City rushes to demolish $4.5 million transit station after only 13 years

By David McElroy · May 21, 2013

Why would someone tear down a $4.5 million building that’s only 13 years old? If you’re a government agency, you do it because you simply want to build something else. After all, you’re not spending your own money.

In Birmingham, the local mass transit agency built a fancy new central terminal for buses in 1999. It’s across the street from the Amtrak station, and the Greyhound bus station is a few blocks away, in a location where it’s been for many decades. When the new terminal, shown above, was built, it was supposed to be the first phase of a larger project that would combine a terminal for Amtrak, Greyhound and local transit buses. The agency has been talking about an “intermodal facility” for years.

The Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority is a county-wide, inter-government agency, but it’s the Birmingham city government that drives the bus, so to speak. Mass transit is important to a substantial number of people who live in the inner city, but it’s irrelevant to almost everybody who lives in the suburbs. (I’ve never been on one of the buses and I see many of those big buses riding around the area virtually empty.)

So why is this very expensive new building being torn down this summer? That’s not clear. Nobody seems to ask hard questions — and make them stick — when it’s “government money” involved.

Most of the money to build the current facility came from the federal government. I haven’t been able to find the breakdown of who paid how much, but the local newspaper said the entire building cost $4.5 million. Since the city is now tearing it down, the Federal Transportation Administration wanted to city to reimburse it for a portion of the cost of the building and the market value of the land.

Initially, it appeared that the city could be liable for up to $8 million in penalties to the FTA, which makes me wonder if the building really cost more than the reported $4.5 million, but I’m using the lower figure to be conservative. But the city and the FTA have agreed to a deal that will see the city turning some land over to the FTA and paying a penalty of $101,000.

With that, you’d think the federal government would understand that the idiots making decisions for the facility aren’t to be trusted with such decisions — and large amounts of money — but the FTA is now going to turn around and give the city even more money to build the new bus terminal to replace the old terminal that it also paid for.

Does this sound insane yet?

The new bus and train station will cost nearly $30 million. The FTA is giving the city $23.6 million of that and city voters have approved borrowing $6 million to go toward it.

So why is the city tearing down this nice, almost-new building and constructing another one? It’s certainly not because ridership is so heavy the building can’t handle the traffic. The current building was designed as the first phase of a larger project that would become an intermodal facility, so it’s not that the needs have changed. What could it be?

The only explanation I can find comes from an article in the local newspaper last summer:

The design team of Giattina Aycock Architecture Studio and Hoskins Architecture, both of Birmingham, and Niles Bolton of Atlanta worked nearly a year on options for the site. In the end, the concept required leveling the [Metro Area Express] bus station, even though the $4.5 million structure was built in 1999.

That’s not an explanation. That’s just an unsupported assertion that the architects decided it was best.

If there were a real explanation, it would have surfaced by now. Various local politicians have expressed doubts about the plan and about the wisdom of tearing down a perfectly good building, but no explanations have been forthcoming except vague comments about the architects deciding it was best.

I wasn’t there, so I can’t tell you the real reason. Not for sure. But I’ve been around politics long enough to figure that it was probably something like this. Somebody important to the project — maybe the major or maybe someone else with clout — looked at the architects’ options and loved a grandiose proposal that the architects had thrown out there as the unrealistic dream plan. And whoever that was said something like this.

“This one looks impressive,” said my theoretical important person. “I like this one way better than the others. It will impress people. I don’t care if it costs three times as much. I want something that looks cool. After all, we’re not spending our own money.”

At that point, everybody would have chuckled and realized he was right. As long as the “important people” say the money should be spent, the people whose money is being stolen have no say in the matter. That would be you.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts