SB 104-16: Atlasia Transportation Modernization Act (Rejected)

[Joseph Cao]

I'm on board with the aims of this bill, though I might return later and see if there are any problems with it.

[Joseph Cao]

Minor nitpick I missed but subsection (E) at the bottom might need to be amended to (D). Grammatical mistakes of this kind can probably be amended by the PPT if I am reading the Senate rules correctly, though Spark ought to check in on that as well as on amending that specific subsection to change "state agency" into something more in line with the bill's goals to involve regional governments.

On a broader note, I remember reading somewhere recently that the trouble with infrastructure in this country is generally not so much the willingness to expand – the political capital is usually present for that – but rather the willingness to expend funds on upkeep and maintenance. This is obviously not the intent of this specific bill but codifying something like this is helpful both for guiding future infrastructure expansions and for providing a blueprint of sorts towards funding the upkeep of our roads, drainage systems, broadband, etc. should we choose to dedicate future legislation toward that effort.

[Joseph Cao]

Nay.

[Joseph Cao]

Biggest question on my mind right now is probably whether this goes into FY2022 or FY2023, and considering the scope of the bill I am inclined to think it should be the latter.

[Joseph Cao]

Abstain.

[Joseph Cao]

Abstain.

[Joseph Cao]

Motion to close the damn vote already so this thing can die.

You know what? Sure. Until WD awakens from his drug-induced sleep for his ninth vaccine shot, I’ll close this.

By a vote of 1-9-2-6, this bill is rejected.

Also, Scott, if you see this please change the thread title.