N.J. to Repay U.S. $95 Million Over Hudson Tunnels

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

At the end of the long stare-down between the governor of New Jersey and federal officials over the money spent on tunnels that were never built, both sides blinked.

On Friday, Gov. Chris Christie and Ray LaHood, the federal transportation secretary, announced that New Jersey would pay back $95 million that the federal government had provided for a pair of rail tunnels under the Hudson River that were projected to cost $8.7 billion. The effort, known as Access to the Region’s Core, or ARC, was one of the biggest public-works projects under way in the country when Mr. Christie decided to cancel it one year ago.

Mr. Christie maintained that his state could not afford to shoulder potentially huge cost overruns on the project, which would have doubled the train capacity between New Jersey and New York City. His unilateral decision to scrap the tunnels enraged Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, who had spent years lining up $6 billion in commitments from the federal government and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Mr. LaHood, who was also angry at Mr. Christie, demanded that New Jersey repay all of the $271 million in federal money that had gone toward the early stages of building the tunnels. The governor responded by declaring, “We are not paying the money back.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/nyregion/nj-to-repay-us-95-million-over-hudson-tunnels.html

[Firebrand Gary]

1. Fuck you Governor Christie...You will pay it back and be held accountable for killing the project.

[SnakeEyes]

11. Since this was an agreement with LaHood

I don't think that money is getting paid back. This is it the end of a legal fight over how much to repay.

[Meandering Kitten]

26. Christie is a lousy governor.

His act of cancelling the tunnel will cost both NY and NJ tens of billions if not more in the long term.

[panzerfaust]

28. ? But will be a great president

[quakerboy]

2. Wait... so

We the taxpayers gave New Jersey 271 million to start this infrastructure project. Then the governor decided to cancel the program, but refused to give the money back. Now they are going to give back just over 1/3 and thats supposed to be ok?

[Firebrand Gary]

3. Hell no that's not ok!

So in the heat of the political season he canceled one of the biggest projects ever in the US, destroying thousands and thousands of jobs. He arrogantly did it to "Show" just how tough he was.

Now that the water is calmer, he is going to have to answer for what he did. In retrospect, this probably won't go over well. He wasted the taxpayers money, he threw away thousands of jobs and destroyed a project that Senator Lautenberg had worked on for SIX LONG YEARS.

That's not moving New Jersey forward!

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed

NJ should pay back the US Treasury every dime and if not this needs to be a huge campaign issue should Christie move into the Presidential Arena and certainly for his next run for Governor should he remain in NJ.

It is absolutely beyond absurd that a state can steal $176 million dollars from the US taxpayers and get away with it. Sure NJ's budget is a tough one, but so is the US budget and we taxpayers who live elsewhere should not be subsidizing Christie's political posturing.

[Blue_Tires]

29. Funny how none of the media brought this up during last week's Christie lovefest

And if the state wants to get cute with repaying the funds, or say 'it's already spent' then the DOT should cut NJ out of any future funding until the missing sum is equalized...

[SnakeEyes]

12. Everything you said was true

Except omitting one thing and that is NJ was on the hook for far more than the other side of the tunnels were. He did say they'd go forward if the other side was willing to shoulder more and they weren't.

If i were from NJ and not making money off this project, I'd be a bit persuaded by that too. Especially given the finances of NJ these days.

[Jim Lane]

22. NJ agreed to the deal, so retroactive criticism doesn't cut it.

New Jersey, through its duly elected leaders, made an agreement. In reliance on that agreement, the federal government advanced money for a particular purpose. IIRC, there were express advance warnings that failure to build the tunnel would create a repayment obligation.

Your argument is that New Jersey shouldn't have entered into the original agreement because it was paying too much. Whether or not that's true (I don't know the details), it's just not relevant any more. We can't have any kind of sensible intergovernmental cooperation if any agreement that's made can be undone by a change in administration. Nobody could count on anybody else.

[SnakeEyes]

30. The problem i see is that...

The money was spent and apparently spent on the project. Unless there is a completion guarantee clause I don't know that they legally have to give that spent money back. Whether there were advance warnings doesn't matter. One party can claim whatever they like where there is a dispute. What matters is what was legally agreed to in the contracts/paperwork/requirements when accepting the money. If NJ was legally bound to repay the money in the event the project is not completed then LaHood wouldn't have settled. The cost of pursuing the money is far outweighed by the money they'd be getting back. Looks like LaHood knew that NJ was determined to fight it in court and that he wasn't likely to win so a settlement for some of the money was better than nothing.

[karynnj]

19. This issue could be used if Christie wins the nomination

Given Obama's infrastructure commitments, Obama sees the need for the US having world class infrastructure and sees that as an INVESTMENT. The Republicans see all government spending as cost - and they don't want it.

In addition to all you said, NJ NEEDED this tunnel. With the economy depressed, tunnel traffic is likely lower than it would be if the economy was sound. There are often 30 minute lines to get into a tunnel or over the GW bridge. Rush hour trains are incredibly full. Imagine what they are when the economy turns around. As Democrats said ending this project will put NJ at a disadvantage with up state NY, Long Island and Connecticut as places to live and commute to the city.

To back up your comment on jobs, I did this comparison that shows that Christie's policies overall have hurt NJ. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=783263#783271

[no_hypocrisy]

6. It depends how you want to look at the situation.

1. You're right. The Feds are only getting 1/3 over five years.

2. The other retained 2/3 is being reallocated to other federal projects, not a windfall for Christie to spend in his discretion.

3. I seriously doubt the DOT will offer the same kind of money to NJ for future projects, at least while Christie's the governor.

[quakerboy]

21. Hmm

1) I will believe it actually got paid back when it actually gets paid back. Agreeing to it and actually doing it are different. As proven by the state agreeing to do the project, and then Christie canceling it.

2) The article said nothing about reallocation. It presented it more as "well, Christie got it and he ain't givin' it back".

3) I wish I shared your confidence. The current administration seems to be big on reaching out to R's, even the ones who have screwed them time and again.

[no_hypocrisy]

It depends how you want to look at the situation.

1. You're right. The Feds are only getting 1/3 over five years.

2. The other retained 2/3 is being reallocated to other federal projects, not a windfall for Christie to spend in his discretion.

3. I seriously doubt the DOT will offer the same kind of money to NJ for future projects, at least while Christie's the governor.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. It depends how you want to look at the situation.

1. You're right. The Feds are only getting 1/3 over five years.

2. The other retained 2/3 is being reallocated to other federal projects, not a windfall for Christie to spend in his discretion.

3. I seriously doubt the DOT will offer the same kind of money to NJ for future projects, at least while Christie's the governor.

[SnakeEyes]

13. The other 2/3rds isn't really being reallocated

since it was already spent to start work on the tunnels.

[SnakeEyes]

10. Unfortunately, the attitude is what is spent is spent

Or at least that's how it's being treated. As if it were the same as a cancelled private project and we are investors. I'm not sure what groups and people already received money working on the project. Be curious to know that.

[No Elephants]

5. Governors are allowed to steal tax money from the federal government?

And then simply say "no" when told to give it back?

Who knew?

[jerseyjack]

9. N.J. now has a Republican governor.

We can do what we want.m :P

[SnakeEyes]

14. How is it stealing when the feds gave it to NJ..

And the money was spent to start the project? If the feds really felt they were entitled to the money being paid back they'd continue to fight it in court. While it was has cost them $1M+ to take it court already, that's a small sum compared to what they would eventually receive. This settlement was the feds saying "ok, since it appears that legally you don't have to pay it back, we will save you guys litigation costs by dragging this out to the end and settle for x amount"

Just because the feds demand or claim something doesn't make it legally compelling or true.

[geckosfeet]

8. I think Christie should be drug tested. He is getting entitlement money

and we the taxpayers want to be sure he is not spending it all on donuts.

[cstanleytech]

16. More like he should be impeached for embezzlement or atleast thats my opinion.

[geckosfeet]

17. Yes. That as well.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. This is a huge breakthrough

The Administration got a full one-third of what it should have gotten, a new record I believe.

[MrTriumph]

18. Christie: "I got 66 1/3% of what I wanted."

x

[buckrogers1965]

20. Why should New York pay half?

Everyone in New Jersey wants to goto New York, but nobody from New York wants to goto New Jersey.

Seriously, traveling from New York to New Jersey in the mornings, or New Jersey to New York in the evenings, those trains are completely empty. Like end of the world empty. Like last man on Earth empty.

[wickerwoman]

23. Because the New York economy benefits

from workers who live in New Jersey but spend all day in the city eating in restaurants, taking cabs, going to shows, shopping, etc. It also means New York doesn't have to pay to build affordable housing in Manhattan for the tens of thousands of lower paid service workers who commute in every day.

The tunnel goes both ways. Bringing more people in benefits New York just as much, if not more, than New Jersey.

[buckrogers1965]

25. It doesn't benefit New York

To have all those wages taken to another state. It doesn't help the workers of the city to have to compete with people who can afford to work for much less because they live in a horrible place where nobody else wants to live and unhappily are forced to commute to low paying jobs for hours everyday.

[6000eliot]

24. But aren't the Koch brothers running commercials saying how much money he is saving the state?

[Meandering Kitten]

27. Christie is an arrogant pos.