logo
Porter County Council member sponsors signs against tolls on highways

Porter County Council member sponsors signs against tolls on highways

Chicago Tribune09-03-2025
Porter County Council Vice President Red Stone, R-1st, is taking his displeasure with the idea of Indiana's interstates becoming toll roads to the people by paying for opposition billboards in the region.
The Republican-controlled Indiana House approved House Bill 1461 by a vote of 72 to 21 and referred it to the Indiana Senate Feb. 21. Sponsored by State Rep. Jim Pressel, R-Rolling Prairie, the bill would give authority to Gov. Mike Braun to pursue federal authorization for tolling.
The digest of the bill on the state legislative website reads: 'Allows the Indiana department of transportation (department) to submit a request to the Federal Highway Administration for a waiver to toll lanes on interstate highways. Provides that, if such a request for a waiver is granted, the general assembly is not required to enact a statute for the IFA to carry out certain activities related to the toll road project.'
Braun voted in favor of the first iteration of the statute in 2017 when he was a member of the house. Former Gov. Eric Holcomb did not act on it. The current version of the bill removes a requirement that interstates not be tolled if located within 75 miles of an existing tollway like the Indiana Toll Road.
The bold yellow and black billboards read: 'Attention Hoosiers New Tolls Equals Highway Robbery!!' with 'Paid for by Red Stone' along the bottom. A digital sign on Interstate 94 by Burr Street in Lake County flashes the message every nine seconds, while a double-sided billboard on Indiana 49 in Chesterton near Strack & VanTil is also up, soon to be joined by others at the corner of Calumet Avenue and Indian Boundary Road in Chesterton, and Interstate 65 in Porter County.
'Somebody had to do it,' Stone said of the billboards he's paying for, 'because I feel so strongly about the issues. In my opinion, they're going to toll it and they're going to sell it and the money goes downstate and Northwest Indiana doesn't see a dime.
'It's going to hurt blue-collar people. It's going to hurt everybody, actually. Blue collar. White collar. And I just want downstate to be aware.'
Stone said his opposition is by no means a condemnation of Pressel. 'I think Jim was just giving the governor the option of the whole state,' Stone said of the bill. Pressel, who represents portions of LaPorte and Starke counties and chairs the Roads and Transportation Committee, did not respond to an interview request.
Porter County Board of Commissioners President Jim Biggs, R-North, thanked Stone for his efforts in a Facebook post Feb. 28. He not only said polling Indiana residents who had already paid to build and maintain local interstate highways was a poor idea but offered up a suggestion for the complicated need for more funding moving forward.
'State lawmakers need to take advantage of today's huge technological advancements and install a system that only charges out-of-state drivers for the benefit of driving on our busiest state highways, and if that's not possible, then charge our residents less,' he wrote in his post. 'If our state universities can do it, then why not INDOT?'
While some states do have differing rates for in- and out-of-state drivers, none charge for only out-of-state drivers. Michael Simpson, who just retired after 12 years as chair of the Porter County Republicans, isn't worried.
'It's not a fait accompli. It's not, 'Hey, we're going to toll the roads tomorrow.' Personally, I think we need to look at other avenues for our roads. I don't have an opinion unless the governor decides to do it.'
Stone said he's heard figures that the majority of Northwest Indiana's interstate highway drivers are not Hoosiers. He said there's been a flood of feedback in support of his signage and hasn't heard of anyone supporting more tolling. 'Everybody in Northwest Indiana does not want tolls. The people do not want this and that's a fact.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Great State Government Return-to-Office U-Turn
The Great State Government Return-to-Office U-Turn

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

The Great State Government Return-to-Office U-Turn

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) banned remote work for state employees in March. By June, he was signing a bill that allowed it again. This stunning reversal in just three months tells you everything you need to know about the new reality of government work. The Texas about-face isn't an isolated incident. It's part of a fascinating pattern playing out in state capitals across America, where rigid return-to-office mandates are collapsing under the weight of economic reality and employee resistance. What started as executive orders demanding compliance has evolved into nuanced negotiations that treat office attendance as currency. California's Gavin Newsom escalated from two-day to four-day office requirements, only to watch unions trade away salary increases to keep their flexibility. Indiana's new governor included 'limited exceptions' in his return-to-office order from Day 1, signaling that negotiation had always been the endgame. The numbers driving these reversals are impossible to ignore. When California saved $700 million by downsizing office space and Texas discovered that remote work actually boosted productivity while slashing turnover, the economic argument for forcing everyone back to their desks evaporated. This transformation reveals a new playbook in which location has become as negotiable as salary. The speed of Texas's reversal deserves closer examination. When Abbott issued his executive order in March banning telework for state agencies, he positioned it as a matter of principle. State workers needed to be in state buildings, he said, serving Texans directly. The rhetoric was forceful, the timeline immediate. Yet within weeks, the facade began cracking under operational strain. State agencies that had already downsized their physical footprints suddenly faced the prospect of scrambling for office space. Parking lots that had been decommissioned would need resurrection. And employees who had restructured their lives around remote work began polishing their resumes for private-sector opportunities. The bipartisan rebellion that followed wasn't driven by ideology but by data. Texas's own productivity study showed that remote work hadn't just maintained service levels — it had actually improved them while dramatically reducing employee turnover. When Republican Rep. Giovanni Capriglione introduced House Bill 5196 to let agencies set their own remote policies, he wasn't making a statement about worker rights. He was acknowledging mathematical reality. Abbott's signature on the bill in June represents more than a policy reversal. It's an admission that top-down mandates can't override bottom-up economics. But while Texas stumbled into reversal through legislative intervention, California's governor appears to be playing a more sophisticated game. His journey from two-day office requirements to a four-day mandate might look like escalation, but the emerging pattern suggests something more strategic. When the Professional Engineers in California Government secured their one-year reprieve from the four-day requirement, they paid for it with salary concessions. Days later, the attorneys' union struck a remarkably similar deal. Newsom's mandate created leverage where none had existed before. SEIU Local 1000's lawsuit challenging the order cites the state's savings of 'at least $700 million' from office downsizing — money that would evaporate if 95,000 hybrid workers actually showed up four days a week. The California Department of General Services has shed 1.2 million square feet of Sacramento office space, a 14 percent reduction that represents real taxpayer savings. Reversing that efficiency would require a real estate shopping spree at precisely the moment California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. The genius lies in how the mandate functions as a negotiating tool. Unions that might have held firm on salary increases suddenly found themselves trading compensation for commute time. The Professional Engineers accepted mandatory unpaid time off that effectively negates their 3 percent raise for two years. In both cases, the unions prioritized flexibility over pay, revealing just how valuable remote work has become to their members. These reversals illuminate a broader transformation in how governments value physical presence versus actual productivity. When Gallup research indicates that flexible work arrangements can cut attrition by 50 percent, and when replacing skilled professionals costs between half and twice their annual salary, the mathematics of mandatory office attendance stop adding up. Indiana's new governor, Mike Braun, seems to be taking notes from both states with his executive order requiring state workers back by July 2025 but leaving 'limited exceptions' for ongoing negotiations. For public-sector unions, this new reality requires strategy. The California engineers and attorneys who accepted pay concessions to maintain remote work flexibility made a calculated bet that their members value time and autonomy over marginal salary increases. They are establishing that workplace flexibility has become a fundamental term of employment that can't be altered by executive fiat. The return-to-office reversals sweeping through state governments represent acknowledgments that the fundamental nature of work has changed. We are witnessing the emergence of a new employment paradigm where location flexibility has become as negotiable as wages and benefits. The smart leaders are those who recognized that physical presence has become a bargaining chip, valuable precisely because employees prize flexibility so highly. Rather than squander political capital on unenforceable mandates, they are trading flexibility for concessions that actually improve their states' fiscal positions. The organizations that thrive will be those that recognize flexibility not as a perk to be revoked, but as a strategic asset to be thoughtfully deployed. Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller' Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.'

Seattle city attorney candidates clash over crime policy
Seattle city attorney candidates clash over crime policy

Axios

time20 minutes ago

  • Axios

Seattle city attorney candidates clash over crime policy

A competitive four-way race pits Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison against three challengers who say her approach is too punitive and fails to address the root causes of crime. Why it matters: The Aug. 5 primary will decide which two candidates move on to the November general election. Context: The city attorney prosecutes misdemeanors and helps shape the city's criminal justice policies, while representing the city in civil cases. State of play: Davison, who was elected in 2021, faces three opponents, all running to her left. Although the city attorney role is nonpartisan, Davison ran for statewide office as a Republican in 2020. All of her opponents identify as Democrats. Zoom in: Former U.S. assistant attorney Erika Evans left her job as a federal prosecutor earlier this year, citing opposition to Justice Department changes under President Trump. Nathan Rouse, a public defender who previously worked in private practice, has made ending cash bail for low-level offenses a key piece of his campaign platform. And Rory O'Sullivan, who represents workers seeking unemployment benefits, says his work on Seattle's Democracy Voucher program and successful ranked-choice voting push show he can help deliver big reforms. What they're saying: All three challengers disagree with Davison's 2023 decision to shut down Seattle's community court, which offered people resources and a chance to get their cases dismissed. They've emphasized the need for additional services — such as housing and drug treatment — to help reduce recidivism. They also have criticized Davison's push to create "stay out" zones that ban people accused of prostitution or drug offenses from certain areas, calling the policy ineffective. The other side: Davison said her efforts have helped "eliminate open air drug markets" and combat sex trafficking, particularly on Aurora Avenue North. Between the lines: While campaigning, Davison has emphasized ways she's opposed Trump, including joining a lawsuit over the administration's threats to cut funding to cities that don't comply with federal immigration enforcement. The big picture: It's unusual to have a four-way primary race that's this competitive, political consultant Crystal Fincher told Axios. All three challengers are credible and "could have a really good shot" at beating Davison in the general election, she said.

Trump endorses GOP senator years after asserting 'I will never endorse this jerk again'
Trump endorses GOP senator years after asserting 'I will never endorse this jerk again'

Fox News

time25 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Trump endorses GOP senator years after asserting 'I will never endorse this jerk again'

Print Close By Alex Nitzberg Published July 22, 2025 After lambasting GOP Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota in 2022 and vowing that he would never endorse the lawmaker again, President Donald Trump issued a full-throated endorsement of the incumbent Republican senator in a Truth Social post on Monday. Trump previously endorsed Rounds in 2020, but then excoriated the senator in 2022 after Rounds appeared on ABC's "This Week" and described the 2020 election as "fair." "'Senator' Mike Rounds of the Great State of South Dakota just went woke on the Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020," Trump declared at the beginning of a lengthy statement in January 2022. GOP SENATOR INVITES TRUMP TO 'AN APPRECIATION EVENT LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN' IN DEEP-RED STATE "Even though his election will not be coming up for 5 years, I will never endorse this jerk again," Trump later said in the statement. "The Radical Left Democrats and RINOS, like 'Senator' Mike Rounds, do not make it easy for our Country to succeed. He is a weak and ineffective leader, and I hereby firmly pledge that he will never receive my endorsement again!" Trump asserted in that statement several years ago. But in an about-face, Trump has endorsed Rounds for re-election. US CAN'T CUT CHINA OFF COMPLETELY, BUT MUST DEFEND AI AND AMERICAN INNOVATION FROM NONSTOP THEFT: SEN ROUNDS In a Monday Truth Social post, the president called the senator "An America First Patriot," declaring, "Mike Rounds has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election – HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!" Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on Tuesday morning but did not receive a response by the time of publication. TRUMP BLASTS MASSIE AS 'THE WORST REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN' AND SAYS HE'S SEEKING A CHALLENGER TO SUPPORT CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Rounds thanked Trump for the endorsement on Monday in posts on X, adding, "I look forward to working with you to make America even better!" Print Close URL

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store