FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

THE PROJECT AND ITS MANAGEMENT

1. Q: What is the Kentucky TriModal Transpark?
   A: It started as a plan to obtain 6,000 acres of farmland to build an airport, an industrial park, and a rail and road transportation hub near Bowling Green, KY. It then became a plan to convert 4,000 acres. It then became a 1,000 acre industrial park, a 1,700 acre airport, and a 1,000 acre rail-served facility. Transpark promoters say that Bowling Green is running out of industrial development land, so they propose to leapfrog eight miles to the northeast.

2. Q: Who is developing the Transpark?
   A: The ITA (Inter-Modal Transportation Authority) is an agency of the Warren County Fiscal Court and Bowling Green City Commission. The ITA board is appointed, not elected.

3. Q: Why does the project scope keep changing?
   A: The project changes in size and scope at the whim of the ITA mangers. There is no market demand. Some residents say there is no real plan, that the Transpark is a scheme to seize farmland for private development without restrictions.

4. Q: Did the ITA consider any alternative locations?
   A: No. The ITA appeared to conduct a site selection process, but by Working Paper #3 they selected the "yellow site" near Oakland, despite the fact that the "blue site" and "green site" offered better transportation access and fewer karst problems. It may be coincidence, but the "yellow site" was selected two years before when interested landowners and developers selected it to benefit their friends and themselves.

5. Q: Isn't the Transpark project inevitable?
   A: No. Some people believe that the promoters of the Transpark are so politically and financially powerful that they will prevail regardless of the expense to the taxpayers and despite legal obstacles. However, this is still a country of laws, not men. Voters can remove elected officials with a 50% plus one vote.

6. Q: Why not give ITA all the money they want?
   A: The ITA has been a poor steward of $6 million in planning funds already given them by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. They squandered the money and have nothing to show for it. The ITA must demonstrate some competence before they are worthy of further trust.

7. Q: Is the ITA efficiently managed?
   A: No. They have burned up $6 million of taxpayer money and accomplished nothing tangible. They ignore scientific criticism and conceal their administrative blunders from the public. ITA is hiring a new PR agency to spin this bad news by countering it with "education".

1. Q: How much money is required for this project?
   A: Estimates are $100 million of taxpayer money is needed. No private funds are being sought because the venture is so risky it would not be a prudent business investment. The ITA hopes to obtain $50 million from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), and the rest from other federal and state funds.

2. Q: Does ITA say modern marketing is "build it and they will come"?
   A: The ITA claims that "demand-less" marketing is good business. They point to two developments elsewhere in high demand markets, and make the spurious assertion that their own "marketing strategy" follows those successes. It is a fact that several projects similar to ITA's "demand-less" marketing in North Carolina and elsewhere are utter failures and black holes of taxpayer funds. The Louisville Courier Journal in several editorials called it Transpork.

3. Q: How much money has ITA actually received?
   A: The Kentucky legislature has given them $6 million of taxpayer funds. They have spent it all. They are borrowing $6 million more to tide them over.

4. Q: What happened to their first $6 million?
   A: The ITA paid handsome salaries, hired expensive but unqualified consultants, and held a few meetings to explain their evolving Transpark plans. They make no public accounting and are not audited, despite their non-profit status.

5. Q: Why do they want to issue $25 million in bonds?
   A: Without revealing the scope of the Transpark project, the ITA has state approval to issue $25 million in revenue bonds, to buy about "2800 acres for an airport and 240 acres for an industrial park." ITA claims this amount will be sufficient to buy the land and build streets and utility infrastructure.

6. Q: Why was the ITA's bond issue being appealed?
   A: A citizen taxpayer appealed because the Transpark project is undefined, its assumptions and projections of revenue to retire the bonds are based entirely on conjecture with no contingency plans, and the cost of developing on karst land will be far more expensive than the ITA has allowed. In other words, the ITA has not done prudent financial planning. The taxpayers are at enormous risk of covering bond payment defaults. Furthermore, taxpayers in surrounding counties are on the hook financially despite ITA assurances that they are not. Ignoring these facts, the state's public debt hearing officer said the ITA can issue the bonds because other similar projects have been developed on karst.

7. Q: Why is the ITA being given $6 million more?
   A: The Warren County Fiscal Court wants to begin land acquisition as quickly as possible to make the Transpark "too late to stop". Since the $25 million bond issuance is approved, this is a hasty move to bypass normal local government capital funding procedures, and move the money into a third party "authority". The so-called Southcentral Kentucky Regional Development Authority is not the corporation by that name, but a private group of insiders from the ITA, Fiscal Court, and City Commission.

8. Q: Did the Warren County Fiscal Court exercise due diligence in borrowing $6 million to give to the ITA?
   A: No. This highly irregular borrowing maneuver failed to investigate whether the bond proceeds can be used to repay the "temporary bridge" borrowing. The Court did not investigate conflict of interest and self-dealing issues. They paid no attention to the term of the loan. They lied about known facts.

9. Q: What is wrong with the ITA's financial assumptions and projections?
   A: In defending against the bond issuance appeal, the ITA revealed that all of their financial revenue projections were based on assumptions they furnished to an accounting firm. The accounting firm specifically disclaimed any representation as to the validity of the furnished assumptions. In other words, a series of guesses when accurately multiplied became a spreadsheet of guesses. Prudent planning requires best case and worst case data, not empty guesses with no provision for contingencies, such as a recession. The hearing officer ignored these facts.

10. Q: Why did the FAA twice turn down the "replacement" airport?
    A: The FAA twice found there was no economic justification to replace the present Bowling Green Airport that is operating at only 26% of capacity. The ITA asked the FAA to withhold this rejection and to "keep the door open" for new information. In fact it would be cheaper to expand the present airport than build a new one, and the present contract with the FAA has more than 15 years to run.

11. Q: If the "old" airport is to be replaced, why are millions of dollars now being spent now on new hangars and apron improvements at that old airport?
    A: The directors of the old airport are hedging their bets. On one hand they readily accept government money to improve, yet they turn over their legal authority to the ITA to negotiate with the FAA for a replacement airport in a few years. The attitude seems to be "it's only taxpayers' money."

12. Q: Will the "replacement" Transpark airport be better and safer than the old?
    A: No, the replacement airport will be inferior. The present airport has cross runways. The proposed replacement airport has only a single runway. The present airport has a site-specific state-of-the-art instrument landing system. The ILS cannot be moved to the Transpark airport. And the large bill owed to the FAA for the ILS system will come due. Safety will suffer without an ILS. Furthermore, the Transpark airport site is inconveniently located eight miles from town

13. Q: Can't smart engineering overcome difficult site problems?
    A: With an open checkbook, contractors can solve any site problem. The ITA allowed no extra money for expensive mitigation required for construction on karst.

14. Q: Why did the ITA advertise the Oakland site for sale as "2000 acres of vacant land with no restrictions"?
    A: The ITA misrepresented its offer to sell of land they did not own, land that was formally zoned for agricultural use. One can only guess that their motive was to show the existence of market demand, an unsuccessful attempt.

15. Q: Is a comprehensive hydrology study really too expensive as ITA claims?
    A: When 18 prominent karst hydrologists, geologists, and biologists pointed out that the Graham Springs drainage basin and the Mammoth Cave drainage basin spill over into each other, they called for a comprehensive study of the hydrology to assess the risk to Mammoth Cave National Park. The Kentucky Division of Water had earlier insisted that the ITA hire a hydrologist. The ITA initially said they would undertake such a study, then quickly decided it would be "too expensive". Mammoth Cave's revenue contribution to the region is estimated at $100 million annually, and its natural resource values are priceless. Without knowing the cost of such a study, the ITA's rejection is unwise, insensitive, and self-serving.

16. Q: Why don't landowners living near Oakland want to sell to the ITA?
    A: Landowners near Oakland love the peaceful and beautiful rural landscape. Many historic farms and homesteads have been in their families for generations. Their land is some of the best farmland in Kentucky, contrary to the ITA's assertion. There are national heritage sites and archaeological sites. Many landowners see the ITA as manipulative, devious, and acquisitive. They see big city folks trying to force them off their land as cheaply as possible. They see abuse of power in threats to use eminent domain, a disregard of lawful zoning and planning laws, and an effort to nullify Kentucky's farmland protection act. Landowners see factories and an airport as noisy, undesirable neighbors.

17. Q: Should landowners accept the ITA's offer to buy their land?
    A: Experience shows that landowners will always fare better by refusing to sell and holding out, regardless of intimidation and sales pressure. Judge Buchanon says the ITA will not use eminent domain to seize land. If he can be believed, landowners should remain steadfast and not sell out. Those landowners who feel they must sell should know that Judge Buchanon has testified that the ITA intends to buy land at $5,000 per acre and sell it for $28,000 per acre. Early sellers should hold out for at least $28,000 per acre. A landowner should retain a good lawyer as soon as possible.

