Letter: Business and government interests brought Mid-States Corridor to life

The public record surrounding the development of the Mid-States Corridor project raises legitimate questions about whether a coordinated relationship existed among private business interests, economic-development organizations, elected officials, and later governmental entities to advance a predetermined transportation project. The available evidence does not prove an unlawful conspiracy or collusion; however, the chronology and relationships are sufficient to justify further investigation into whether influential interests, and people, worked together to shape public policy, legislation, and ultimately a project involving the possible use of eminent domain.

The story did not begin with an independent governmental determination that a new 54-mile highway was necessary. Years before the Mid-States Corridor RDA was formed, the I-67 Development Corporation, a business and civic advocacy organization, was promoting improved north-south transportation connections. The organization raised substantial public and private funds to commission transportation and economic studies. By October 2016, approximately $455,250 had reportedly been invested, including $225,250 in private contributions from local businesses, ultimately raising over $7 million.

The precise identities of some donors remain confidential under Indiana law. Nevertheless, several donors consented to public identification, and the public record demonstrates that private business interests played an important role in financing the early development of the transportation case.

At an October 2016 meeting concerning the Mid-State Corridor project, industrialist Hank Menke, then State Senator Mark Messmer and then State Representative Mike Braun discussed the need for new methods of assembling local financial support. This discussion followed the London Witte funding study, which examined ways to generate local resources for the project. Braun reportedly described the need for the region to have “skin in the game” in order to obtain INDOT participation. Messmer discussed pursuing legislation to provide additional funding options.

Within a few months, SB 128 was introduced in the Indiana General Assembly by Mark Messmer. The legislation ultimately created a mechanism allowing regional development authorities to participate in transportation infrastructure financing, coordinate regional resources, seek federal transportation funding, and enter supplemental funding agreements with INDOT. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce subsequently stated that the mechanism in SB 128 originated in Dubois County. This demonstrates a close chronological connection between the local business-led effort to solve the project’s funding problem and the legislative mechanism that then  helped make the project institutionally possible.

The formation of the Mid-States Corridor RDA did not occur in isolation from this earlier advocacy. Public reporting described the same regional initiative as helping lay the groundwork for the RDA. The project therefore appears to have evolved through a continuum: private and public advocacy, privately and publicly funded studies, pursuit of new legislative authority, creation of a governmental RDA, and finally the formal environmental review process.

The role of private economic interests continued during project development. Businesses and economic-development organizations were formally interviewed regarding transportation needs before alternatives were screened. Stakeholders included companies and organizations such as Jasper Engines, Meyer Distributing, OFS Brands, Cook Group, Mulzer Crushed Stone, and Radius Indiana. Their concerns included freight movement, interstate access, market connectivity, workforce access, and regional economic development.

Those concerns substantially overlap with the project’s eventual objectives: improving access to major business markets, increasing freight efficiency, improving regional connectivity, and supporting economic development. This does not disprove that businesses selected the final Alternative P. 

The potential concern is not necessarily that a particular company dictated the route. Rather, the question is whether a network of aligned private, political, and governmental interests progressively defined the transportation “problem” in terms that favored a large new-terrain corridor over improvements to existing roads.

The sequence, business advocacy, private funding, consultant studies, legislative action, RDA formation, business stakeholder input, and a final project closely aligned with business and freight objectives, is consistent with coordinated advocacy. Whether that coordination rose to the level of improper collusion cannot be determined from the evidence currently available; but, it gives the appearance that it was.

Further investigation should therefore focus on communications, meeting records, legislative testimony, funding decisions, and the development of the project’s Purpose and Need. The central question is not whether businesses were allowed to advocate for better transportation. They clearly were. It is whether private interests and public officials coordinated their actions in a manner that effectively predetermined a government project before the formal public decision-making and environmental processes were complete.

Herein is the crux of the matter, was there collusion and why aren’t we all concerned? This is just a highway, next time we could be battling these same people about a nuclear waste dump in Porterville.

Jim Arvin
Rutherford Township
Martin County

Clarification: This is not Jim Arvin, former CEO of Jasper Desk.