Mike Quigley: “This amendment, which would very broadly prohibit funding for transit-oriented development, ``so-called'' because that…”

“This amendment, which would very broadly prohibit funding for transit-oriented development, ``so-called'' because that is what it is called, is yet another example of vague and sweeping overreach. Communities in all of our districts rely on flexible HUD and DOT funding to close the gap on critical housing, transportation, and community infrastructure projects. Yet, this amendment would limit a recipient's ability to locally pursue different projects to determine where and how the community wants to invest. Cities, towns, and suburban areas may pursue transit-oriented development, which is simply an approach to urban development that aligns housing, commercial, and transit development for a variety of reasons unique to that community. If a community wants to pair housing and transit development to save costs, reduce traffic congestion, increase access to essential goods and services, attract businesses, or connect Americans to good jobs, the Federal Government should not prohibit them from doing so. Mr. Chairman, I find this place amusing in that we are for States' rights until we are not. We are Federalists until we are not. Apparently, it just depends on where you stand on an issue rather than whether they really believe in local jurisdictions having control over their own destinies.…”