18. Q: What kinds of financial incentives will the ITA have to offer to induce companies to locate in the Transpark?
    A: The ITA is silent about the fact that taxpayer-financed industrial parks generally must offer expensive financial incentives to attract customers. Typical inducements include 20-year tax abatements and free utilities. The ITA boasts that anticipated increased tax revenue will benefit schools, but in fact such developments never pay their way. The school system would be overwhelmed with students and underfinanced in tax revenue if the ITA's boast of 7,500 jobs were realistic.

19. Q: Haven't other Transpark-type projects been successful financially?
    A: Generally no. The North Carolina Transpark is a black hole of $120 million sunk with hardly any tenants. The only industrial parks that succeed already have a strong business or industrial base, such as Huntsville, AL with a significant federal government presence. Bowling Green has no such base, and with competitive industrial land available, ITA will find it hard to sell property in the Transpark.

20. Q: Who picks up the tab if the Transpark fails?
    A: Taxpayers.

21. Q: If the project fails, will the landowners get their land back?
    A: No. The ITA says any "surplus" land will be sold off for housing developments.

ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER IN THE MAKING

1. Q: What is karst and why is it special?
   A: Karst is a landscape characterized by sinking creeks sinkholes, and caves. There are few surface streams, except the base level rivers, such as the Green and Barren. This particular karst is special because a brittle rock bed, the Lost River Chert, underlies the entire Transpark site. The Sinkhole Plain and the entire Mammoth Cave region is the most scientifically studied karst on earth.

2. Q: Is it dangerous to build on karst land?
   A: Karst land is dangerous to develop because of pollution, flooding, and collapse. Any spills of fuel or other hazardous material go underground immediately, with no opportunity to intercept them. Flood damage is expensive and frequent. This is because significant rains overwhelm the sinkhole drains. Collapse takes place in any karst, but is extremely dangerous at the Transpark site. The land is situated about 190 feet above the water table, and has twice as far to fall as similar land in Bowling Green. The Lost River Chert collapses catastrophically and endangers any structure, such as roads, runways, buildings, utility lines, and walls. Nearby airports are either not built on karst, or the Lost River Chert is not present. The ITA pretends that it costs no more to develop on karst land than elsewhere.

3. Q: Didn't the ITA do an Environmental Assessment that said it was OK to develop on karst land?
   A: Yes. The ITA tried to skirt the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. It commissioned an unqualified consultant to do an "Environmental Assessment". The ITA claimed this exceeded federal and state requirements. The study was denounced as incompetent by every scientist NOT on the ITA payroll. The ITA's conclusion that it is OK to develop on karst land is promotional boasting by two engineers that signed one of their reports.

4. Q: Can't fuel spills be cleaned up?
   A: Often not. In September 2001 a tanker truck wrecked on I-65 two miles south of Park City. Some 3,800 gallons of diesel fuel spilled into cracks and down into the cave before any interception could take place. The spill threatens to kill a significant portion of the aquatic life in Mammoth Cave National Park. This is just the latest in a string of unfortunate spills of gasoline, cyanide, propane, electroplating heavy metals, and whey in this karst area. Furthermore, slow seepage of contaminants is equally dangerous. Airports are notorious for spills of gasoline, jet fuel, petroleum products, machinery cleaners, and anti-icing fluids. The Northern Kentucky Airport recently polluted two nearby creeks with unauthorized discharges.

5. Q: Can't collapses be avoided?
   A: No. Solution and mechanical failure cause rocks to collapse. Soil piping is another cause of catastrophic collapse. The land surface often collapses without warning into voids and caves. Deep caves can sometimes be detected with geophysical instruments, but shallow voids are difficult to detect, even with test drilling. The entire Transpark site is riddled with sinkholes, evidence of continuous collapse. The ITA plans to buy the Transpark site without any investigation, or even any reference to extensive studies already completed by scientists. When runways collapse, lives can be lost.

6. Q: Can't flooding be avoided?
   A: No. Parts of Bowling Green flood despite expensive efforts to drain rainwater into sinkholes. While there are many openings into the underground drainage, they tend to be small and they plug with leaves, soil, and brush. As part of the so-called remediation, ITA plans to collect rainwater in large holding ponds. The ITA failed to take into account the fact that large ponds of water weigh so much the chert layer will collapse into voids and caves. Flooding happens in this karst terrain. It cannot be fixed.

7. Q: Does the ITA know where the caves are?
   A: The ITA claims to know where the caves and underground rivers are, but they failed to read the note on the drainage map that says the red lines showing drainage are conjectural. The fact is, they do not know. Geophysical methods can sometimes detect big cave passages, but not shallow and small passages, that comprise the bulk of the underground openings.

