Somewhere in the future, I'm lost.
I decide to pull over and ask for directions. Hey, in 2020
it's socially acceptable for men to seek this kind of guidance. A local
automobile battery recharge station appears to be my information oasis. Surely
somebody there can help me.
"Excuse me, can you tell me how to get to the Verizon
Wireless Interstate?"
The battery recharge station attendant looks like somebody
had just asked him to "Fill'er up." His face is flushed with
confusion.
"Um . . . oh, I think you mean the Microsoft
Expressway."
"Are you sure? What happened to the Verizon Wireless
Interstate?"
"Verizon is no longer in the road business. It's
all Microsoft now."
Corporate sponsorship. It's already attached to every
fancy facade in the sporting world. If a baseball owner wants to replace aging
grass, steel and concrete there are two common funding options: arm wrestle the
public for money or call up the Tropicana's and Budweiser's of the
world, treat them to ringside seats at a professional wrestling match and
massage a fiscal partnership. This technique has proven to be highly successful,
if one doesn't mind revving up the team crane every few years and
changing the name on the building. A shaky economic world tends to loosen
corporate lettering.
In our May issue I did a story on Georgia's Senate 257
Bill for Spanning the News (see Is this utensil proper?, p 10). The legislative
action would allow private investment consortiums to make unsolicited proposals
on transportation projects outside of Georgia's three-year State
Transportation Improvement Program. Once a proposal is received it would then
be advertised for other contractors to submit competing proposals while
ensuring the protection of proprietary information. The Department of
Transportation would either approve or reject the contract, and toll fees would
repay the investment by the consortium, bonds or other instruments dictated in
the contract.
My take on it was if somebody wanted to throw down $300
million along with a bundle of plans for a redesign of an intersection, the
state DOT would allow other contractors to counter the move and ultimately
decide whether or not to move forward. The competing contractors, however,
would not know the intimate details of the master plan. Supporters of this bill
believe this type of security allows investors to deliver innovative ideas.
When the job is done, the financial backer will most likely construct a few
toll boxes and the road--or bridge--would pay for itself in five to
10 years.
I think allowing money-chucking players into the game is a
great idea, as long as the plan clears certain safety and environmental walls.
Currently, state DOTs operate out of a box--one that was once the size of
a crate not too long ago. The agency is granted a certain amount of money which
can be used for a limited amount of projects. Don't even attempt to take
a box cutter to this budgetary vault. Unless a few gold coins magically appear
under a supervisor's pillow, nothing is making its way in.
But I can't help imagining the next step in all
this--the Microsoft Expressway. Will we ever reach a point where some
swashbuckling company forks over millions of dollars to fix or maintain some
fork in the road? And will they then have the right to plaster advertising
every 100 ft through the acquired zone? I have visions of countless billboards
and company logos on every mile marker.
There's already talk out of New York that the mayor
has thought about encouraging corporations to sponsor city landmarks. I'm
assuming the Brooklyn Bridge is among this group. Could this exquisite span be
the place for McDonald's golden arches?
It's hard to vision the old beauty under corporate takeover. Of course, I am getting used to one slogan certain lawmakers have slapped on this industry when it comes to finances: "Not Enough . . . is Enough." It has a certain ring to it, one I hope is being picked up as a distress call.
Do you have an opinion? E-mail me at the address below.
