> Who is calling them "NAFTA highways"? That seems to be
> the term the GOP congressman and Lou Dobbs are using,
> but in a demagogue-ish way. There have been highways
> that go into Mexico for the US for a very long time,
> and they're nice to have. I like that I could drive
> down to Monterrey if I wanted, and wouldn't have to
> charter a private jet.
Here are some stories about activism related to these new NAFTA highways:
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070918095656777 http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070912211830970
Indiana: I-69 Resistance Consulta, September 14 -16 http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070902164936444
Brief Overview and Update on the struggle against the I-69 NAFTA highway
"Interstate 69, one of many planned infrastructure projects to enhance “free trade” in the western hemisphere, is facing fierce resistance as Indiana prepares for construction.
I-69 already exists from Port Huron Michigan, near Canada, to Indianapolis, IN. The federal government plans to extend the highway through Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, where it will connect with a web of highways, industry and resource extraction in Mexico and Central America. Indiana's governor Mitch Daniels is pushing for construction to begin in the Indiana portion, Indianapolis to Evansville, this spring. It has not begun anywhere else along the route, partially due to massive amount of resistance in Indiana making the possibility of construction unstable and unpopular.
Here in Indiana activists have recognize that we are at a pivotal point for stopping the entire highway. And environmental and anti-globalization activists around the country recognize that stopping this highway is at a pivotal point for our movement. We need victories to keep us strong and keep the government and earth-destroying corporations at bey. And we need to inspire a direct action and nature-loving consciousness especially as the energy crises approaches.
Resistance has been ongoing in Indiana from local farmers, including those being forced off their land by the department of transportation, and city folk in Indianapolis, Bloomington, Oakland City, Evansville, and elsewhere. This has included such things as letter writing, petitions, angry speeches at public hearings, and survey stake pulling. In addition, Earth First! Activists have stepped up their campaign of protests, office and home demonstrations, public meeting disruptions and anti-surveying actions. After the Earth First! Rendezvous in southern Indiana this summer, activists “evicted” the section 1 (Oakland City, IN) and section 2 (Petersburg, IN) planning offices by dressing as a moving crew, picking up office materials and furniture, and dumping them on the sidewalk."
Proposal for an I-69 Resistance Strategy Consulta http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20070809230652960
--------
B: The oppostion to these highways revolve around several issues, including impacts on the environment and farming. They aren't just widening these interstates, they are creating corridors for transportation, communications, pipelines and so on. The environmental impacts just from the corridors alone will be bad enough, but factor in the development along these corridors. Ugh. I see what's happening to the land around Kansas City and this stuff makes me sick.
> The Trans-Texas Corridor is a proposed width expansion
> for I-35, which slices through Austin. There's some
> wisdom in it, too -- having separate lanes on each
> side for semi trucks seems like a good idea, because
> I-35 ridiculously becomes a 2 lane at some points, and
> when it widens into a regal 4 lanes one is often
> squeezed in between veering, wobbly big rigs,
> something that's scary as hell.
Do we really want to encourage the construction of more highways? Do we really want more capitalist development along these super-highways?
> The imminent domain stuff I don't know much about --
> I've heard some folks say their homes would get bought
> out by the government to make way for the highway's
> expansion. That would suck if they don't want to move.
> But I don't know how the age-old issue of imminent
> domain vs. homeowners becomes a "NAFTA Superhighway"
> issue when all that I've seen proposed is a widening
> of I-35.
The NAFTA superhighways are something much bigger than just adding a few lanes to the highways. They are a huge corporate welfare project for the highway-industrial complex. The plan is to create super-corridors along the highways, with rail being added to the mix along with communications lines and energy infrastructure.
I'm sure that the developers would love to build one continuous strip mall along I-35 from Texas to Kansas City to Minneapolis. :-(
Chuck