op with the governor during the bill signing ceremony.

While Clark takes cover, Thomas takes action.

And the action is not taking cover after an explosion of opposition as mis guided as it might or might not be?
Come on now if you believe that I have a green bridge for sale !
There is nothing wrong with it being cover which in this circumstance is prudent.
But let's not attempt to put a different face on it. The only thing here on the Senator is maybe a mis judgement on how the reaction would be
if the ED question was thrown out, which it was to a fair the well ,by those who saw the bulldozers coming over the ridge at sunrise the first day of the proposal.
Aren't politicians suppose to represent their constituents ?

It is becoming apparent that there are others acting and not communicating here.
End game do the study and fight it out after the study has something written on the pages.

Bruce Libby

It is a feasability study.
To be used to entice investors that want return on their money.

Yes, it's feasable in many peoples eyes, but don't fall into the trap of thinking everyone has the same information as the folks that are near the project.
A similar situation would be for me to assume that everybody knows how to get to Fort Kent by way of Presque Isle.

Bruce LIbby: "Aren't politicians suppose to represent their constituents ?"

Precisely my point. Instead of making excuses like Clark, Thomas is listening and responding.

Ugenetoo
I agree and do not assume anything except the process has become ( fill in blanks).
I am sure there is information in private hands we do not know!
Which is probably why the state involvement should have been limited to spending no money and let the private sector bring it forward.
Your point about investors is well taken and is why a impact study would have been better IMHO.

At this point it is apparent that DOT will be doing some thing w/ govs. blessing until ED and Private /Public partnerships issue can be addressed.
Like I said before I believe it could be a benefit to the whole state. The only way to ascertain that is do the study and refute any parts that are not agreed with.

Betsy I agree with you he i listening etc. and doing what needs to be done at this time for everybody. His continued belief in the idea
does require him to be in office to do what he does. Is he covering ? Yes, as they all do, as long as it isn't coverups, I am OK with it !

I will say my only total problem with this was the use of state funds upfront and the Senator owns that 100% .
Without that in play we wouldn't be where we are at this point.

For all the speculations there is only one that totally holds water,VIque could come up w/ $300,000 by sunset to have done this study!
The rest is open for everything including bulldozer sightings!