Recreating The Way We Do Things – Big Brother’s Next Great Desire
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
In a free society, individuals do a number of things that central planners aren’t always thrilled about. It would be the preference of these social engineers for citizens to meekly follow and adhere to the concepts that those who know better understand to be the in the best interest of others.
In the discussions surrounding transportation planning there has been a significant emphasis placed on mass transit approaches that Nevada (specifically Southern Nevada) should be more inclined to adopt. Some would suggest that our lives are not going to be complete until we have the infrastructure of light rail available. These advocates stress the importance of public financing for such efforts and might go so far as to try and convince the state as a whole to back funding which may or may not accomplish an objective supported by any type of market-supported system.
As agendas for directing our state’s future take shape we need to pay close attention to the hype which might be advanced for public works activities along these lines. In considering such notions, we should compare the lessons learned elsewhere and evaluate the business models being suggested in light of what might come out as a proposal.
Given limited resources for public investment, it would seem that greater priorities should be our focus. Even if federal earmarks for encouragement are at stake, we need to evaluate how market-oriented sustainability matches the implied need that central planners would hope taxpayers would be willing to pay for. It would seem that if such projects merit advancement and implementation, customer use will be capable of paying to meet the long-term viability that’s necessary. If the projects are going to take a public-supported approach, taxpayers should be given the straight story on how unsustainable costs will be borne to have a transportation system that people probably won’t be interested in using…
In a free society, individuals do a number of things that central planners aren’t always thrilled about. It would be the preference of these social engineers for citizens to meekly follow and adhere to the concepts that those who know better understand to be the in the best interest of others.
In the discussions surrounding transportation planning there has been a significant emphasis placed on mass transit approaches that Nevada (specifically Southern Nevada) should be more inclined to adopt. Some would suggest that our lives are not going to be complete until we have the infrastructure of light rail available. These advocates stress the importance of public financing for such efforts and might go so far as to try and convince the state as a whole to back funding which may or may not accomplish an objective supported by any type of market-supported system.
As agendas for directing our state’s future take shape we need to pay close attention to the hype which might be advanced for public works activities along these lines. In considering such notions, we should compare the lessons learned elsewhere and evaluate the business models being suggested in light of what might come out as a proposal.
Given limited resources for public investment, it would seem that greater priorities should be our focus. Even if federal earmarks for encouragement are at stake, we need to evaluate how market-oriented sustainability matches the implied need that central planners would hope taxpayers would be willing to pay for. It would seem that if such projects merit advancement and implementation, customer use will be capable of paying to meet the long-term viability that’s necessary. If the projects are going to take a public-supported approach, taxpayers should be given the straight story on how unsustainable costs will be borne to have a transportation system that people probably won’t be interested in using…

Comments