Water v. Roads

Milwaukee is supposed to be conciliatory with regards to giving water to every deprived suburb, yet those same suburbs still basically have the "screw Milwaukee" attitude concerning every social, political, and/or regional issue that arises. [Hat tip to James Rowen at The Political Environment.]

I hope Milwaukee's water gets really, really expensive for the suburbs. Sorry, but I've said it before, this is our only trump card. If the City has to provide for the majority of the State's poor, pay for mass transit options for the region, and shoulder the majority of costs for similar issues, why not charge the real cost of water, and use the revenue to fund such programs?

Waukesha (as stated in a Waukesha Freeman editorial) doesn't feel the need to cooperate regionally. They have no interest in light rail. And no general interest in a regional transportation network. Although they say they are for regional cooperation...but somehow they are against regional transportation cooperation. They feel such a transportation system would only benefit Milwaukee. [Maybe the editorial board needs to realize Waukesha wouldn't exist in the first place without Milwaukee.]

All Waukesha needs are cars and buses, or so they think. They see a future of hybrid double-decker buses (no, I'm not making this up). They find light rail impractical. The Milwaukee metro area is one of only two or three in the country that does not have, or are not planning, some form of light rail. Continuing to argue against light rail is illogical...but it seems that may be what the Waukesha Freeman editorial board was aiming for in their article.

Then the editorial has the nerve to state, "Transportation experts said Wisconsin needs to implement toll roads because the state doesn’t have enough money for road repair and construction in the region. Just think, all those taxes you pay and there still isn’t enough to fix our roads." Funny, they don't mention that their sprawling development patterns, full of new road building, is why we can't afford the maintenance. We keep building more and more roads, and as more and more money goes into new construction, less is available to maintain the roads we have already.

Another uprorious editorial statement, "The reason there is negativity toward a regional transit authority is because it is a bad idea that would cost taxpayers a lot of money." As opposed to the cheap cost of gas, car insurance, road and highway building and maintenance? And, lets not forget the environmental costs involved with road building and an automobile-dependent lifestyle.