My Take: Arkansas Highway Finance

Posted on July 7th, 2009

There have been a couple of newpaper articles (Rob Moritz and John Brummett) that quote me discussing the current issue of highway funding and the Arkansas Blue Ribbon Committee on Highway Finance. Both do a fairly good job of representing my viewpoints, but somewhat lack a complete picture of the points I was making. That is understandable, the press does not exist to make sure that Mark Martin is correctly understood in every intricate detail, but rather to communicate the big picture of what is going on. It is the communication of the big picture to the public that, in my opinion, needs additional reporting. While I will clarify some details on my viewpoint, I intend to attempt to bring this whole discussion to a more informative level in this and future posts.




Here is a clarification of my viewpoints in short bullet points:

1. I tend to agree that it is NOT the charge of the Arkansas Blue Ribbon Committee on Highway Finance (AR-BRCHF) to make a recommendation on precisely where highway funds are to be spent. (In otherwords, they are not tasked to do the Highway Commission’s job.) However, if you read the enabling legislation, then a case can be made that the term “equitable and adequate” in Act 374 of 2009, Section 2 does grant the AR-BRCHF the authority to make recommendations on how it is distributed. What do you think?
   
2. I furthermore submit to you that it is NOT the charge of the AR-BRCHF to a)create a marketing plan, b) participate in the “selling of”, or c) otherwise be involved in expending taxpayer funds to lobby, advertise, or support ANY highway finance proposal whatsoever.
   
3. I believe that the charge of the AR-BRCHF is to determine the most fair and sustainable method (current funding mechanisms are unsustainable as transportation technology moves away from liquid fuels) of highway finance and make a recommendation for legislation to the legislature, nothing more. This is a topic that has been woefully slim in the discussions to date. See Act 374 of 2009, Section 2 for the stated PURPOSE of this committee. I will leave it to you to decide if I am correct about the purposes and limitations of the legislation that I voted FOR.
   
4. In the peripheral discussions with the press that I have had about the inequitable distribution of highway funds, I have not been advocating a dollar per dollar per capita distribution on highway funds. In fact, I even support a reasonable amount of inequality of distribution to rural areas for sensible stimulus of economic development. I could foresee the value in an economic impact statement being developed to compare the cost of failing to invest in one area as it relates to the benefit another area. Highway dollar investment that gives a near neutral net return should certainly be preferentially given to the poorer or rural area. However, in those areas where there is a clear and large net economic advantage it is unwise to miss the opportunity to improve the overall economic strength of the state.
   
5. I am less concerned about the unfair distribution of highway funds in and of itself than I am concerned about the unwillingness of the taxpayers to support a plan that egregiously redistributes a large amount of funds to another area when they know that there are severe needs right where they live. This will lead to a lack of voter support for statewide funding mechanisms, opting instead to vote for local funding mechanisms through regional transit authorities.

This will be the first in a series of posts to inform the public about the current situation as it relates to Arkansas highway finance. These posts will cover topics such as the current laws governing highway finance and the history behind them, how these laws relate to both administration and representation, and an overview of the resulting distribution of discretionary funds. I will be drawing heavily but not exclusively on the hard work and research done by Rep. Donna Hutchinson. Those places where you find the information to be useful and correct, Rep. Hutchinson should get full credit. On the other hand, where it is not then you can blame me. I will appreciate any corrections because this issue is extremely complex and I make no claim of being an expert. My desire is to do what is best for the State of Arkansas, and that will not be possible until we have a complete and honest discussion about these points.

Filed under Uncategorized |

One Response to “My Take: Arkansas Highway Finance”

1. NASCAR » Blog Archive » My Take: Arkansas Highway Finance Says:
   September 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

   [...] That is understandable, the press does not exist to make sure that Mark Martin is correctly understood in every intricate detail, but rather to communicate the big picture of what is going on. It is the communication of the big picture …Continue Reading… [...]

Leave a Reply