3 ms·
For all the article’s whining about the Transbay Transit Center, the city only provided financing for about ten percent of the phase one costs. (Phase two not y
by ENOTTY 6y ago
For all the article’s whining about the Transbay Transit Center, the city only provided financing for about ten percent of the phase one costs. (Phase two not yet started.) The other 90% of the cost was financed through other means, mostly land sales by the state, special tax increases, and toll increases. [1]
The expected lifespan of this building at least a hundred years. Frankly $200m from the city is not bad at all.
[1]: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ca_transbay_transit.aspx https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ca_transbay_tr...
- apexalpha 6y agoIf the State sells land, raises taxes and increases tolls on its roads how if that different from 'financing' the project? Sure the City doesn't pay for all of it but the building still cost as much and seems to be useless, according to the article at least.
- ENOTTY 6y agoIf the article compared the state’s contribution to its budget that would make the point relevant. Instead the article is about the city and I claim it is raising irrelevant points of evidence.
- tupputuppu 6y agoThe sources of the funding don't matter, the spending does. If you spent too much money on a thrashed up apartment, it wouldn't matter whether you did that from your salary, selling your previous house or taking a loan.