Leaving the RDA - Let's Go Back to Porter County, 1863!

Yeah, we should get out of the RDA. We should also ban modern automobiles in favor of covered wagons and horse drawn carriages. Why stop there? I think electricity, industrialization, and paved roads are also evils that we must avoid at all costs, if we are to remain a wholesome, all-white, segregated Porter County of antiquity.

There are several reasons that this idea is ludicrous:

1. The action is already illegal under current law. This is the very issue that lost the council its most competent representation. The former city attorney advised the Council on this very issue that it was in violation of Indiana State law, and because it wasn’t the answer they desired, they sought their own determination, and it was the last straw. The most experienced local government attorney in the county withdrew from representing the Council for its incompetence and complete obstinacy on this very issue. Representative Dobis’ proposal (unfortunately full text not yet available to the public) is helpful in clarifying the existing law that mandates participation by counties within the jurisdiction of the RDA, but it is redundant with the law already on the books as it pertains to withdrawing. See Ind. Stat. Ann § 36-7.5-2-3 (West 2008) (mandatory establishment of Authority). See also, Ind. Stat. Ann. § 36-7.5-4-2 (West 2008) (mandatory transfers from counties to Authority). What the legislature createth, only the legislature may taketh away.

2. Regional governance is not an expansion of government, it is a consolidation. The RDA was created by the State Legislature for consolidation and accountability of all of the smaller regional special function districts (SFD’s) in NW Indiana. To say that the RDA technically increases the size of government is technically correct, but eliminating overlapping inefficiencies between local and county governments, the Little Calumet Board, the RBA, et. al., makes the marginal increase offset and therefore its establishment is effectively a governmental “cram down” or consolidation. It is easy to persuade simple minds that this is simply an expansion, without looking at the complexities that this argument overlooks.

3. Logical fallacy: we must throw the baby out with the bath. Does it make sense that we should abolish a governmental body because it has a brief history of mismanagement? If this were true, there would be no single municipal government in all of Lake County, and for that matter in Porter. (Anyone remember pre-Costas Valpo City?) There are great things ahead for the RDA under its new leadership, three (3) days old.

James- “progressive” is not necessarily a dirty word to describe a Republican. Lest us remember that this Party was established with a progressive anti-slavery platform. That’s not to say that socialism is acceptable. So called “progressive” Republicans just believe that we should have a more open mind when it comes to things like the environment, and they believe that government should create an environment most desirable to businesses, which includes a basic supporting infrastructure and limited taxes upon business. I don’t see your point that this conflicts with a conservative platform. Are you saying that Whitten, inter alia, better represents true “conservatives” than so called “progressive” Republicans? I think not. Whitten and friends seek to block any development whatsoever. You might agree with them on the RDA, but when you couple this measure with the adoption of the UDO it paints a much more accurate picture for what they’re trying to do. Just keep that in mind.

As far as the rail extensions, here I will not weigh the wisdom/foolishness of the ideas, but I will state one general inevitability: the market does not provide adequately for public transportation. If the costs were passed on to the consumer, it would become less economical to individuals to ride than to drive. If we want fewer (single-occupied) cars on our roads—which I believe is a public good in and of itself—we have to subsidize it to some degree or it will fail. We can fight about just how much subsidy is necessary or desirable, but it simply cannot exist if left to purely market conditions. If that’s the NW Indiana you wish to live in (one without public transportation altogether), let’s argue about that; namely, whether we should have it or not, not whether we should subsidize it.