"Our traffic studies show that Microsoft traffic would be about 42 percent of the bridge, yet Microsoft is paying for about 50 percent of the bridge, so we think we are getting fair value."
I have no clue if this is going to be truly good for the local economy, but honestly it looks like spending money for the sake of spending it. Unless building infrastructure has a lasting effect there's no point in building it.
Some of the stimulus money seems to be going towards useless projects, simply to create jobs. Surely there's a lot of places where stimulus money can be spent that will have a long lasting effect on the local economy.
I think ARRA is a giant boondoggle, but this expenditure seems perfectly inkeeping with its intended purpose. Microsoft is the dominant economic force in the area, and this is an investment to allow it to conduct commerce more efficiently. If you support the stimulus package at all (though I don't), I don't see how you can oppose this provision.
While I could potentially agree in premise that a bridge may qualify for stimulus money I can't imagine what they've proposed is the most fiscally responsible way to build it. If they truly believe that the bridge qualifies for stimulus money then they should provide the most financially modest plan that would accomplish their goals. I highly doubt that a 36 million dollar bridge is it.
There is no way this is going to be truly good for the local economy, that bridge may make it _easier_, but it won't make it _possible_ (meaning, transit was already ver, very possible). Redmond is tiny, if you can't get motivated enough to drive to the next bridge to get Taco Time and bolster the local economy, a closer one isn't going to motivate you.
6 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 27.7 ms ] threadPoliticians...
Some of the stimulus money seems to be going towards useless projects, simply to create jobs. Surely there's a lot of places where stimulus money can be spent that will have a long lasting effect on the local economy.