3 ms·
If I'm reading this right, which is hard because most of the information is missing... The whole project is $3B. Someone else is kicking in $1.5B, $618M has alr
by toast0 1y ago
If I'm reading this right, which is hard because most of the information is missing... The whole project is $3B. Someone else is kicking in $1.5B, $618M has already been spent, so maybe completion requires $872M and not completion takes $618M. Or maybe $618M was spent of the outside contribution, so it's $1.5B to complete and $618M to cancel?
If the state doesn't have the money, cancellation sounds less expensive than completion, in the short term. Of course, the costs for not doing the coastal repairs will continue to acrue, but if there's no money, there's no money?
- mcny 1y ago> If the state doesn't have the money, cancellation sounds less expensive than completion, in the short term. Of course, the costs for not doing the coastal repairs will continue to acrue, but if there's no money, there's no money? I feel like this story has played out so many times before with the end result being the federal government ends up paying for it but only after it becomes much more expensive than if we had paid for it much earlier? I feel like this is a defect in how we run our government.
- h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 1y agoThis is not a defect of how you run the government. This is a lack of controlling laws that ensure safety and compliance mechanisms for companies polluting the environment. And why is there a lack of those kind of laws? That's something you have to remind the senators and governors of.