I-95/Penna Turnpike Interchange

[MNHighwayMan]

We are a Common Law country.  That means that laws passed by the legislature are broad frameworks.  The executive and judiciary provide the specifics.  If you don't like it, advocate that we switch to Civil Law.

Hence why the Presidency is part of the Executive branch. He/she carries out the laws that Congress sets.

Of course, the amount of authority the President has under that title has been a subject of debate since the Constitution was adopted.

[J N Winkler]

Each state would have its own set of laws governing how the state acquires right-of-way.  The U.S. Constitution is only a general framework on this matter.

I would hope that every state had and has laws in place that would prevent that scheme.

I don't think entry before purchase is possible anymore for federal-aid projects.  The legal framework for land acquisition for federally funded construction (not just highways) underwent major reform with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, and most of the states now have "baby URAs."

[Beltway]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

[Beltway]

Each state would have its own set of laws governing how the state acquires right-of-way.  The U.S. Constitution is only a general framework on this matter.
I would hope that every state had and has laws in place that would prevent that scheme.

I don't think entry before purchase is possible anymore for federal-aid projects.  The legal framework for land acquisition for federally funded construction (not just highways) underwent major reform with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, and most of the states now have "baby URAs."

I don't think that it ever was, at least not since the 19th Century. 

One of the recent threads had a post claiming that on the MA Turnpike Boston Extension R/W acquistion, many homeowners were kicked out and paid only one dollar for their property.  I believe that came from some anti-roads book written back in the 1970s (Superhighway/Superhoax?).  Certainly fairness and equity has been questioned on some R/W acquistions in the past in the early days of the Interstate system, but I can't imagine that could have happened the way that book claimed.

[Rothman]

No, it came from former MA Secretary of Transportation Fred Salvucci, whose mother experienced the $1 deal.  It was portrayed as a "down payment," but in reality, they were lucky to get half the value of their homes in the end.  I can't imagine how hard that must have been, since I'd think a lot of the people were still paying their mortgages.

I also don't see why this is so hard to believe since abuse of eminent domain is well-documented in a multitude of cases and the subesequent laws that were passed to prevent it from continuing.

[Rothman]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities.  Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized.  This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations.  Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders).  It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.

[Beltway]

No, it came from former MA Secretary of Transportation Fred Salvucci, whose mother experienced the $1 deal.  It was portrayed as a "down payment," but in reality, they were lucky to get half the value of their homes in the end.  I can't imagine how hard that must have been, since I'd think a lot of the people were still paying their mortgages.
I also don't see why this is so hard to believe since abuse of eminent domain is well-documented in a multitude of cases and the subesequent laws that were passed to prevent it from continuing.

While many R/W equity issues have occured in the past, and I don't doubt that, this particular story is simply not credible and claiming that someone said it doesn't make it so.

[Beltway]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities.  Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized.  This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations.  Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders).  It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.

And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.

[Alps]

No, it came from former MA Secretary of Transportation Fred Salvucci, whose mother experienced the $1 deal.  It was portrayed as a "down payment," but in reality, they were lucky to get half the value of their homes in the end.  I can't imagine how hard that must have been, since I'd think a lot of the people were still paying their mortgages.
I also don't see why this is so hard to believe since abuse of eminent domain is well-documented in a multitude of cases and the subesequent laws that were passed to prevent it from continuing.

While many R/W equity issues have occured in the past, and I don't doubt that, this particular story is simply not credible and claiming that someone said it doesn't make it so.

It is. Stop arguing for argument's sake. You're wrong, even without Lansford here.

[Beltway]

I could only find one cite on the internet about this.

My grandmother lived in a house in north Brighton that was taken by eminent domain when they when they built the Mass Turnpike. People were treated very badly in that neighborhood. They were relatively poor and my grandmother's Italian, but most of the family -- most of the neighborhood was Lithuanian, all immigrants. Nobody spoke very good English. Didn't really know how to defend themselves against this giant bureaucracy that came in and basically ripped through the neighborhood, took people's houses. They were given a dollar for the house and told, "When we get around to it, we'll give you an appraisal." I mean imagine a 70 year-old widow gets kicked out of her house with a dollar. I mean what is she supposed to do? It's just outrageous. And the it was so bad that it did generate an understanding that this was no way to treat people, and within five years of this horrible treatment, Massachusetts ended up having some of the best relocation laws to protect people against this happening again.

Interview with Fred Salvucci, former Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation, for Program Four: "The Big Dig"
https://www-tc.pbs.org/greatprojects/interviews/salvucci.pdf

OK, assuming this recording is what he really said, why did this only happen in one place in the state?  It is curious seeing such a damning indictment in one sentence and then bragging in the next sentence about how Massachusetts' RW/acquisition went from horrible (if not blatantly criminal) to one of the best in the country in a few years.

[theroadwayone]

In order to get this thread back on topic, anyone notice that Google Maps hasn't changed the designations of I-95 and I-295 in New Jersey?

