Slashdot Mirror


Trump's New Infrastructure Plan Calls For Selling Off Two Airports (politico.com)

The Trump administration has released an infrastructure plan on Monday that proposes that the federal government considers selling off Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport. According to Trump's blueprint, the administration wants to allow federal agencies to divest assets if they "can demonstrate an increase in value from the sale would optimize the taxpayer value for federal assets." It also includes the George Washington and Baltimore Washington parkways, the Washington Aqueduct and the transmission assets of the Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration on the list for "potential divesture." Politico reports: State and local agencies or the private sector may be better at managing assets currently owned by the federal government, the administration argues, and federal agencies should be able to "identify appropriate conditions under which sales would be made." They should also "delineate how proceeds would be spent." Under the administration's proposal, federal agencies would have to complete an analysis demonstrating an "increase in value from divestiture." Though technically owned by the federal government, both airports are operated by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority under a long-term lease agreement. The 53-page infrastructure plan lays out a vision to turn $200 billion in federal money into $1.5 trillion for fixing America's infrastructure by leveraging local and state dollars and private investment. "The White House says its plan will create $1.5 trillion for repairing and upgrading America's infrastructure," reports CNNMoney. "Only $200 billion of that, however, would come from direct federal spending. The rest is supposed to come from state and local governments, which are expected to match any federal allocation by at least a four-to-one ratio. States have gradually assumed more of the responsibility for funding infrastructure in recent years, and the White House says it wants to accelerate that trend."

As for how the money would be split up, the plan says that half of the new federal money, $100 billion, "would be parceled out as incentives to local government entities," reports CNNMoney. "An additional $20 billion would go toward 'projects of national significance' that can 'lift the American spirit,'" while another $50 billion will be designated "for rural block grants, most of which will be given to states according to a formula based on the miles of rural roads and the rural population they have," reports CNNMoney. "The rest of the money would support other infrastructure-related undertakings..."

22 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Private ownership of public infrastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't wait for the "de-platforming" trolls to find out that "they own it, so you have to do what they say" becomes incredibly problematic in real world contexts.

    1. Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a huge risk, it's a money-making public asset. Airports are gold mines. Besides gate fees, there are lots of bucks to be made renting space, parking spaces, food/taxes, fuel/taxes, and far more.

      Other nations might sell off their assets, and they're idiots.

      Instead, sell off and stop the tax monies to private airports, thousands of them that serve general aviation, and make them stand on their own feet without tax dollar support. Make private aviation have to pay its own dues, rather than shifting the cost to the cattle car carriers we call airlines.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    2. Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Airports are unsuitable for private ownership because there is little meaningful competition. It's not like a rival can open their own competing airport nearby.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Private ownership of public infrastructure by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Other nations sell off their airports and let the private sector take that huge risk.

      No they don't, because they need the airports. All that happens is that debts and long term contracts to private companies are hidden from the national debt figures and the government has to underwrite everything anyway because the airport is too important to go out of business.

      It's just a way of privatising the profits while socalising the risks.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. This sounds...familiar by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 4, Informative

    https://www.newyorker.com/maga...

    This is how you turn the first world into the third world

    1. Re:This sounds...familiar by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative

      It applies to water, prisons, and soon will apply to airports.

      I hate to point this out, but the vast majority of airports in the US are not owned by the US government.

      Even those that aren't owned by the feds are reasonably well controlled by the limits put on the availability of federal funds. Things like "if you accept federal money, the airport must be open to all users." There are some anomalies, like Chicago Meigs, but O'hare (along with Atlanta Hartsfeld) seem to run just fine without federal ownership.

  3. User Fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The private sector KNOWS how to run things. We just need a few user fees.

    -Parking garage entrance fee
    -Parking garage exit fee
    -Airport entrance fee
    -Airport exit fee
    -Airport Security Fee
    -Fee payment Fee
    -Fee payment fee recovery fee
    -Fee payment fee recovery fee surcharge
    -Fee payment fee recovery fee surcharge levy
    -Fee payment fee recovery fee surcharge levy premium

    They should charge for WiFi bandwidth by the byte, say the same as a text message fee, but with a premium.

    -Stuff at the airport is too cheap, as proof, even the poors can afford to fly. Poors should have to take the bus everywhere, or at least need a loan to fly.

    -Passport fees should also increase.

    1. Re:User Fees by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You misunderstand your own example. What brings costs down is competition. A lot of big pieces of infrastructure like airports do not have head-to-head competition. If you hate your local airport and need to fly cross country for business, are you going to take a train? If the major freeways around your home are privately owned, are you going to walk?

      I know that it is fashionable to pretend that government is bad at everything and private enterprise is better, but it is simply not true in the real world.

