Next Steps for Review of Massive BSNF Rail Hub

Bill you are the king of twisting things to your advantage. It's an artform.

 

Did I call you out over anything you posted here? It appears I am being targeted based upon your supposition of what I might do or not do. How about you just post about what you’re interested in and forget what you think I might do.
Let the conversation continue, please, without any further discourse or calling people out by name.

 

It happened so very many times in the past to me Carole, but never anyone else. It just really doesn't matter anymore. I give this website URL to people thinking of moving here and let them judge for themselves now.

 

Good point Carole, this discussion regarding the BNSF rail hub is and will be a hot topic for the next year. The hearing this month will be abuzz with emotion. Weighing all aspects of the cost impact, the social and societal impact and the environmental impact against the benefits of tax revenue and jobs will be a tough balancing act. Glad it's not up to me.

Like i have stated, we need answers to every one of the questions and concerns before any decisions are made.

Thanks for helping keep us on point.

 

Nice way to widen your perspective on a previous political post all while cleaning up on aisle 7. I tip my hat to you sir!

 

BNSF asks to delay Maricopa County vote on controversial $3.2B rail hub in Wittmann. A decision over railroad giant BNSF's controversial proposal for a massive railyard will likely wait until November, after the company requested a continuance from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...unty-vote-3-2b-rail-hub-wittmann/85348309007/

 

For those of us nonsubscribers to Arizona Republic:
BNSF asks to delay vote on Arizona logistics project
By Trains Staff | July 25, 2025
| Last updated on August 1, 2025

WITTMANN, Ariz. — BNSF Railway has asked Maricopa County officials to delay a vote until November a vote on its proposed $3.2 million logistics and intermodal hub near Phoenix.

The Arizona Republic reports a letter requesting the delay from a planned zoning vote scheduled for Aug. 20 did not offer a specific reason, but says the railroad will be submitting an updated rezoning application including measures to address traffic concerns and other measures to reduce the impact on adjacent properties.

The delay likely means construction of Logistics Park Phoenix will not start this year, as had been previously projected. The project requires the rezoning of some land from residential to commercial use.

MORE HERE:

 

So, we have a couple months until the next round of arguments both pro and con.

Just my opinion but I bet one or two deciders told them what they need/want to get their vote.

 

Hmmm? It takes time to negotiate how much a vote is worth.

With so much community concern, the price keeps increasing!

 

Watched Newsmax 2 and Real voice America yesterday ( Saturday) and both were live as it said on the screen Live, so I guess it was live. Quite an education, some guy on RVA walking the border and seems that there was a liberal or Democrat hiding behind every scrub pine tree waiting to jump out and offer immigrants, water, a five course meal and a high executive position at Google. Propaganda at its best. The guy was a real hoot. Somewhere Josef Goebbels is laughing his butt off.

 

With all due respect to Old&tired, "the greater good" is, as Bill alludes to here, over used and under defined, which makes it completely useless in an actual discussion about reality and facts. And Bill, you fall into the same trap when you pit personal best interest against so-called 'greater good'. They really don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Phoenix has poor air quality. Poor air quality contributes to unhealthy people. Anyone disagree? More building, more factories, more people/houses/cars will make the air quality worse for everyone, leading to more health problems. Someone PLEASE explain how that is 'greater good'.

Last freight train I saw had over 100 cars, every one double stacked with Amazon containers. O&T wants to improve the supply chain, thereby making it even cheaper and easier for MORE Americans to send MORE of their money overseas quicker for more Made-in-China crap. PLEASE explain how that is good for America?

Homes for sale, vacant homes, vacant space in cities for people that WANT high density living. Maybe we don't need more houses - maybe we need more affordable and efficient housing solutions. Rampant sprawl doesn't solve that. PLEASE cite one non-biased, respected authority who says urban residential sprawl is good for anyone or anything.

All building is good? Does that include quickly built, cheap, poorly constructed homes that collapse in storms killing people? Does that include factories that slip under regulations and dump toxic chemicals into ground water killing people? So if you really believe all building is good, than you're ok with a few hundred, thousand, million, collateral-damage lives??? Really?