[odditude]

Got a better look at the sign on the way home for Exit 56.  It appears to be a completely new sign.

I was back up in the area over the weekend and got a chance to look at this. The exit sign and closest advance sign have been completely replaced. The sign panel is slightly larger (and actually has what appeared to be correct padding), uses FHWA, and there are no black backgrounds on the 206 or 68 shields. The farthest advance sign (the one in Clearview with pretty much no padding whatsoever) has not yet been replaced.

Looking up the ramp, the new LGS that was installed at the time the exit signage was replaced last year has not been touched (yet?) either.

[Rothman]

I could only find one cite on the internet about this.

My grandmother lived in a house in north Brighton that was taken by eminent domain when they when they built the Mass Turnpike. People were treated very badly in that neighborhood. They were relatively poor and my grandmother's Italian, but most of the family -- most of the neighborhood was Lithuanian, all immigrants. Nobody spoke very good English. Didn't really know how to defend themselves against this giant bureaucracy that came in and basically ripped through the neighborhood, took people's houses. They were given a dollar for the house and told, "When we get around to it, we'll give you an appraisal." I mean imagine a 70 year-old widow gets kicked out of her house with a dollar. I mean what is she supposed to do? It's just outrageous. And the it was so bad that it did generate an understanding that this was no way to treat people, and within five years of this horrible treatment, Massachusetts ended up having some of the best relocation laws to protect people against this happening again.

Interview with Fred Salvucci, former Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation, for Program Four: "The Big Dig"
https://www-tc.pbs.org/greatprojects/interviews/salvucci.pdf

OK, assuming this recording is what he really said, why did this only happen in one place in the state?  It is curious seeing such a damning indictment in one sentence and then bragging in the next sentence about how Massachusetts' RW/acquisition went from horrible (if not blatantly criminal) to one of the best in the country in a few years.

It didn't.  For Pete's sake...

[Rothman]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities.  Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized.  This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations.  Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders).  It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.

And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.

Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions.  I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits.  From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.

[Beltway]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities.  Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized.  This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations.  Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders).  It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.

And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.

Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions.  I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits.  From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.

Read for comprehension.   I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".

[Rothman]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities.  Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized.  This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations.  Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders).  It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.

And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.

Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions.  I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits.  From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.

Read for comprehension.   I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".

At this point, I'll let the thread speak for itself.

[qguy]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities.  Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized.  This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations.  Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders).  It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.

And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.

Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions.  I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits.  From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.

Read for comprehension.   I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".

At this point, I'll let the thread speak for itself.

Rothman is correct. Many legislative acts passed into law (like NEPA) do not specify the regulations to be enacted but instead provide the broad framework and authorize a particular agency within the executive branch to write the regulations.

Don't want to get too deep in the scholarly weeds here, but, in fact, many constitutional scholars have long criticized this as a dangerous ceding of constitutional power from elected members of the legislative branch to unelected (and publicly unaccountable) members of the executive branch, a blurring of the separation of powers between the three federal branches which is a key structural component of the constitution's protection of the natural rights of the people as individuals.

But wait, it gets worse. When regulations are challenged in court, the judicial system (including the Supreme Court) generally follows the doctrine promoted in the early 20th century by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and others that a regulation is constitutional and can be applied broadly if even one person in the most obscure of situations might consider it reasonable in even the most narrow of ways.

These are two of the biggest reasons why federal regulations spread like kudzu and any presidential administration faces an uphill battle trimming them back, no matter how onerous to the individual they may be.

[vdeane]

Definitely.  I'm not specifically aware of how much leeway NEPA gives, but laws tend not to define every aspect laid out.  This even applies to the Constitution itself.  Note that the 4th Amendment does not define "reasonable", for example.  The laws give the broad strokes.  Regulations define who and what each part of the law applies to and the specific bureaucratic processes that will occur.

[AMLNet49]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities.  Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized.  This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations.  Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders).  It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.

And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.

Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions.  I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits.  From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.

Read for comprehension.   I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".

At this point, I'll let the thread speak for itself.

Rothman is correct. Many legislative acts passed into law (like NEPA) do not specify the regulations to be enacted but instead provide the broad framework and authorize a particular agency within the executive branch to write the regulations.

Don't want to get too deep in the scholarly weeds here, but, in fact, many constitutional scholars have long criticized this as a dangerous ceding of constitutional power from elected members of the legislative branch to unelected (and publicly unaccountable) members of the executive branch, a blurring of the separation of powers between the three federal branches which is a key structural component of the constitution's protection of the natural rights of the people as individuals.

But wait, it gets worse. When regulations are challenged in court, the judicial system (including the Supreme Court) generally follows the doctrine promoted in the early 20th century by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and others that a regulation is constitutional and can be applied broadly if even one person in the most obscure of situations might consider it reasonable in even the most narrow of ways.

These are two of the biggest reasons why federal regulations spread like kudzu and any presidential administration faces an uphill battle trimming them back, no matter how onerous to the individual they may be.

