Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazrim
If you look at the cut and cover cost, plus the initial 4 lane road option I listed above, you're not hitting the extreme costs that are constantly quoted to scare people. I fail to see why this eludes so many candidates. If you want to win votes, why not present the most pleasant sounding option to make both sides more open to the idea? Why is it no tunnel or a "$500-700 million" tunnel?
|
Hawkesworth either didn't read the report he's citing, doesn't understand basic decision-making economics, or is willfully ignoring the principle of economic cost in order to mislead voters in an attempt to garner votes from the anti-tax crowd. I don't know of any other candidates talking about a $500 million tunnel though, unless it's the one we'll need if we don't cut and cover.
What bugs me even more than Hawkesworth's misleading (either intentionally or unintentionally) campaign is that the media is letting him get away with it. I read an article that said "estimates for the bridge vary between $150 million and $500 million" (paraphrased). Sure you want to be unbiased, but if you fact check that $500 million you'll find that pointing out that it's completely off-base (to put it politely) is simply being objective and responsible.