So again, I'm asking how this project really makes ANYTHING better. And I'm asking very specifically how it makes any of your lives better. (The fact that O&T doesn't really care about their own quality of life is too sad and depressing to even discuss...)

 

Bill, I think an area not mentioned here is the property tax breaks they will likely receive and for how long. Construction of large commercial properties come with tax breaks to build here along with some other revenue goodies. Consequently it would behoove us to keep and eye on what the state, county and local body politics are going to give up for this puppy to be built. The money helicopter is always around on projects like this.

 

With all due respect JEB, it seems you are only concentrating on the negative affects with assuming everything is for the worse!

I agree that there's nothing good about bad air quality, but there are methods to address those issues.

Your assumption that it will cause more purchases from China is yet to be determined now that many manufacturers are coming back to America!

I don't think its fair to assume that homes collapse in storms because they are poorly constructed. If you choose to live in a mobile home in tornado country, then that's on you! There are, after all, building codes!

Perhaps we should just forget about progress and we go back to manufacturing buggy whips?

Urban residential sprawl has mixed impacts, and whether it's "good" depends on perspective and priorities. Here's a breakdown:

Potential Benefits:

• For Residents: Sprawl can offer affordable housing, larger homes, and yards, appealing to families seeking space. It often provides a quieter, less dense lifestyle compared to urban cores.
• For Developers: Sprawl can be profitable, as land on urban fringes is typically cheaper, enabling large-scale housing projects.
• Economic Growth: Sprawl can stimulate local economies through construction, infrastructure development, and retail growth in suburban areas.
• Individual Freedom: Some argue sprawl reflects personal choice, allowing people to live where they prefer with access to cars and modern amenities.

Sprawl isn't inherently "bad" or "good." Its impacts depend on how it's managed. Smart growth policies—like mixed-use developments, efficient public transit, and green space preservation—can mitigate negatives while retaining benefits.

All this proves is whether progress is a good or bad thing depends allot on the eye of the beholder and how each person views the situation and how their lives are affected. JEB points out the negatives, but there are always two sides to every story.

I have no idea where this project will go or how it will affect anything. Nobody really knows. It's mostly all just speculation based on your personal situation. I certainly wouldn't want it in my backyard, but if it's for the "greater good," whatever that means, I suspect it will eventually come to fruition!

 

I've talked to some opposers of the hub that would rather have the hub put farther into the desert, away from Whittman and residential communities. Even if that happened, the question still remains, where are the trains going? If trains are still to go thru Sun Cities it will not matter for all of those living in this region. Doesn't seem like specific answers will happen until the hub is underway. I think people should oppose it, if we don't get clarity from the railroad company on where the trains are going and just how many more trains will be coming thru. I always thought goods going east would travel north and east thru Flagstaff and beyond. I don't have access to a RR map, but if goods are all coming south thru Sun Cities then east, yes, that could be terrible. We need more precise clarity from the company before I would be for it. If anyone has train map knowledge it would be helpful. Also, there is a road that will get off of the I-10 and will head to hub. So truck travels from L.A. could be lessened possibly. It is Insterstate 11. Online it says it is almost completed. Any thoughts on this?

 

Loved to see/read jeb's remarks about the "greater good." Friends of mine and i have been down this road (many years back), and there is seldom one right answer. In fact, one of the arguments was "personal best interests" versus the "greater good." My sense was the greater good should have a higher elevation than personal best interests, while the younger person i was arguing with (roughly jeb's age), claimed that by taking care of one's personal best interests, the greater good would be reached/accomplished.

It's always a circular argument, because every outcome has different values attributed back to what has happened and the decisions made. In this case, the BNSF may well provide thousands of jobs, enormous tax benefits and better delivery of cheap China crap (sorry Tom, manufacturing ain't coming back to the USA and if it does, robotics will be the driver on those rare occasions). On the other side is the impact on traffic (rail, truck and car), the environmental impact which covers a half a dozen areas (with water resources being the most visible), and the quality of life for those living around and near it.

Some folks win, some folks lose. The paradigm has shifted folks and the apparent winners coming out of the BBB will become abundantly clear over the next several years. Nope, no interest in a political debate, i'll patiently wait for the results to prove who was/is being rewarded and who the biggest losers will be. I know this, the billionaires will have even more billions...not sure how that helps the greater good?

Let me give you an example and why any of this matters: We know AI and data centers take enormous amount of energy/electricity. I could post related articles, but the reality is, all of our electric costs will explode as data centers gobble 10 fold what we personally use. Some states are already working hard to shift costs back on consumers. Sure AI is our future, but like everything; at what cost? And i mean that across the many specters it covers.

This discourse really set me scrambling. Here's why; my good friend Tom just wrote these words: "Sprawl isn't inherently "bad" or "good." Its impacts depend on how it's managed. Smart growth policies—like mixed-use developments, efficient public transit, and green space preservation—can mitigate negatives while retaining benefits."

Good golly Miss Molly, don't let your close friends on the right read those words brother; you'll be kicked from the movement. Some of that statement could easily have come from the keyboard of one of those dreaded West Coast "elitists." Maybe there is hope after all. Said in good fun eh?

Anyway, Dave's right, part and parcel of this debate has to be what kind of incentives will the BNSF be looking for? Sadly, most building projects of any size are looking for state handouts, tax breaks or whatever else the state, county or federal government will throw at them. In this discussion, if water isn't factored into the decisions, we've all been shortchanged.

We all have heard about the 100 year rule regarding water rights and to this day, i/many/most of us have no idea what that means or how in the world every new development somehow produces said agreement. Especially given we (Sun City) are being told to spend 30 plus million dollars on desert landscaping on our golf courses. I know, dumb; but that's where we are at.

In the end, thanks for joining the discussion. In a day and age when we are told what to believe, it's refreshing to see a legitimate discussion on the merits, not simply picking red or blue sides.

 

Not looking for a pissing contest Bill, but many products have a high potential for returning to U.S. manufacturing include electronics, which consists of semiconductors, EV batteries, as well as medical equipment, automotive parts, select consumer goods, not to mention pharmaceuticals!

Yeah, that's a question I've been asking for a long time! Seems to me that many builders would/could be drawing from the same aquifer, but if the builders are in different municipalities, how is that being monitored on the broader basis rather than on a local basis?

Just say'n!

 

This is a start and they are in talks about the IPhone

Apple will spend more than $500 billion in the U.S. over the next four years - Apple

 

Thanks Tom. This is an example of what I'm looking for - specific benefits applied to real people. But urban sprawl was a tangential argument against O&T's "all building is good".
With regard to BNSF hub, I'm still hearing general, non-specific, irrelevant reasons for support. If BNSF wanted to build the hub in an already industrialized zone, near an existing high unemployment area - I would be all for it. But these people are asking for a zoning change. It would be nice if the politicians running things had a little more respect for the people who moved here and bought land/homes here based on the environment at the time. If I had wanted to live surrounded by industry I would have bought a home in Detroit. But I didn't. I bought one here. So the bottom line is: since BNSF is asking for a zoning change then they should be required to supply some significant, specific benefits for me (us) because they are effecting our way of life. I (nor any of us) need a job; thinking our taxes will go down is a pipe dream; I can't find a single reason why that hub positioned there is of benefit to the people that already occupy this space and had (have) an expectation that that land zoned as "rural residential" wouldn't/shouldn't/couldn't change to "industrial". Ok, I've beaten this poor dead horse enough

 

Been going on forever. My family lived in a rural area outside of Chicago. Each home had over an acre of land. In 1960 it was decided that the country road needed to be a super highway. My family and others were forced to move.

 

To both jeb and Eileen's point and concerns, every question must be answered before any vote is taken. There's dozens of reasons for residents to be concerned and none of them can be satisfied with promises that some day those concerns will be resolved. Sorry, but the idea tax dollars are a good enough reason to ruin the tranquility of our communities doesn't cut it.

Anyone who has driven from Sun City to Vegas on Hway 60 knows how much vacant land is sitting there before getting to US 93. I suspect the RR wants closer proximity to a work force with the kind of numbers they will need. That said, pushing further west seems far more logical.