8. Q: Can the Transpark really pollute Mammoth Cave National Park?
   A: Yes. When diesel fumes from trucks and locomotives are emitted into the already poor quality air, Mammoth Cave National Park's haze will increase. In terms of haze and air pollution, Mammoth Cave is already the third most polluted park. Spillovers from the Graham Springs basin into the Mammoth Cave basin have occurred. One friend of the ITA says it would take an 80-foot rise in the water level to spill over into the Mammoth Cave basin. However, rises in cave water levels of 90 to 100 feet occur every few years.

9. Q: Can the Transpark really pollute the Graham Springs drainage basin?
   A: It can and will pollute the drainage basin. Kentucky airports have a history of polluting nearby streams, and this one will be no exception.

10. Q: Isn't the Graham Springs drainage basin already polluted?
    A: No, this is a myth. The ITA points to some agricultural weed killer in the water as evidence of pollution, but the ITA ignores the Kentucky Division of Water's finding that the water quality from the Graham Springs basin is among the best in Kentucky. The ITA seeks to perpetuate the myth as a rationale that the karst is already spoiled and not worth protecting.

11. Q: Are endangered species really present?
    A: Yes. The Indiana bat and Gray bat are present. Several species of endangered mussels live in the Barren River. The habitat of the Kentucky cave shrimp is present, despite the ITA assertion that the habitat is missing. The Fish and Wildlife Service can block the Transpark project when these populations are verified and threatened.

12. Q: Doesn't ITA say they will protect the environment?
    A: ITA president Dan Cherry said, "If a credible environmental study were done that said we shouldn't build this type of facility in this particular location we wouldn't. It's just that simple." Since that time he and other ITA supporters have done their best to discredit leading scientists and authorities warnings about karst dangers. They assert that "leading authorities have said it can be done", but they cannot produce any real authority who agrees with them. The ITA's standard position is they will fix all environmental problems as they encounter them, even those that cannot be fixed.

13. Q: Did environmentalists and scientists wait too late to warn about the dangers to ITA?
    A: Several ITA officials said after a May 8, 2001 meeting that the opponents waited too long to bring up dangers. A memo prepared for ITA internal staff consumption shows that ITA knew about every kind of deficiency by the July 2000. Since that time, and with extensive free information from experts, they have not acknowledged any of the dangers or altered their risky plans.

14. Q: Why didn't the ITA do field investigation of the project site?
    A: Any competent environmental study includes field investigation by experts. The ITA employed non-experts to do literature and map research only. No drilling, geological, structural, or any other field investigation was done. Two engineers conducted no field studies, yet they claimed karst expertise. They prepared only a simple topographic map profile and sketches of unreliable sinkhole plugs as their report on karst.

15. Q: If others build on karst land, what's wrong with this site?
    A: The problem with this particular site is the presence of the Lost River Chert. This brittle, easily fractured rock bed is from four to ten feet thick. It underlies the entire 4000-acre site. Its composition resembles glass. It collapses catastrophically. Structures built in Bowling Green collapse frequently - walls, parking lots, even buildings. But this site is 190 feet above the water table, so things have farther to fall than in Bowling Green. Karst always increases the cost of construction, which is why the Kentucky Geological Survey recommends against development on karst when possible. The problems of pollution, flooding, and soil piping loom in addition to collapse.

16. Q: If the ITA did their own Environmental Assessment, why must they do an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)?
    A: Whenever federal funds are supplied for a project, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a formal EIS. Such a study takes an average of 2.9 years to complete, according to the FAA. The ITA hoped to skirt the EIS requirement with their incompetent Environmental Assessment, but they have since agreed to perform an EIS as a condition to receive additional federal funds. The ITA boasts they can do this in a couple of months. Among other requirements, the formal EIS process requires a rigorous assessment of real alternatives, a conflict of interest analysis, and a significant public input process - none of which is likely to give the Transpark site a clean bill of health.

17. Q: Is it true the ITA can do an EIS in a few months?
    A: Nobody has ever done so. It appears that either the ITA fails to understand the requirement, or they have pulled political strings they hope will bypass the law.

JOBS AND PROGRESS VS. PORK SPENDING

1. Q: Will the ITA attract high tech jobs to the Transpark?
   A: The ITA boasts it will attract high tech jobs, citing the experience of Hunstville, AL and Dallas/Fort Worth, TX. In both of those areas there was already a significant mix of high tech jobs. In Bowling Green, there is no such tech base. Furthermore, the TriModal transportation core of the Transpark, if successful, would attract only distribution jobs, which tend to use low tech common labor, with typical job densities of 1.2 jobs per acre of industrial park.

