Keep Your Laws Off My Street Repair Contracts
I’m all for the swift completion of roadwork, but is it the state’s job to define the specifics of local street repair contracts? Omaha Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh thinks so. His LB 838 would require counties, cities, and villages to include incentive and disincentive provisions in road construction contracts; and it would require “minimum” lane closures with penalties of $1,000 per day for “improperly closed” lanes.
I have no problem with the state mandating these sorts of things for contracts involving state roads. But what business is it of the state how Lincoln—or any other locality—manages these matters in its own contracts? This bill sounds like the punitive project of a guy who thinks he could build a road in a day. I picture Sen. Lautenbaugh sitting in traffic, hands tightly gripping the steering wheel in anger and frustration, sweat beaded upon his brow, swearing under his breath at those good-for-nothing road crews. “I know!”, he exclaims one day. “I’ll pass a one-size-fits-all law. That will fix everything!”
But I digress. Yea or nay on this one, folks?
The Comments
JT says Seems dumb to have the February 3, 2010 at 10:26am
Seems dumb to have the same road contract laws for Scottsbluff and Omaha.
Matthew Platte says Privatize the roads. Sell 'em February 3, 2010 at 10:54am
Privatize the roads. Sell ‘em all to Ted Tuner, HealthSouth or ConAgra, et al. Then noone need worry whether government rules - other than contract law - are appropriate.
Mr. Wilson says RE: Privatize the roads. Sell 'em February 3, 2010 at 10:57am
Would cars be permitted on Ted Turner highway, or would we have to ride bison?