[Ben Ficklin]

Let me point out that there is no "almost certainty" in regard to the non-compete clause.

Instead, there is certainty that there is a non-compete clause.

Since we have the internet now, we don't have to listen to the mis-info, exaggerations, and outright lies anymore.

Its real easy. First we go to Google, then to sdvanced search. In the "with all the words" box we type Cintra. In the "with the exact phrase" box we type non compete clause. Tho not neccessary, we can type BobL into the "without the words" box and our results won't be cluttered with all the mis-info posts you have made at FR and other websites.

Then, with a little click of the mouse on search, we are on our way. And what do we find?

Read this, Bob

[BobL]

Wow, thanks for proving my point.

It looks as though there are two non-compete clauses. The first one says "non-compete" and notes a 20 mile width (10 miles on each side), while the second one reads as follows:

"Should TxDOT build something which has a negative impact on the facility, the developer would receive payment with the developer bearing the burden of proof of negative impact."

The above is a free-standing sentence and it is NOT clear whether it relates to the 20 mile non-compete zone, or not.


If the sentence had read something like...

"Should TxDOT build something IN THE NON COMPETE ZONE which has a negative impact on the facility, the developer would receive payment with the developer bearing the burden of proof of negative impact."

...then I would have to agree with you. But, for all I know the sentence, as written, applies universally (i.e., outside the 20 mile zone).


Since you seem to have your own agenda here, I'll leave it to others to make their own judgments. But it would help to get a link to the actual 1600 page document, since, supposedly, it will be released or has been released.

You may love and trust politicians to do what's best for us, and sign 50 YEAR binding contracts and not have to show them to us, but I think that most people here are not quite as trusting of the political class.

[BobL]

Neat stuff with the link - thanks again:

Here's one for everybody:

"Mr. Saenz stated that this agreement is a transfer of risk from the State to the developer. The State will receive $25 million up front. Revenue sharing of tolls collected will begin at 5% and increase at agreed upon usage levels up to 50%. Revenues generated from this facility remain in the local TxDOT districts (San Antonio and Austin) to be used for local projects. It was stated that TxDOT will be working with the local MPOs on such projects."

Interesting - It now looks like the stuff all of you Perry supporters said about paying for the roads we drive on was simply BULLSHIITE. It looks likes these highways are going to be used as a piggy bank for politicians to fund their own local pet projects. I was always wondering where all of the extra toll money would go - now we know.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

That agreement appears to apply to the privately-built portion of SH-130. I don't know whether similar exemptions to non-compete clauses will apply to (the rest of) TTC-35.