  4. In other words... by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words, government agencies are now expected to put a dollar value on their historic icons, landmark infrastructure, and carefully-controlled limited-development areas, and sell them to the highest bidders, then turn around and give that money to the federal government to cover tax cuts for the companies who just bought our society.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    1. Re:In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Conservatism has been redefined as taking what is owned by the public and giving it to multinational corporations for kickbacks and contributions. That's literally all they care to do now. They love uneducated voters. Nuff said.

    2. Re:In other words... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Money-losing infrastructure"? Is our infrastructure supposed to be making money? Is that supposed to be the goal of our government? Are both failing if they are not profit-making machines? Is that how we are supposed to look at things now?

      Infrastructure is a government provided service for the common weal. We-the-Citizens (and most non-citizens too, while we're at it) pay for it in order to make our lives better - and to help our business prosper too, if possible. I don't care if the local highway or park aren't profitable; the lack is made up by my taxes. I do have a concern if the taxes are poorly spent or self-serving pork projects get tax money they shouldn't... but the solution isn't too de-fund infrastructure in general.

      Or are we now saying that things like Dulles Airport are unnecessary?

      This whole thing reminds me of Ajit Pai's "solution" to the US's poor internet ranking: if not enough people are getting broadband, redefine broadband until it's slow enough that the statistics don't look as bad. Meanwhile, with Trump: If maintaining government infrastructure costs more than we would like to pay, sell it all until it matches our budget. It's all about moving the goalposts - at a cost to the citizen - rather than fixing the actual problem.

    3. Re:In other words... by hdyoung · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What Trump says he will do in the future is always going to be better than what Obama's real accomplishments. On paper. Maybe. If all those discredited assumptions and flat-out fabrications actually come to pass. Which they will. Totally. Trust him. Only he can fix our problems. It'll be yuge.

    4. Re:In other words... by tbannist · · Score: 4, Informative

      We never had a surplus. The national debt has increased every year since 1957.

      That's an interesting chart.

      The only way for the debt to increase is to spend more than was brought in.

      Actually, no. You seem to have missed the words "Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc."

      The debt on that page can increase when the government prints more money.

      The "surplus" was in name only, because it only dealt with some of the spending of the Federal Government. But we haven't had a surplus since 1957, back when Ike was rolling out the Interstate highway system.

      According to the Congressional Budget Office there were real surpluses in the years 1969, and 1998-2001. You'll have to go to Historical Budget Data and open some Excel files to see the actual numbers, but if you do you will see that the debt held by the public decreased in each of those years.

      However, that's neither here nor there. Quibbling over the exact numbers doesn't change the fact that Bill Clinton (and a Republican congress) either generated a surplus, or brought America as close as it has been since 1957. But in either case, George W. Bush (and a Republican congress) turned it into the largest deficits in America's history, through a combination of new spending, tax cuts and a disastrous recession.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  5. Re:Interesting notion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Only if they don't pay in Rubles this time.

  6. This has been known for months by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    his "Infrastructure Plan" is to give away vast amounts of infrastructure so the folks that helped elect him can profit from it (after the public paid to build it). Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. The frustrating thing is that it's going to take decades to undo the damage this crap causes. Hopefully enough opposition gets into Congress to stop him from selling off the interstate roads. I'm not looking forward to $20 in tolls just to get to work every morning, but I can guarantee you somebody is.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. Don't sell infrastructure by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead, of selling critical infrastructure to businesses, make sure the bidding process to build & maintain those things is based on solid business foundations. There's too much crony-ism in the bidding process, too much bias toward existing contractors regardless of performance.

  8. Fiscal conservativism by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Trump could do anything. Especially run up bills on the joint's credit. And why not? Nobody's gonna pay for it anyway. And as soon as the deliveries are made in the front door, you move the stuff out the back and sell it at a discount. You take a two hundred dollar case of booze and you sell it for a hundred. It doesn't matter. It's all profit. And then finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from the bank or buy another case of booze, you bust the joint out. You light a match.

    Fuck you, pay me.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 53-page infrastructure plan lays out a vision to turn $200 billion in federal money into $1.5 trillion for fixing America's infrastructure by leveraging local and state dollars and private investment

    In other words, Trump isn't doing a goddamned thing, is doing his standard trick of making other people spend their money and take the risk while he puts his name on it, and is going to transfer public assets into private assets. This is pretty much how he built all of his other failed ventures.

    This is such a bullshit 'plan' it defies belief ... because Trump is a crook and thief who apparently can't do math.

    But in the mean time he'll be sure people are dying in the streets because they have no healthcare, but his rich asshole friends all get tax breaks.

    I swear, the economics trotted out by Republicans is a complete fantasy most of the time.

