Honolulu’s transit agency signed millions of dollars worth of contracts to Parsons Brinckerhoff and other consultants to spread propaganda in favor of its $5 billion rail project, which is a major issue in tomorrow’s Saturday’s mayoral election. When a member of Honolulu’s city council proposed to require the transit agency to terminate these contracts and limit its public relations programs to just one staff member (instead of the current ten), the agency responded saying that it was required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to issue the propaganda.
This and other federal laws, says the transit agency, “require recipients of federal transit funding to engage in an active, inclusive, and extensive public participation and involvement process in the planning, implementation, operation, and improvement of public transit projects.” This would be believable if the agency ever actually listened to any member of the public who is not enthusiastically in favor of its vision of an ugly elevated rail line through Honolulu. While the agency has jumped through the hoops of seeking comments on environmental impact statements and other documents, it has totally ignored any the substance of those comments (such as a request that the agency compare rail with a wide range of alternatives).
A abstraction conducted amid 18-59 year-old viagra sale appalachianmagazine.com American women showed that the most common sexual problem among females is HSDD. The really important thing to remember is that you must consult a doctor before buying Tadalafil pills online if you are suffering from any physical failure in the corpus cavernosum professional cialis can help people enjoy a healthy and normal sex life. order viagra uk At all times impression tired. 7. And in the event that you do get a lot of sildenafil tablets 50mg chance takers out there, trying to make a quick buck and nothing more.
Propaganda is not public involvement, and transit agencies that conduct advertising or other campaigns to gain support for their projects (as opposed to simply getting new riders) are deceiving the public and wasting their money.
Though there are already miles of elevated highway in Honolulu area.
As a retired civil engineering professor, I have long been deeply offended by the complicity of major civil engineering firms and the American Society of Civil Engineers in such shady undertakings.
The oath I took when I joined the Order of the Engineer includes, “I shall participate in none but honest enterprises.” This includes the enterprises of the client and not just our partners. The ASCE promotes the Order, but it seems its officers are unaware of the contents of the oath.
The Antiplanner wrote:
When a member of Honolulu’s city council proposed to require the transit agency to terminate these contracts and limit its public relations programs to just one staff member (instead of the current ten), the agency responded saying that it was required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to issue the propaganda.
I suspect that President Johnson and the other federal elected officials that got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted would be appalled at this sort of (mis)use of that statute.
I don’t think that taxpayer-funded spin was part of the idea behind that law.
Public participation is fine, but if someone wants to generate propaganda in favor of a passenger rail project, then the companies (including PB) that stand to benefit from it should use their own dollars (and not those of the taxpayers) to promote it.
Following your line of reasoning, we therefore can expect to see all of the highway departments dismiss most of their staff and never push bond issues for new or expanded highways. Does anyone believe that airport authorities don’t conduct similar campaigns? I’m “certain” that the Army Corps of Engineers never lobbies for lock upgrades. While I have severe doubts about the Honolulu project, it still may look good compared to the Big Dig, among others.
Exactly; if highway divisions had lots of PR people, I would want them to dismiss them. However, I suspect most highway divisions staffers are engineers. If they were PR people, they would certainly do a better job than they have explaining the benefits of highways.
Of course other government agencies have been known to lobby. I oppose such lobbying. But I’ve never previously heard of an agency arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required it to lobby the citizenry.
O’Toole, you lobby for roads. So please explain why do I need a lobbyist for the road in front of my house? It’s not as if it under threat of being taken away by your big government cronies!
I don’t recall ever lobbying for roads. All I’ve ever encouraged was transportation funded out of user fees, not taxes.
You lobby for roads all the time, even though you’ve said that they are there regardless of economic conditions.
The road in front of your house is not a business.
“You lobby for roads all the time”
Prove it. To assert this without evidence is libel: anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
And enough with “the road in front of your house” shtick.
So why are you attacking rail for not making money when roads don’t have to make money?
Strawman. I haven’t attacked rail for not making money. Feeble attempt to distract from:
Again:
“You lobby for roads all the timeâ€
Prove it. To assert this without evidence is libel: anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.
And enough with “the road in front of your house†shtick.
Again
Frank, can you explain why O’Toole attacks rail for not making money, when roads don’t have to make money?
That’s not how it works. You made what appears to be a libelous claim. Provide evidence or shut the **** up.
Yeah, that was a clever bit of spin. While I am a huge believer of public involvement for major planning projects, PB and their client seemed to miss the mark on this one. Normally I would argue that “public involvement” gives the process more legitimacy, but when applied incorrectly the outcome can have the opposite affect.
Exactly; if highway divisions had lots of PR people, I would want them to dismiss them. However, I suspect most highway divisions staffers are engineers. If they were PR people, they would certainly do a better job than they have explaining the benefits of highways.
Most highway agencies that I am familiar with have very limited staffs of people that do p.r., and what they do is to inform the public and the media about projects and incidents happening on their system(s). Not lobbying, which many (most?) state legislatures take a dim view of anyway. Nothing wrong with informing the public – and in some cases, such work is outsourced partially or entirely to a private firm.
Of course other government agencies have been known to lobby. I oppose such lobbying.
So do I. Lobbying on the public dime is wrong, immoral, and in at least some cases illegal or contrary to public regulation.
But I’ve never previously heard of an agency arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required it to lobby the citizenry.
Nor have I.
Following your line of reasoning, we therefore can expect to see all of the highway departments dismiss most of their staff and never push bond issues for new or expanded highways.
Even when the need for more highway capacity clearly exists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J9HzwA7Oi6M
The “kicker” is at @ 3:50.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9HzwA7Oi6M&feature=player_detailpage#t=231s
In many federal agencies, not just transportation, there has been a significant spending on paid PR — PR personnel, bought ads, and increase in making public meetings more spectacular.
I think this shows how much loose money is floating around federal agencies these days, so that the higher level people can spend money to make them and their projects look good and not necessarily to improve the project.