2. Q: Aren't jobs and progress desirable?
   A: Yes, that is why the ITA uses the rhetoric of "jobs" and "economic progress" to try to sell the Transpark. The reality is any jobs created will draw away those already employed in surrounding counties, and reduce their local contribution. The ITA portrays opponents as "no growth extremists". In fact, many opponents are in favor of responsible economic growth, but the Transpark is an impractical self-serving boondoggle, not a legitimate market-based initiative.

3. Q: Will the Transpark attract workers from outside the region?
   A: Companies seek to expand close to their markets so they can shorten transportation links and reduce or eliminate warehousing and inventories. Today's JIT manufacturing does not relocate far from markets. For example, there is no reason why a high tech Silicon Valley company would leave an area where markets and trained workers are nearby. Workers will not be attracted without jobs.

POLITICAL SHENANIGANS, ABUSE OF POWER, AND INJUSTICE

1. Q: Who wants the Transpark?
   A: Politicians seeking votes, contractors and developers, and insiders are the chief proponents. The general public, according to the only probability survey, favors economic growth, but is suspicious of the politics and environmental damage threatened by the Transpark. References found in a 1998 application for federal economic development funds raise serious concerns about favoritism in locating the Transpark near supporters' lands.

2. Q: Isn't everybody except crackpots for the Transpark?
   A: No. There is evidence that the majority of Warren County voters oppose the Transpark, but are prevented from voting on the issue by politicians. ITA supporters have used terms like "wackos", "extremists", and "out of town do-gooders" to characterize opponents. Their purpose is to gain support from the ignorant.

3. Q: Doesn't the ITA listen to the public?
   A: No. Early in the planning process the ITA extolled their "public involvement" process. This consisted of controlled meetings where only ITA information was presented. They ignored or silenced any meaningful public input. The ITA ignored expert testimony and advice at every stage. They further operated in secret, such as rescheduling the times and places of meetings to prevent public input. They refused to entertain a referendum, which is the ultimate denial of the ITA's interest in public input. The Fiscal Court's so-called development authority plans to meet in an attorney's private office.

4. Q: Why did the ITA select a site now occupied by the largest percentage of African-American landowners?
   A: The ITA selected the Transpark site on top of several historic African-American communities. The highest percentage concentration of African-Americans lives in the target area. 74 families would be displaced. This kind of social and environmental injustice was discouraged by a 1992 presidential order, but it has not stopped the ITA from believing that these residents can be moved out with fewer outcries than other groups. It is significant to note that when citizens have pointed out this injustice, ITA spokespeople have said they "hate it when people play the race card."

5. Q: Why does the ITA need to hire an expensive PR firm to educate the public?
   A: Supporters of the Transpark have been singularly ineffective at refuting any criticism of the ITA's plans. They blame misinformation and misunderstanding. The fact is, the more information the ITA reveals, the more suspicion and opposition grow. It is typical of a project's supporters to try to "spin" adverse information to influence opinion. They will use part of their borrowed $6 million to pay a PR firm.

6. Q: Doesn't the ITA reveal its plans?
   A: No. They operate largely in secret, concealing decisions until after they make them. On at least six occasions they have changed the scope of the project without comment, leaving only a revised map on their Web site.

7. Q: Why not let the voters decide?
   A: Transpark supporters believe taxpayers would vote NO. Rather than risk a public referendum, they are rushing to advance land buying beyond the point of no return.

8. Q: Does the ITA understand its obligation to do real archeological, historical, biological, and social justice studies?
   A: They say yes, but they say they will deal with required studies only after they acquire the land.

9. Q: Aren't opponents of the Transpark extremists and "tree huggers"?
   A: Only in the eyes of the ITA supporters. Opponents occupy every segment of society.

10. Q: Doesn't the ITA use mainly local consultants?
    A: No. The ITA uses mostly out of the area consultants, except for their accountants. In fact, one of the most capable resources for technical information about karst is centered at Western Kentucky University. Those scientific experts have been inexplicably ignored by the ITA. It was not sour grapes when one karst authority remarked that ITA's so-called Environmental Assessment "stinks" with relation to karst. Numerous errors and omissions have been called to the ITA's attention, and ignored. "I'd give any undergraduate in my course an F if they turned in that kind of work," said one professor. The "out of town" accusation was leveled by the ITA to discredit criticism, but the local newspaper in an editorial set the record straight. Opponents, on the other hand, are unpaid.

11. Q: How fast does this situation change?
    A: The situation changes weekly. Check the links to other Web sites for news.

12. Q: What can I do?
    A: Write letters to elected public officials. See how to do this elsewhere on this Web site. Contact the organizations linked on this Web site to learn more. Volunteer your services. Contribute money to the organizations opposing the Transpark.