I-495 administrative (administration) fee scam Part 4

IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HOUNDED BY TRANSURBAN FOR HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, OR IF THEY'VE ALREADY GOTTEN A JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU -- or if you are just mad because they are asking you to pay a $12.50 administration fee for an obvious mistaken entry --  please read through the comments below, and email Lisa Marie Comras (lmsdigiulio@gmail.com), who is organizing a class action against Transurban.  Her attorneys will contact you and then you'll be able to decide for yourself whether you want to be part of the move to hold Transurban accountable.

According to Emily Miller of Fox 5 DC, Transurban filed 26,000 lawsuits against drivers in 2014 alone.  Maybe you're one of those drivers.  If you're facing an immediate court date, you might find some good ideas here or here, courtesy of attorney David Bernhard, via Fox 5 DC's Emily Miller.  But when that's over, you should still strongly consider joining the class action.

Original Post

It looks like this is the blog that people go to to complain about Transurban's predatory "administration fee" for wrong-turn drivers on the I-495 express lanes.  There are a number of stories here:  http://pricefixer.blogspot.com/2013/06/ive-posted-about-i-495-express-lanes-on.html

For what it's worth, a good number of people are already mad about sending toll money to Australia (TransUrban is an Australian Company), and are avoiding using the express lanes for that reason.  Here's a relatively recent story; see the comments for the people's views:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/17/not-so-fast-use-of-495-express-lanes-in-virginia-f/?page=all

The story indicates that Transurban is not making as much money as expected from tolls -- usage is low.  The assumption is that there is a slow "ramp up" for people to get accustomed to the idea of using this kind of lane.  That's certainly possible, but I can name a few people now who would probably rather just sit in traffic than pay even a dollar or two to a company that charges a $12.50 "administration fee" for first-time "offenders."

Perhaps their real money comes from the repeat offenders (e.g., people who have moved and are not receiving their mail) -- for every offense after the first offense, the fee is $25.00, and before too long they take you to court, with you paying court costs.

It really brings us back to the whole question about phony capitalism.  Yes, I'm sure that Transurban got this concession based on some kind of a "competition" with other private companies.  But the "competition" was for the ability to have a monopoly, and now we the people -- for the next eternity -- have a privately owned, relatively unregulated monopolist on our hands.

I assume that the Virginia Legislature has retained some ability to control Transurban and prevent it from acting in a predatory manner.  Hopefully, the Legislature will do something like that.  Maybe we need to be writing to them.

Lobbyists -- the Ultimate Skimmers

It's probably been more than a year since I blogged about "skimmers" -- people who get rich in ways that typically benefit only themselves.  This was mainly in response to the Republican line that people who make a lot of money shouldn't be taxed because they are out there creating new products and jobs, etc.  My point was simply that that's a very small minority of rich people, and I did some work to show that with a few entrepreneurial exceptions, most high income people are simply skimmers -- people who are in the vicinity of large cash flows, and are able to grab a bit of it for themselves.  These people aren't typically making the world a better place; indeed, they are usually making it worse -- often they are rewarded for anti-social innovations like how to get consumers to pay more for less, how to help rich people reduce their taxes, etc., etc.

 I don't remember if I singled out lobbyists specifically -- as you'll see if you google for those posts (pricefixer skimmer) -- I feel that a lot high-income people meet this description.  But sure, lobbyists are one of the prime examples of people who get rich by doing things that the rest of us have every right to resent -- selling their government connections (gained while in so-called "public service) to the highest bidder.  Charles Lane in today's post has a good piece on this obvious problem:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-washington-cashes-in-on-connections/2014/01/06/2323019e-76f5-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html?algtrack=mixedrec-3&tid=btm_rex_3

He ends the piece like this, which pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say about skimmers:  "Instead of worrying about how much money rich people make, we should focus more on how they make it."

While on this topic, I should mention Peter Schweitzer's book "Extortion."  The basic theme is that really, it's not just lobbyists using their connections to politicians to get the politicians to vote the way they want.  In fact, more often it's the other way around -- the politicians calling and threatening the lobbyists that they will only vote the "right" way if the campaign cash comes through.  Sickening.

And my final thought for today:  Really, politicians benefited greatly from the Red Menace in that they could always say you don't want the country to fall into the wrong hands.  At that time, the obvious example of why communism didn't work -- and why we didn't want something like that here -- was the USSR.  But as we move further and further away in time from that worry, perhaps people -- a new generation that has not experienced the alternatives -- will start wondering, again, if our form of government really is the best.  We know it's the best money can buy, but does that really mean it's the one we the people want and deserve?

If there is a communist takeover, at least it won't have been sponsored by a corrupt totalitarian state like the former Soviet Union, but will instead (perhaps) be fomented and brought about by people who truly want what's best for the United States.  I'm not advocating that -- and I'm certainly not advocating communism as a model for economic success -- I'm just saying that at a certain point, our politicians might well receive a signal that it's time for them to clean up their act.  And maybe when that happens, we'll start getting truly civic-minded people to become politicians.