President Trump and infrastructure investments in Detroit

**renf** · January-24-17, 08:38 PM

Apparently, the new administration has listed 50 infastructure projects where they would like to see investments by either the federal government or private entrepreneurs. M-1 rail in Detroit and the Gordie Howe international crossing are on the list of 50. Does anyone know what this means?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...8492164.html#0

**archfan** · January-25-17, 01:58 AM

I suspect that by citing projects that are already in the works, they can make the budget decision quickly, and the administration can claim a victory by funding something that was going to be funded anyway.

**bust** · January-25-17, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

Too bad Obama sent the cash to Palestine. I do hope they'll spend the money wisely on their own water issues.

Decisions about where to allocate money are made daily. Some we like. Some we don't. Yesterday they were made by Obama. Today by Trump. Its his turn. Your turn isn't currently scheduled.

Thought I'd do some fact checking for you.

The money Calltoaction is worried about is the $100 million of direct federal assistance that was granted to Flint last year to address their water crisis. Obama signed the bill on December 10.

EPA spells out rules for federal spending on Flint water system
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/inde...deral_spe.html

Calltoaction's concern is shared by many. Trump reportedly intends to put a freeze on any new EPA grants and contracts. It's uncertain whether this means Flint will not be able to use the money. If they can't you seem rather cavalier about it.

Michigan Democrats ask Trump if freeze on EPA grants hits Flint
http://www.freep.com/story/news/poli...isis/97008638/

Obama did not send the money for Flint to Palestine.

The money Obama sent to Palestine was allocated by Congress for Palestine in the 2015 and 2016 federal budgets. Some Republicans [[maybe only two) placed a hold on it to protest Palestine seeking membership in international organizations. Congressional holds are not legally binding on funds that have already been allocated. Obama decided to ignore the hold and send the funds to their intended recipient. He could not have redirected the money to Flint, nor used it for any other purpose. But you knew that. For reference see here:

State Dept. reviewing decision to send Palestinians $221 million
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-de...ns-john-kerry/

Back to the Obama administration's response to the Flint water crisis, besides the $100 million, here's a fact sheet published May 3, 2016 that details much more assistance they provided. It does not include the additional assistance they provided after its date of publication:

FACT SHEET: Federal Support for the Flint Water Crisis Response and Recovery
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...e-and-recovery

Note the information comes from a page preserved at the national archives. The Trump administration has already removed this information from the whitehouse.gov site.

They have not yet taken down the interactive map the Obama administration created to display the results of over 4,500 water samples collected from more than 650 Flint homes. Look at it while you still can:

https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/web...9e84463f16efae

Wesley, speaking of getting over it, is your guy disturbed enough by his unprecedentedly low approval ratings he sends you here to slander Obama, to chip away at his? Trump is known to have a fragile ego, but sheesh!

**Wesley Mouch** · January-25-17, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by bust

Thought I'd do some fact checking for you.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by bust

Obama did not send the money for Flint to Palestine.

Current score, however, Palestine $200,000,000. Flint $0.

Originally Posted by bust

The money Obama sent to Palestine was allocated by Congress for Palestine in the 2015 and 2016 federal budgets. Some Republicans [[maybe only two) placed a hold on it to protest Palestine seeking membership in international organizations. Congressional holds are not legally binding on funds that have already been allocated. Obama decided to ignore the hold and send the funds to their intended recipient. He could not have redirected the money to Flint, nor used it for any other purpose. But you knew that. For reference see here:

Palestine money released from hold. Flint money put into hold.

Originally Posted by bust

...
Wesley, speaking of getting over it, is your guy disturbed enough by his unprecedentedly low approval ratings he sends you here to slander Obama, to chip away at his? Trump is known to have a fragile ego, but sheesh!

Childish, to say the least, by my 'fake news'. I'm ashamed of myself.

Approval ratings come and go. I'm sure they're legitimate, and not fake news. Does anyone think that approval ratings are a measure of very much right now? If a Martian landed in Kansas, what would be its approval rating as President? Trump's a Martian -- except that we don't know nearly as much about Trump and what he's gonna do compared to Martians. They're a relatively known quantity. Trump? Complete unknown.

Starting in about a year, we'll know whether any of what Trump has done is working. I'm pessimistic that things will get better -- but I have hope. The logjam has been broken. Nobody downstream approves of logs much right now.

**Wesley Mouch** · January-25-17, 02:33 PM

The people of Flint are suffering because of many problems. That President Trump wants to re-assess priorities is reasonable. Flint, Michigan, and Michael Moore can work with state agencies on their problem in the meantime.

**Junjie** · January-25-17, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by renf

Apparently, the new administration has listed 50 infastructure projects where they would like to see investments by either the federal government or private entrepreneurs. M-1 rail in Detroit and the Gordie Howe international crossing are on the list of 50. Does anyone know what this means?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...8492164.html#0

The "leaked" [[or whatever) list of projects is too good to be true. Clean energy projects? High speed rail in Texas? NYC Second Ave subway phases 3 & 4? Chicago Red/Purple lines rebuild? $530 million for M-1 Rail [[original project was what, $150 million?). Washington, DC Union Station rebuild/expansion? There's no way such a rational, multi-modal set of projects gets funded by the current Republican Party. They hate anything that's not a highway and will be looking for ways to stick it to the cities and states that don't support them.

