I'm all for the swift completion of roadwork, but is it the state's job to define the specifics of local street repair contracts? Omaha Sen. Scott Lautenbaugh thinks so. His LB 838 would require counties, cities, and villages to include incentive and disincentive provisions in road construction contracts; and it would require "minimum" lane closures with penalties of $1,000 per day for "improperly closed" lanes.
I have no problem with the state mandating these sorts of things for contracts involving state roads. But what business is it of the state how Lincoln -- or any other locality -- manages these matters in its own contracts? This bill sounds like the punitive project of a guy who thinks he could build a road in a day. I picture Sen. Lautenbaugh sitting in traffic, hands tightly gripping the steering wheel in anger and frustration, sweat beaded upon his brow, swearing under his breath at those good-for-nothing road crews. "I know!", he exclaims one day. "I'll pass a one-size-fits-all law. That will fix everything!"
But I digress. Yea or nay on this one, folks?
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Seems dumb to have the same road contract laws for Scottsbluff and Omaha.
Privatize the roads. Sell ‘em all to Ted Tuner, HealthSouth or ConAgra, et al. Then noone need worry whether government rules - other than contract law - are appropriate.
Would cars be permitted on Ted Turner highway, or would we have to ride bison?
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.