Why Can't Blue States Build Nice Things?

[Tiny]

There was another thought provoking segment on Fareed Zakaria's show today. In a few days the transcript will appear here,

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/fzgps

He interviewed an architect who worked on the renovation of the Penn Station Amtrak/Subway station in NYC and an expert on affordable housing in New York.

The part about Penn Station was interesting. The Trump administration took control of renovation from the state government, which was blowing up the budget and failing to get anything done, ostensibly to save money for the federal government. Will the federal government do a better job than the state and city would have? Hell if I know. But infrastructure costs in blue states are on average much higher than red states and Europe.

The part about affordable housing was more interesting. The expert had located sites close to the subway and other mass transit in NYC with room to house 1.3 million people. However, it's impossible for mid sized developers to construct housing at the locations because the red tape and "not in my background" mentality prevents it. He or Zakaria contrasted the situation to the greater Houston area, where the absence of zoning helps make housing much more affordable.

Any thoughts from esteemed board members?

[Yssup Rider]

Blue states????

Stretching pretty hard there Tiny.

[txdot-guy]

Here’s a link to the video if anyone wants to watch it.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/06/polit...re-development

As far as blue vs red states goes I would point you to the Bullet Train they have had trouble building in Texas. They have been talking about some version of that project since the eighties. Apparently Southwest Airlines helped kill the project back in the nineties.

https://klaq.com/southwest-airlines-...-bullet-train/

They started work on it again back in 2009 and it took until 2022 and the Texas Supreme Court to clear up the eminent domain issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Central_Railway

My point is that Red States have their own issues with eminent domain and not in my backyard as much as any other and it can take a combination of the right people and the right time for things to progress.

The conservative attitude of “I own it and I’ll do whatever I want with it” does lead to laws that allow easy property development. Like in Houston. But the opposite is also true. The conservative bent towards private ownership can derail a good idea in its tracks. Some times you need the power of the state to bankroll large municipal projects. Those projects are very difficult to get off the ground without some form of private / public partnership that appeases the conservative government and the willingness for the state to claim its eminent domain sovereignty.

[Precious_b]

The only viable link I have heard for Tejas is plans to link hiking/biking trails from San Antonio to Austin.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

The only viable link I have heard for Tejas is plans to link hiking/biking trails from San Antonio to Austin.

https://greatspringsproject.org/

This looks like an example of exactly what I’m talking about. A combination of private / public partnership that going to require the power of the state to possibly provide land access via eminent domain.

Looks like a good project to me if they can ever get it completed.

[1blackman1]

Tiny has zero credibility on this subject. He still thinks republicans mayors and governors do good jobs governing. The poorest states in the nation are Republican.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Here’s a link to the video if anyone wants to watch it.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/06/polit...re-development

As far as blue vs red states goes I would point you to the Bullet Train they have had trouble building in Texas. They have been talking about some version of that project since the eighties. Apparently Southwest Airlines helped kill the project back in the nineties.

https://klaq.com/southwest-airlines-...-bullet-train/

They started work on it again back in 2009 and it took until 2022 and the Texas Supreme Court to clear up the eminent domain issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Central_Railway

My point is that Red States have their own issues with eminent domain and not in my backyard as much as any other and it can take a combination of the right people and the right time for things to progress.

The conservative attitude of “I own it and I’ll do whatever I want with it” does lead to laws that allow easy property development. Like in Houston. But the opposite is also true. The conservative bent towards private ownership can derail a good idea in its tracks. Some times you need the power of the state to bankroll large municipal projects. Those projects are very difficult to get off the ground without some form of private / public partnership that appeases the conservative government and the willingness for the state to claim its eminent domain sovereignty.

Interesting, the CNN link. For about three minutes on the program aired on television on Sunday morning they had a banner, bigger than Dallas, "Why Can't Blue States Build Nice Things?" They changed it for the web site to "Why Can't We Build Nice Things?"

What I'm getting from the Wikipedia link is that the eminent domain issue for the railway started because of a judge's ruling in a Harris County Court (blue county) and ended years later with a ruling favorable to the railway in the Texas Supreme Court (red state.)

My uneducated guess is that the Texas railway is a boondoggle, just like the one in California. ChatGPT is telling me costs expended in Texas have totaled $125 million to date, and estimated total costs have ballooned from $10 billion to $30 to $40 billion. California on the other hand has spent $11 billion to $14 billion already, and the estimated cost is $106 billion to $130 billion. Admittedly there actually has been ground broken and upgrade to some existing facilities and tracks in California.

As I understand it, the Texas project was undertaken by the private sector, although it would be supported by federal funds. From the perspective of a Texas taxpayer, I have no problem with that. As a U.S. taxpayer, I don't like my tax dollars being spent on boondoggles. And I believe the Texas courts and legislature should streamline eminent domain, with the private sector providing fair compensation to landowners. You have pipelines built all the time in Texas after eminent domain. I'm not sure why a railway can't do that. And as a result of the Texas Supreme Court ruling, it would appear it can. In some blue states getting pipelines built is impossible.

The California project on the other hand is primarily being paid for with public funds.

