Jump to content
George K

Brightline Provides a Ray of Hope

Recommended Posts

At the time Scott turned down the funds, Brightline was probably not anything more than an idea in someone's mind. So whatever the reasoning for turning down the funds, this probably wasn't it. Now if Florida was on the hook for cost overruns (and HSR projects have a distressing habit of overruns that start with a B), it might have made more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time Scott turned down the funds, Brightline was probably not anything more than an idea in someone's mind. So whatever the reasoning for turning down the funds, this probably wasn't it. Now if Florida was on the hook for cost overruns (and HSR projects have a distressing habit of overruns that start with a B), it might have made more sense.

AAF might not have been announced until 2012, but FECI certainly laid the groundwork starting in 2007 when they spun the FEC Railway into a separate company while also retaining rights to run a passenger railroad between Miami and Jacksonville.

 

Speaking of overruns, remember when AAF was first announced as a $1 bn project to open in 2014?

 

It is interesting that Scott turned down the HSR funds, which studies showed would recover operating costs, but approved a commuter railroad even though it falls significantly short of breaking even.

 

In reality, the likely reason for Scott rejecting the funds had more to do with obstructing Obama. Senator Mitch McConnell even said Republicans will do everything they can to obstruct the President. Besides, it is not like the Federal funds went back to the treasury. They were redistributed to other projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He probably invested in Fires before they bought FECI. It's not uncommon for bazillionaires to be highly diversified.

 

Besides, as an investor, he's more likely to lose his own money.

 

Heck, there's probably some Fortress in portfolio. Can I not run for any office? Can I not do what's best and makes sense for taxpayers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a conflict of interest that his administration is responsible for approving a project that he will benefit from financially.

 

And how can you argue this makes sense for taxpayers? He approved SunRail, despite it not coming close to recovering operating costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He and everyone else also approve scads of highway construction that will never come close to recovering costs. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm sure the average reader would appreciate the 4,400 vs. 4,000 horsepower question as well as the extremely complicated relationship between Brightline, FEC Industries, FEC railroad and various holding companies. Face it, folks, the average reader cares nothing about such details, only railfans obsess about them.

So you're logic is that since a lot of people won't care, there's no point in getting facts right? While the horsepower thing really isn't important, a lot of the stuff about ownership of Brightline and FEC, and who controls them, is pretty important. Ignorance of the reader doesn't justify ignorance of the writer.

 

Then again, is there enough interest by the publisher in printing those errors and their correction. While print media generally print a fix, it is often a small mention in an obscure place with little reference to the original for anyone to remember it. I'd say it's probably more useful to get such facts done correctly up front or, at least, make future articles correct unless the information is significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm sure the average reader would appreciate the 4,400 vs. 4,000 horsepower question as well as the extremely complicated relationship between Brightline, FEC Industries, FEC railroad and various holding companies. Face it, folks, the average reader cares nothing about such details, only railfans obsess about them.

So you're logic is that since a lot of people won't care, there's no point in getting facts right? While the horsepower thing really isn't important, a lot of the stuff about ownership of Brightline and FEC, and who controls them, is pretty important. Ignorance of the reader doesn't justify ignorance of the writer.

 

Then again, is there enough interest by the publisher in printing those errors and their correction. While print media generally print a fix, it is often a small mention in an obscure place with little reference to the original for anyone to remember it. I'd say it's probably more useful to get such facts done correctly up front or, at least, make future articles correct unless the information is significant.

 

This was a digital article anyway, so making changes to correct falsehoods costs nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a conflict of interest that his administration is responsible for approving a project that he will benefit from financially.

 

And how can you argue this makes sense for taxpayers? He approved SunRail, despite it not coming close to recovering operating costs.

If it were a direct investment, the case could possibly be made. But the way our government was set up was not to have lifelong politicians without any conflict of interest in the private economy. Rather, it was intended to be a "part time" job for those in the private sector to be servants to the public for a limited period of time, then return to their practice.

 

It would be categorically impossible to remove every politician from every potential or actual conflict of interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FEC is owned by Fortress, but that does not mean that FEC is major part of Fortress. Fortress has about $36 billion of assets under management. Their entire transportation portfolio is about $1 billion - 3% of the total assets. I'm not sure the dots connect from an investment in Fortress and conflict of interest with Brightline and FEC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the newspapers attempt to paint the Frotress Investment Portfolio connection as a conflict of interest is complete BS. The earlier cancellation was pure politics. The later acceptance and eventual enthusiasm was the result of Brightline managing its political relationships and PR well and has little to do with Fortress investment. As PRR says, FECI is a rather small part of Fortress and that too disconnected from the specific portfolio in question, for it to have any material impact on the Governor’s riches. Heaven knows he has created way more havoc elsewhere for people to get hung up on this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick Scott made his Fortune as a Health Care Criminal, served as a So/So Governor of Florida, and is now running for the Senate so he can get to Sodom on the Potomac where the real Big Bucks are made!

 

No poor Senators except for Amtrak Joe Biden, the Last Honest Senator!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm sure the average reader would appreciate the 4,400 vs. 4,000 horsepower question as well as the extremely complicated relationship between Brightline, FEC Industries, FEC railroad and various holding companies. Face it, folks, the average reader cares nothing about such details, only railfans obsess about them.

So you're logic is that since a lot of people won't care, there's no point in getting facts right? While the horsepower thing really isn't important, a lot of the stuff about ownership of Brightline and FEC, and who controls them, is pretty important. Ignorance of the reader doesn't justify ignorance of the writer.

 

Then again, is there enough interest by the publisher in printing those errors and their correction. While print media generally print a fix, it is often a small mention in an obscure place with little reference to the original for anyone to remember it. I'd say it's probably more useful to get such facts done correctly up front or, at least, make future articles correct unless the information is significant.

 

This was a digital article anyway, so making changes to correct falsehoods costs nothing.

 

Not true. No printing costs but most of the time (and money) is in the editing (by the reporter) and editing (by the editor) along with any other approvals as well as the time cost of posting which itself has to be edited and approved.

 

Whether it's a new article or a rewritten one, it's not "costs nothing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×