[BobL]

Reasonable comments. No, I haven't read the legislation, but the news articles make it clear that the contract is between Cintra and the DOT, and is not going to be available to anyone else, until after it is signed.

They claim that's to protect Cintra's proprietary rights, but I have some serious doubts about that. After all, Cintra already won, and the contract will, eventually, become public (by the way, it took 3 years in Canada for the Ontario contract to become public).

So I doubt anyone gets to see it until well after the ink is dry (and maybe many other contracts are signed). Additionally, (Transportation Commission Chairman) Williamson has stated that Cintra will get franchise protection, so that's about all I need to know.

From what I can tell, the State of Texas has no protections against abuse from Cintra, at least per the legislation, or Williamson and others would be explaining that to the public.

To data, I have no reason to believe that the interests of Texans is being protected, other than the word of Perry, and I wouldn't trust him or any other single politician (including Kay, Reagan, Bush-43) with that much power. The whole system of checks and balances is gone with these deals and that scares me.

[Dog Gone]

Well, you have certainly succeeded in raising issues that demand answers. I would hope that the enabling legislation requires approval of the signed contract by the Legislature before it can become effective.

Maybe it doesn't, but if a multi-billion dollar project (which obviously will have the power of eminent domain) can be negotiated and awarded without any scrutiny from lawmakers or the public, then something is seriously wrong.