Fort Worth Business Press, June 2, 2014 Vol. 26, No. 22 | Page 31

opinion

fwbusinesspress.com | June 9 - 15, 2014

31

A bridge (or three) too far – is TRV another TXU?

A

$65.5 million contract has been awarded
by the Texas Department of Transportation
for construction of three bridges for the
Trinity River Vision boondoggle. The bridges are
the first phase of creating Panther Island, which
will include digging a new 1.5 mile channel for
the Trinity River, creating a 33-acre lake and an
800-acre island where waterfront development is
planned. I wonder just what was the precise origin
of this idea? And then who was so powerful and
influential as to get the Water Board and the sycophantic Corps of Engineers to become involved
in economic development? Their business is water
supply and flood control.
The bridges will be built before the channel
is dug. Our citizens have patiently endured the
construction of a great many bridges for 10 long
years. Now we are told that these three bridges
to nowhere will take four more long years to
complete. Traffic will be rerouted using detour
roads or existing streets. Officials have said it is
cheaper to build the bridges over dry land rather
than waiting for the channel to be completed. But
I wonder if the real reason to build three bridges
first is because when they are built, a massive
public relations project will be launched for the
next phase of the boondoggle. Their plan seemingly would be to say it would be foolish with
“three beautiful signature bridges” standing not
to dig the channel and complete the project. Then
their powerful and richly endowed vote-producing
machine will swing into action and begin to beat

n Don Woodard

Who can look into the
future and assure us that
Trinity River Vision is not
a disaster, financial and
environmental, waiting to
happen? Silent taxpayers
asleep at the steal!

the drums for a $25 million bond program. And
then another. And another. Like what happened
in Dallas with its Trinity project.
This whole boondoggle idea brings to mind
another monster “fail-safe” venture. In 2007,
a group of dealmakers (KKR, TPG and Goldman Sachs) formed Energy Future Holdings and
bought TXU Corp for $45 billion. The buyout,
the largest ever, was fueled by rising natural gas
prices and borrowed money. But behold I show
you a disaster. Instead of finding the seven golden
cities of Cibola, EFH has filed for bankruptcy. It
was brought down by falling natural gas prices
and the horrendous cost of serving that debt. Unhappy investors who bought into the fantasy have
been left holding the bag. What would they give
to be able to return to yesterday? “It is not now
as it has been of yore. Turn wheresoe’er I may, by
night or day, the things which I have seen I now
can see no more.”

Who can look into the future and assure us that
Trinity River Vision is not a disaster, financial and
environmental, waiting to happen? Silent taxpayers asleep at the steal! You have never been given
a vote on this developers’ dream enrichment
program. Ask not what this project is going to do
for you. Ask what’s it going to do to our history,
environment and our taxes.
Another word of caution. Trinity River Vision
needs Congress to fund half of the $910 million
to complete the flood control and economic development project. One is made to wonder what
would happen to the boondoggle, three bridges
standing, when our powerful congresswoman, like
Jim Wright and Ralph Hall, is no longer on the
scene.
My decade long opposition to the boondoggle
has not been made easier by the fact that some
among its staunchest promoters are my valued
friends. I resort to Shakespeare: “O judgment!
Thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost
their reason.”
One thing is for certain. No one will ever be
able to say of the nepotistic Trinity River Vision,
whether it be an unbounded success or a catastrophic failure: “It is not relative.” Pun intended.
n

Don Woodard is a Fort Worth businessman and author of Black Diamonds!
Black Gold!: The Saga of Texas Pacific Coal and Oil Company.

‘Great Moderation’ redux – calm before the storm?

W

ASHINGTON – Is the Great Moderation
back? Maybe.
The Great Moderation – a term popularized by economists – refers to the period from
the mid-1980s (1983 or 1984 are common starting points) to 2007 when the economy enjoyed
relatively stable growth and prosperity. There were
only two historically short and mild recessions
(1990-91 and 2001). The stock market boomed.
Consumer spending and home-buying rose. Unemployment trended down; in 2006 and 2007, it
averaged 4.6 percent.
As regular readers of this column know, I view
the Great Moderation as the ultimate cause of the
financial crisis and Great Recession. It inspired
complacency that the economy had entered a
semi-permanent state of stability marked by long
expansions and brief recessions. A tamed business
cycle signaled less risk. Consumers could assume
more debt – and lenders could lend more freely
– because repayment prospects had improved.
Bankers, economists, government regulators,
CEOs, consumers – all subscribed to the logic.
We know now that it was an illusion. When the
resulting credit bubble burst, the economy fell
sharply. It’s still limping along.
So, how could the Great Moderation have
returned? Today’s plodding economy seems the
polar opposite. Here’s why.
The Great Moderation involved a smoothing of
economic activity. In statistical terms, deviations
from the average declined; volatility receded.
Now, some econ