These questions hit at what a person’s fundemental belief about what the purpose of the state is, which is why I think it gets people so passionate.

The battle basically is: is the purpose of government to accomplish certain ends for society by any means necessary, with the benefit to the great majority offsetting the callous victimization of a few? Or is it to provide services, but only to the extent that it can without victimizing any citizens? Basically, is it there to act as a godlike body to serve the great majority, or to act on behalf of all individuals, with rare exception, as a helping hand?

I can’t imagine poeole on either side that have their heels dug in backing off their argument. Personally, somewhere in the middle is probably best but the middle never wins.

[yakra]

Speaking as a Fundamentalist Discordian, if I-95 is just gonna go uninterrupted from Florida to Mainebub, I guess I'll just have to go find something else to dig. Like I-238 or I-99 or something. Or even Br**z*w**d

[qguy]

Laws passed by the legislature are not "broad frameworks", in nearly every case they are very specific and detailed.  Don't forget that they are signed into law by the executive.

You still fail to understand the how the laws are implemented by the affected agencies and entities.  Regulation and policy is written in such entities which is where the behavior changes are really realized.  This is why the EPA, for example, can act wildly different between presidential administrations.  Presidents direct it to either strictly comply with the law or not through regulation (including executive orders).  It is simply not a matter of passing legislation.

And as I pointed out, an activist and corrupt federal juduciary can override legitimate uses of executive power and legislative acts.

Then you may be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  You were arguing about NEPA and how the law directed executive actions.  I was saying that the executive's ability to write regulation tempers the power of legislation and I already mentioned the potential for lawsuits.  From what you yourself have argued now, the only conclusion is that Congress passing a law is degrees removed from the actual affected executive action.

Read for comprehension.   I did not say that "the law directed executive actions".

At this point, I'll let the thread speak for itself.

Rothman is correct. Many legislative acts passed into law (like NEPA) do not specify the regulations to be enacted but instead provide the broad framework and authorize a particular agency within the executive branch to write the regulations.

Don't want to get too deep in the scholarly weeds here, but, in fact, many constitutional scholars have long criticized this as a dangerous ceding of constitutional power from elected members of the legislative branch to unelected (and publicly unaccountable) members of the executive branch, a blurring of the separation of powers between the three federal branches which is a key structural component of the constitution's protection of the natural rights of the people as individuals.

But wait, it gets worse. When regulations are challenged in court, the judicial system (including the Supreme Court) generally follows the doctrine promoted in the early 20th century by Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, and others that a regulation is constitutional and can be applied broadly if even one person in the most obscure of situations might consider it reasonable in even the most narrow of ways.

These are two of the biggest reasons why federal regulations spread like kudzu and any presidential administration faces an uphill battle trimming them back, no matter how onerous to the individual they may be.

These questions hit at what a person's fundemental belief about what the purpose of the state is, which is why I think it gets people so passionate.

The battle basically is: is the purpose of government to accomplish certain ends for society by any means necessary, with the benefit to the great majority offsetting the callous victimization of a few? Or is it to provide services, but only to the extent that it can without victimizing any citizens? Basically, is it there to act as a godlike body to serve the great majority, or to act on behalf of all individuals, with rare exception, as a helping hand?

I can't imagine poeole on either side that have their heels dug in backing off their argument. Personally, somewhere in the middle is probably best but the middle never wins.

I don't know about other places, but in America, the purpose of government is clear. The founding documents describe it. From the Declaration of Independence spells it out:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." [Emphasis added, it probably goes without saying.]

First come rights (from God, or natural law if you will), then comes government. And the purpose of government is to secure the natural rights of the people. The Constitution protects those rights by limiting the power of the federal government. The Constitution enumerates specific powers (not rights) of the federal government and states that everything else is retained by the states and the people as individuals. The Constitution even goes so far as to enumerate only a relative handful of the rights of the people, leaving the field of undescribed rights of the people wide open.

To the extent that we enjoy liberty in the United States today, we do so because of the US Constitution, not in spite of it.

So the purpose of government isn't really the argument. The argument is how to best fulfill that purpose, or what the government can and cannot do within the constraints of the Constitution to fulfill that purpose.

Forgive me for being a bit pedantic but sometimes basics are helpful.

Oh and one more thing:

Br**z*w**d

   Perfect.

[TXtoNJ]

Lol, no it's not.

[SteveG1988]

So, how about those overpasses? How far from done is the interchange at this moment?

[theroadwayone]

So, how about those overpasses? How far from done is the interchange at this moment?

As mentioned in previous posts, they're mostly finished as far as construction and pavement is concerned. All that's left is tie-in work, lighting, striping, and putting the finishing touches on the signage, which should take until August.

[Roadwarriors79]

In order to get this thread back on topic, anyone notice that Google Maps hasn't changed the designations of I-95 and I-295 in New Jersey?

I have noticed. I also noticed that Mapquest and Waze have renumbered the Trenton section as I-295.