Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal You notice there is nothing in that article about the utilities reneging on an upfront promise to provide connecting infrastructure. Nope, just the railroad. [/quote] Was that in the article? [/quote] Of course not, the article had nothing to do with utilities. Just FM trying to bend the discussion to his will... LC [/quote] I was thinking more along the line of the railroad "reneging on an upfrony promise to provide connecting infrastructure" That is nowhere in the article. I read it as, nobody asked the railroad beforehand. [/quote] From the subsequent article as posted by LC: "Don Willoughby, the city's business development coordinator, told the Journal Thursday, 'Baard's initial discussions with Union Pacific had led them to believe the only problem might be on rail charges.'" ....and.... "Baard officials have been talking to Union Pacific representatives throughout the planning stages on rate charges. Willoughby said those discussions took place with UP's rate division and not its industrial development division." Now, do you want to split hairs and state that since the initial arrangement was through UP's rate division and not UP's so-called "industrial development" division, that UP is exonerated in it's about-face on that initial agreement to provide service to the proposed plant? Paaaaleaz! Fact: UP did initially agree to provide service to this plant contingent on a rate agreement. The fact that you grant UP internal disfunctional deniability 'cause UP's left hand didn't know what it's right hand was doing is irrelevent. If I shoot you with my right hand, it ain't just my right hand that goes to jail, it's all of me, right? Why not expect that same level of embodied responsibility to a corporate entity? As for LC's take on your post, it is true that railroads embody some of the same characteristics of utilities e.g. the "natural" service area monopoly. As such, is it really that much of a stretch to suggest that the railroad should conform to the same general expectations of service as is ascribed to other de facto utilities? What is funniest about this sad saga is that, if indeed it was all predicated on a rate agreement, why didn't UP just include the upgrade cost in the upfront rate quote to begin with, instead of avering an agreement contingent on subsequent rate agreements? Why go with an agreement in principle beforehand, and then renege due to internal disfunctional denials?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag