Imagining this project. As you recall we had a request for interest, we had 52 responses from publiclyoriented uses. We were just talking about what are the kinds of things that bring people into the piers. And that brought us to a realization that there are a lot of publiclyoriented uses that need to be paired with revenuegenerating uses to have a feasible project. Our concern with not having minimum qualifications to show that someone can raise money construct a project of some value and attain of some value is a panel will say we love this publicoriented use so much and this operator has experience in that publiclyoriented use, we are going to score them high even though we dont know if they are going to feasibly produce this project. So pairing someone with that expertise, we could be confident that what comes out of the scoring process will be someone that can deliver a successful project. Exactly. What happens if you have two contractors that each do a 20 million job . Does that
They wont pencil out. Thats something we can do in the preliminary phase. I think this rfp is very different from the last one because the last one was only the bulkhead. This one is for the entire pier. And obviously the costs are very different today than what we looked at in 2012. So thats going to also put a different sort of qualifier on here as well. So i just think that i think commissioner brandon probably has the most experience in dealing with complex rfps because shes been on the commission the longest and seen whats been successful and not. But in my process, i think the scoring criteria is fine, and i think the waiting is appropriate, and the oral, i think the oral to me is not just being able to articulate well, its also a question of developing i guess the intangible factor the trust factor, the factors of how we are going to work with this developer that are intangible that come through in terms of the oral interview that perhaps somebody can talk well but do we trust t
Story got a lot of debate over is not whether we should spend money on Disaster Response, it is who should spend the money. Should it be the federal government or the states taking care of it . The argument is if it is the more is responsible for and more Disaster Response, they will take steps to reduce the potential damage from disasters. Talk aboutrock long stronger building close and better land use. States can do that kind of thing and they can say, we have this area just keeps getting destroyed by hurricanes and we are just not wanted not going to allow development anymore or stronger building codes, so peoples houses do not get destroyed. That is the argument for putting states more in control of Disaster Responses so they can affect the actual cost of disaster recovery, like taking this mitigation and prevention steps. Host there is likely to be a request coming after hurricane after thesome sort hurricane occurs, and i wanted to point out an article in the florida phoenix. The
Thank you for coming. Welcome to infrastructure week. We have been looking forward to this awhile. Infrastructure was a thing that all pundits after the election when we were in this fractured state after the 2016 election, will democrats and republicans be able to Work Together on anything, people said infrastructure. Why . Democrats like spending money and donald trump likes having things built, sees himself as a builder. We were supposed to get something. We havent gotten something yet, and well, policy always proves more complicated in practice than in promise. And thats the complexity of this, why we assembled the excellent panel we have today. Anybody that follows stuff about transportation infrastructure, the way cities work follows nicole. Senior fellow, contributing editor and columnist at new york post. Nick lawyer is of heritage foundation, focuses on energy, environment, regulatory issues. A Deputy Director of the thomas rowe institute for Economic Policy studies. Finally,
Her words are unparliamentarian. Reporter that move did not work and the democratic controlled house voted to condemn president trumps tweets in which he said the four minority women should go back to where they came from. On tuesday the president continueed the attack, unapologetic about the statement. Avi a list of things here said by the Congress Women that is so bad, so horrible, that i almost dont want to read it. Reporter the president tweeting aetling head of the vote saying those tweets were not racist. I dont have a racist bone in my body. The democrats 240 to 187, a benchmark highlighting that republicans are solidly in the president s corner. This is all about politics and beliefs of ideaologies. Its about time we lowered the temperature all across the board, all of us, all that contribute, to contribute to a letter level of discourse. Reporter among those who sided with the democrats is a republican retiring from indiana and one who left the gop this month. The rebuke may b