Although I might agree or disagree with the statements, I'm sort of troubled as to why this is drug out after the contract was awarded. Was there any prior indication that the contract was at risk? Lots of transportation compaines are in Ch 11 right now, so I don't think that should be a label to discount all of them. Was there any sort of independent analysis of the minnesota laidlaw company to make sure it was viable?
Was there any good reasons to move away from the current contracted company? Is there anyplace, such as a newspaper, to gain a less biased view of this without having to figure out where at the met council to get the information presented to them? I don't like this 'this committee is bad because they did something' stuff with 'well, the status quo was fine for the customers' stuff. Many people liked the status quo in metrotransit pre-cuts and increases, its not like we had that much of a voice either, thanks to the legislature. I think the scary part is that the committee can choose what they want, but when it comes down to it, the capitol can still tell them in some instances what is Right. On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, gene2200 wrote: > " Why would a Minnesota governmental agency destroy a taxpaying > Minnesota Company in favor of one in Kansas that is in Chapter Eleven?" Wow, where is this loophole where businesses headquatered in other states get to evade taxes incurred from operating in Minnesota? Thanks. -- Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ringworld.org/ _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Metropolitan Issues Forum http://www.e-democracy.org/tcmetro Rules: Sign posts with real name. You may not post more than twice a day.