That said, as long as we are in fantasy-land, what would $530 million for M-1 mean? Extending it to 8 Mile/Royal Oak?

**admin** · January-25-17, 04:19 PM

PLEASE NOTE

Posts have been deleted from this thread because they were irrelevantly political and/or uncivil.

Kindly stick to the subject of the thread [Infrastructure Investments In Detroit] and its relevance to Detroit.

If you wish to discuss politics or issue not relevant to Detroit, we provide the NON-DETROIT forum for that purpose.

**professorscott** · January-25-17, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by Junjie

The "leaked" [[or whatever) list of projects is too good to be true. Clean energy projects? High speed rail in Texas? NYC Second Ave subway phases 3 & 4? Chicago Red/Purple lines rebuild? $530 million for M-1 Rail [[original project was what, $150 million?). Washington, DC Union Station rebuild/expansion? There's no way such a rational, multi-modal set of projects gets funded by the current Republican Party. They hate anything that's not a highway and will be looking for ways to stick it to the cities and states that don't support them.

That said, as long as we are in fantasy-land, what would $530 million for M-1 mean? Extending it to 8 Mile/Royal Oak?

You do realize the massive weasel phrase in this, "would like to see investments by either the federal government or private entrepreneurs", right? And that this means that what the administration actually plans to do or fund is precisely nothing?

Get used to this, kids. Bone up on your George Orwell, if you haven't already.

**DeLemur** · January-26-17, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by archfan

I suspect that by citing projects that are already in the works, they can make the budget decision quickly, and the administration can claim a victory by funding something that was going to be funded anyway.

Perfect!

Now all he should do is eliminate the needless 94 expansion plan.

**Hypestyles** · January-26-17, 09:34 AM

a new WPA bill signed by congress would help spur many infrastructure-based projects, put more people to work who are unemployed.

**Junjie** · January-26-17, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

You do realize the massive weasel phrase in this, "would like to see investments by either the federal government or private entrepreneurs", right? And that this means that what the administration actually plans to do or fund is precisely nothing?

Get used to this, kids. Bone up on your George Orwell, if you haven't already.

That's just a phrase the original DYes poster used. The article itself says "The preliminary list, provided to the National Governor’s Association by the Trump transition team, offers a first glimpse at which projects around the country might get funding if Trump follows through on his campaign promise to renew America’s crumbling highways, airports, dams and bridges. The governor’s association shared that list with [Missouri] state officials in December. The group told the officials the projects on that list were 'already being vetted.'"

Trust me, I'm deeply skeptical. But the reporting suggests that Trump sees some sort of infrastructure plan as a priority. I think he really does intend to push this - it fits with a lot of the gut-level appeal to "making America great" and "spending money at home not abroad" etc. My guess is that by the time it gets through Congress we get some tax cuts for corporations that want to invest in toll highways and that's about it, while Trump claims massive success, but I'd love to be wrong.

Of course, it's also possible this goes nowhere even if Trump wants it. New administrations always have to pick and choose their priorities, and everything takes up more time than they expect while the next election is less than two years away. See e.g. Democrats passing the ACA but not being able to get to climate change or immigration legislation before 2010.

**Junjie** · January-26-17, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by professorscott

You do realize the massive weasel phrase in this, "would like to see investments by either the federal government or private entrepreneurs", right? And that this means that what the administration actually plans to do or fund is precisely nothing?

Get used to this, kids. Bone up on your George Orwell, if you haven't already.

Professor, on a more narrow issue - any idea where that slide on $528 million for M-1 Rail came from?

EDIT: This later article says the list was put together by a consulting firm for the administration. So I guess to be more specific, where did they get the idea that M-1 needs $528 million?

**bust** · February-12-17, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by bust

They have not yet taken down the interactive map the Obama administration created to display the results of over 4,500 water samples collected from more than 650 Flint homes. Look at it while you still can:

https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/web...9e84463f16efae

Regarding the EPA Flint water data, access is now permitted only to those with an EPA account or an ARCGIS account associated with the EPA. We can add this to the very long and growing list of information team Trump is hiding from the public. I'm not sure why they don't they want us to see it, but I don't take this as a good sign for Flint.

If Trump prevents Flint from receiving the money last year's congress allocated to repair and replace corroded lead pipes in their water system, his investment in metro Detroit's infrastructure will begin at -$100,000,000.

**bust** · February-12-17, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by Junjie

Professor, on a more narrow issue - any idea where that slide on $528 million for M-1 Rail came from?

EDIT: This later article says the list was put together by a consulting firm for the administration. So I guess to be more specific, where did they get the idea that M-1 needs $528 million?

I'm curious about this too.