  10. We Know How Well Electricity Deregulation Worked by BBF_BBF · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Well, let's see, after deregulation of the Electricity market caused the power shortages in California since the private power companies realized that the capital costs involved with building new generation capacity was really expensive and that electricity is a necessity, so they just stopped building new plants and just raised electricity prices. Plus Enron.

    So with regards to the selling of federal assets: It may be that the private market will game the system better with the extra control they have over the most valuable assets... they'll let buildings run down even more and charge even higher fees because it's really expensive and time consuming to build another airport near Washington DC... and if you start, they'll wait until you're underway and then cut their pricing to bankrupt your project and then raise prices even higher afterwards.

    Yeah, sell the assets once to get a lump sum now, pay from now to eternity "leasing" it back. We'll see how the state's and city's budgets will look like in 10 years for the ones that sold their legislative offices to private enterprise so they can lease them back...

  11. Lack of competition by dfm3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. What proponents of privatization often fail to account for is that large infrastructure projects don't lend themselves well to free market competition.

    Read up on all the controversies around the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Ontario... and get ready for owners of private infrastructure to pull that same crap hundreds of times over across hundreds of other bridges, roads, and waterways across America.

    Want to build a competitor to DCA within reasonable distance of the Washington DC metro area? Good luck. In many places it's not just a question of land acquisition... there are many locations where local geography limits where airports can be built or where bridges can cross rivers. Look at the terrain around Pittsburgh... want to build another international airport there, maybe closer to the city? I'd like to see someone try.

    I HATE planning roadtrips across Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma... not because of all the stereotypes about flyover country (I actually love the scenery), but because of all the damn toll roads. For each road, I have to figure out: do they take cash, are they toll by plate (with a hefty surcharge for being unregistered), or do they use any of a number of incompatible tolling systems? If I register my rental car's tags in one city will my registration be valid in another? And avoiding the tolls in places like Kansas just to cross the state means you have to go MILES out of your way on two lane roads. Is it reasonable to expect that someone will be able to raise enough money to build a competing toll road, parallel to an existing one? In contrast, I can drive anywhere in a dozen northeastern states and know that any toll road will take EZpass.

    There's a big lake near my house that TVA sold off to a private company some years ago. Sure, the buyers spent money fixing up boat ramps and picnic areas... but then they decided to drain the lake for a year to do some maintenance on the dam. Now, if this were still government land it would be common sense to expect that you explore the lake bed at your own risk (people do that anyway when the lake is drawn down for the winter), but since the lake was now private property, the company used trespassing laws to enforce a complete closure of the entire lake and all adjacent land. And who did they use to enforce the closure? The local sheriff's department.

  12. Private airports are usually 'nicer', but... by Cimexus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an Australian that moved to the US a few years ago and does a lot of flying for work, I'm on the fence when it comes to airport privatisation proposals. One of the interesting differences between the US and Australia is that, despite the fact that the US is generally more in favour of private sector delivery of services (think healthcare etc.), it has overwhelmingly kept its airports publically owned. Most major airports in the US are publically owned, whereas I think every major Australian airport was privatised many years ago.

    On the one hand Australian airports are wayyyy nicer than US airports. More modern and up to date, cleaner, more spacious, better and more facilities etc. Nicer places to be in by a long shot. US airports, especially some of the major ones (Newark and O'Hare spring to mind) are very overcrowded at peak times, straining at the seams and generally just more unpleasant places to be in (e.g. what's with those disgusting old seats and claustrophobically low ceilings in Concourses E/F at ORD?)

    But why are they so much nicer? Because they charge a lot more and thus have a lot more money to pump into improvements. US airport parking fees, even in a major city, are a small fraction of what they are in Australia for instance. I could park at Chicago for a week for what it could cost for a few hours at SYD or MEL. Australian airports no doubt also charge the airlines more than their US counterparts too (landing fees etc.), which indirectly affects ticket prices etc.

    So in terms of user experience, private airports seem nicer, but in terms of equity of accessibility to travel itself, publicly owned is the way to go. Prices go through the roof when airports are privatised, if Australia is anything to go by. Travel should not be only for the wealthy.

  13. Re:Mythology by Nite_Hawk · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yep, I'm going to point out a bridge. I drove over the I35 bridge in Minneapolis nearly every day coming home from work prior to it's collapse. It was dumb luck I didn't leave work 10 minutes later that day or I would likely have been on it when it went down.

    But hey, if you don't want to take my anecdotal example, you can just go check transportation.gov and get a state by state breakdown of structurally deficient bridges yourself:

    https://www.transportation.gov...

    Now maybe you don't take much stock in their numbers, but personally after watching the bridge I made my daily commute over for years catastrophically collapse, I think it's worth at least considering that there may be some truth to these claims.