Editorial page content

The purpose of the InlandRail editorial page is to present in as straightforward a manner as we can, issues pertaining to the whole idea of transportation planning (and, certainly rail-based transportation solutions) and how it fits into the overall regional scheme of things. Essays that reflect the board’s thinking or action have no byline. Other essays reflecting primarily the thoughts of an individual, and which may or may not reflect the “official” position of the board are required to include a byline. Consequently, you’ll see a number of essays by me — Dick Raymond. I’m the webmaster, and quite frankly it was simply far easier for me to just compose, post and manage the content. Actually, these personal essays might just as easily have been included in a blog, but the thinking was to put them out in front of everybody in a prominent fashion. And, too, at the time I had not as yet included blogging functionality on the website.

There has been some discussion at the board level about the editorial page. Specifically, some think that some of the articles might be a little “pointed”. Our philosophy has and continues to be to call it like it is.

The history of the whole light rail effort is rife with controversy and just plain old-time political maneuvering. Surely, some of the stuff that has happened is simply ugly. If someone does something kind of stupid, then we think you deserve to know just what was done, how it affects the  regional transportation vision and our ability to effect some type of rail-based regional transportation backbone solution sooner than later, and why we consider the action(s) to be stupid, moronic, self-serving or even worse — deceitful and harmful. And, we think it is helpful for those who wish to know, to be able to have access to the behind-the-scenes stuff that has resulted in light rail being temporarily stalled — down, but definitely not out! And, when we feel it would be appropriate and productive, we will name names.

So, how do YOU feel about the look and feel of the editorial page? Too “edgy”? Too “wishy-washy”? Too (you fill in the blank)? Let us know.

Leave a Reply