I'm guessing from your handle, TxDot, you may know a lot more about this than I do. Any corrections of misconceptions I may have would be appreciated.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Tiny has zero credibility on this subject. He still thinks republicans mayors and governors do good jobs governing. The poorest states in the nation are Republican.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Blue states????

Stretching pretty hard there Tiny.

Hey, complain to Zakaria, not me. I think he's a Democrat.

You don't believe infrastructure and housing cost more in blue states? Requirements for union labor, stricter regulatory requirements, putting land off limits, and pushing the bureaucratic point of view over the businessman's all run up costs.

Take a look at Figure 3 on page 34 of this paper on the Brookings web site,

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content...ow_updated.pdf

The cost of interstate highways is highest in blue states.

Look at housing costs, cost of utilities etc. You don't have to buy the whole "private sector does it better mantra" either, although I do -- compare Europe to blue states. European countries come out on top, with respect to infrastructure costs at least.

Thankfully our federal government has historically been smaller than average, as measured by GDP, and I've lived in a red state.

P.S. Blackman, when you compare purchasing power I'm not sure what you say is correct. The $95,000 your average Californian makes probably doesn't go as far as the $75,000 a Texan makes. What good is a $95,000 salary when a decent house costs $1,000,000?

Actually it's worse than that. According to ChatGPT, the Texas is paying $14,850 in federal, state and local tax and the Californian $23,655. So after tax the Texan is taking home $60,150 and the Californian $71,345. The poor Californian is going to spend 14 years paying off that $1 million house if he spends "0" on food, utilities, medicine, transportation, etc. No wonder so many Californians are moving to Texas!

[eyecu2]

When you think about these areas in NY- coveted by most real estate investors from every walk of life- there is little confusion to understand why they would invest in ANY enterprise that didn't yield the highest payout for land per Sq ft. In texas, and other 'larger states', the need to gain large repayments per sq ft is much different.

The entire idea of it being about zoning or restrictions- needs to look one or two layers deeper. restrictions and zoning protect the integrity of land, but also the investment in land. From a govt perspective, if you build a bike trail or a park, you may have made the occupants locally happy, but you didn't increase any taxable income; minus the increased assessments to adjacent properties to reflect some of those niceties. But you'll never re-coup the value of property vs. taxes directly. So NYC is likely the worst place to make that comparisson. Imagine what developers would pay to take central park and turn it into more high rises!!!?? that's where you need to have some of those zoning restrictions etc.

BUT moving out to larger parcel states and the cost per sq ft goes down by 10-50 fold. It makes zoning restrictions a LOT more reasonable for getting easements and accomodations.

highway construction costs always increase when you are in climates that require deeper sub bases and construction halts. If you live the south (red states), then you have 10 months of weather and sand bases that make highways much easier and faster to build. Not really fair comparisons really. But when you look at the highway system overall, it's likely the greatest infrastructure investment that this country has ever done and it was for ALL americans. We tried to re-create that with high speed internet and good drinking water, but everyone raised up arms like that was a bad thing. In reality- there are tons of great projects like nuclear plants, and updated trains and electric transports all around the country- but the greed of politicians will prevent any of that good work from happening. Maybe the Nuke plants have a small chance with some federal funding, but the NIMBY's will scream bloody murder.

Not everythings needs to be a political tit for tat.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

When you think about these areas in NY- coveted by most real estate investors...

Good points all, II can’t really argue with that. Although I still believe as Blackman says I do. Michael Bloomberg is about as close to a Republican as you’ll find in NYC today, and he did better than anyone before or since going back to at least Rudy Giuliani.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

What I'm getting from the Wikipedia link is that the eminent domain issue for the railway started because of a judge's ruling in a Harris County Court (blue county) and ended years later with a ruling favorable to the railway in the Texas Supreme Court (red state.)

My uneducated guess is that the Texas railway is a boondoggle, just like the one in California.

As I understand it, the Texas project was undertaken by the private sector, although it would be supported by federal funds. From the perspective of a Texas taxpayer, I have no problem with that. As a U.S. taxpayer, I don't like my tax dollars being spent on boondoggles. And I believe the Texas courts and legislature should streamline eminent domain, with the private sector providing fair compensation to landowners. You have pipelines built all the time in Texas after eminent domain. I'm not sure why a railway can't do that. And as a result of the Texas Supreme Court ruling, it would appear it can. In some blue states getting pipelines built is impossible.

The Harris County court is just one of the courts who ruled against the project in the lead up to the final ruling by the Texas Supreme Court.

The truth is that the judiciary in Texas has been solidly independent even in the bluest areas of the state. I would argue that the courts independent views gave more precedence to the rights of land ownership than the rights of the state. That’s why the case took so long to resolve.

Blue states might have more environmental and other roadblocks than red states but red states have more individual rights protections than blue states.

As far as my opinion goes high speed rail should have been built back in the eighties. A triangle between Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Houston and back would have been highly used for both passenger and freight. But you are right to say that this project would likely never get built without some kind of government infrastructure spending.

According to the wiki page - In January 2017, President Donald Trump's administration listed the project as a national transportation infrastructure priority.

I am not sure if that has changed under doge and the new administration.