[–] 16534892? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

When is Trump going to stop the chemtrailing or at least explain to us why they do it.

[–] 16535511? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

A good question. They were chemtrailing hard on the East Coast today.

[–] 16536614? 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Let me get this straight:

With all the technology and power it has, you think the only way the gov can spread chemicals is by leaving a big visible trail from the back of normal planes?

There's tons of ways to get the populace/environment dosed and you believe they use the stupidest one?

[–] 16539283? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Two words. Micro Plastics.

One word? Microplastic? Either way...

[–] 16542292? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I also think a lot of people confuse chemtrails with the ice trails and/or jet exhaust. Look at old WW II pics of B-29s and B-17s and the contrails are impossible to miss. I've heard of the silver/cloud-seeding thing so there's probably some truth to chemtrails, but I am not convinced it has been so widespread for so long that people seem to think. Keeping an open mind, though.

[–] 16535480? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

We know that. The question is: why did he fuck around for two months instead of arresting the people who rigged the 2018 midterms?

[–] 16575498? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

As long as the Corps is acting as the Developer, this will be fine.

[–] 16540782? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The wall is already being built, per POTUS.

[–] 16537833? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

We need to be careful here folks. There's more to this than meets the eye. Our state has been using "Public-Private Partnerships" for some time. It's probably in widespread use among the various states and even cities. The Fed just hasn't used this approach before, as I understand it.

I can say that this is the one issue over all this time that I have some genuine concerns and what appears to be more than mild disagreement with POTUS. I recall in one speech where he promoted this concept and my reaction at the time.

"Public-Private Partnerships" sound good. Gets projects built when they might not otherwise. Can be a valuable solution for the right set of circumstances. Not very good when applied to every project that comes across the boards.

Politicians need to first decide the money to do any particular project is not available (most do not have funding initially, must be developed or provided for intentionally.) In Congress, they'd vote whether to fund it or not, similar to what's going on with the wall today.

If there's enough sentiment to push a particular project, a "Public-Private Partnership" would allow the government to seek outside developers to develop the project (note, this is NOT "build"). The developer takes the project and develops it by agreeing to contribute its' efforts to the project in exchange for any number of incentives to do so.

Those incentives typically involve profit. The profit arises from revenue, ostensibly produced once the project is completed, and by the project. The developer also rolls in long term operations and maintenance, and their related costs to calculate Return on Investment (ROI) over the life of the project (can be as much as 50 or 100 years).

The project gets built, the developer begins to receive a return on their investment. Everybody's happy, right?

Where do you think the developers' return comes from? That's right, YOU.

Instead of government paying for the project outright (by borrowing more from China and adding it to our national debt), the developer typically achieves their own funding, either out of pocket or through other lending parties who also expect their return in the form of interest.

The result is fees applied to the use of the project, whether it be a museum, bridge or turnpike. We often refer to fees of this sort as TOLLS.

When it comes to roads and bridges, tolls are the means by which these project get paid for. So, what we are talking about here, in many cases, are toll roads.

Now you see why I get concerned?

[–] 16555074? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Before becoming president, Trump fixed the Wollman Rink using exactly this strategy.

[–] 16556311? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Like I said, P-P (not "PP") is grand under the right set of circumstances.

NY has a peculiar contractor objective of doubling or tripling construction costs after a project is begun, so it's easy to see how that cycle could be interrupted with P-P. Trump the developer saw that and jumped in. Worked out good for all.

I can't recall how much public funding had been lost prior to that, however. It did get fixed. Don't think I'd like to see all projects go that way or require this solution.

In our town, we had an out-of-blue proposal pop up to build a bridge. It's a bridge on the long range plan that could not be afforded today. The city had no plans to build it in the near term, nor the money. It's a major road, but not a highway. At this date, the only purpose the bridge would serve is to allow future development on the other side, which today was mostly grassland and was shortly out of city limits. Some other peculiarities involved a large paper factory across the river (and which was actually built upon this roads' ROW, so the road was modified to go around), and I believe that factory's site had also been specifically excluded from the City Limits when built by design. There was a significant piece of land donated to the city by a prominent family and made into a park on the city side. (It's unknown if the donation was to allow this future effort or not, but the public really likes the park. I do recall some discussion that the donation was given with the understanding it would become a park). The city council was obligated to consider the offer. The offer was made by a developer, ostensibly with interest in the outlying future development. The developer would agree to build the bridge, operate it and maintain it for 50 years, so long as they could collect unnamed tolls to those who crossed it, coming and going.

Without telling how this turned out, how does this sound to you?

[–] 16537069? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

A) costs would exceed $50 million. B) has non-federal support from the gofundme page. C) these can be private, local and federal i believe. D) would definitely speed up the time to build the wall. E) there is a go fund me site for the wall so there is non-federal funding that can be leveraged.

[–] 16537959? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Another observation, related to the Go-Fund Me site input. Might it be possible for regular citizens be able to contribute to these types of projects via direct payments like this? They would likely take the form of bonds, which might work quite well.

However, typically, in most historical cases, bonds are issued to fund the projects. But, those bonds are controlled such that it ends up that only particular persons can actually invest in them. Closed market. Simple requirements like minimum share purchases of 100,000 or cash equivalency of $1,000,000. Most people are not able to afford this. But, what if regular people could afford to invest in these. They tend to be strong, very stable forms of investment, which is why they are a cornered market now.

Open these bonds up to general public investment. Otherwise, it's just another bank controlled market.

[–] 16537900? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Note per toll discussion above, that "use" of the wall would be required to produce income to pay the development and construction costs. So, would that mean that everyone passing through the wall is tolled? Or, that the government pays an adjustable mortgage amount each month/year to the developer for the wall?

Or, should our government absorb the cost of the wall as a general requirement of the safety and security they are supposed to be providing its' citizens?

Just a question.

[–] 16534733? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's normal for the Corps to do this kind of thing. They rarely "build" anything by themselves. Instead, they hire a general contractor, then they check everything to make sure it's done right. The general contractor runs the project and even has independent subcontractors to test and verify things. Back in the 90s my dad did this. The Corps "built" a dam. They hired a large contractor to do all the work. The contractor even did a lot of the design work and submitted a bid. Then when they got the job they subbed a lot of it out. The excavation was done by a sub. The concrete was subbed out. The earthworks was subbed out. My dad worked for one of the subcontractors that did the lab testing and verification and inspection of the strength of the concrete and rebar used in the dam.

[–] 16538072? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You just defined a "Developer". Developers don't build things, they get things built. In your case, the Corps is the developer.

[–] 16535138? [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Not sure that you got the concept correct. It's not a contractor - subcontractor relationship. Its partnership where industry partners with Government to fund and share the risk and any resulting revenue.