Toll Road Dominates Alabama GOP Race For Governor

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

The race for the Republican nomination for Alabama governor grew heated last week as a leading candidate faced questions over his involvement in a toll road deal. Tim James, 48, is running for the nod as a leading businessman and the son of former Governor Fob James, Jr. His opponent, Bradley Byrne, 55, is a former state senator and chancellor of the Alabama College System. Byrne and James traded verbal blows over the Foley Beach Express, a 13.5-mile four-lane route from the city of Foley to Orange Beach meant to bypass the congested Highway 59 for those willing to pay a $3.50 toll.

“We built this project — six miles of four-lane highway and a bridge — at no cost to taxpayers,” James boasts on his campaign website. “Then, we donated the expressway to Baldwin County. A multi-million-dollar gift to the taxpayers.”

James and business partner John McInnis formed the Baldwin County Bridge Company group in 1996 to line up the $44 million in capital costs for the road — $36 million of which came from toll bonds and $7.5 million came from Federal Highway Administration and city of Foley grants for the Foley Bypass. In 2005 James sold the bridge to Australia’s Macquarie Bank for $70 million.

“This is the way businessmen — entrepreneurs — think,” James said at a candidate forum in February. “This is the kind of innovation and out-of-the-box thinking we do in the private sector that we need to take into government.”

Byrne charged that James used his insider status as the son of the governor to cash in and make himself a millionaire from the deal. A 1996 law signed by Governor Fob James and a state contract signed just twelve days before leaving office made the project possible. Byrne also charged that the James campaign was being funded with profits from the deal in the form of $2.5 million in loans and contributions from McInnis.

“The fair question all Alabamians should ask is: Was Tim James’ financial success with the bridge project built on his business skills or on his political connections?” Byrne asked in a statement Friday.

James responded that since the taxpayer money used to fund the project was federal, his father’s influence played no role.

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 6 comments
  • Oberkanone Nope. No interest.
  • SilverCoupe Tim, you don't always watch F1 as you don't want to lose sleep? But these races are great for putting one to sleep!I kid (sort of). I DVR them, I watch them, I fast forward a lot. It was great to see Lando win one, I've been a fan of McLaren since their heyday in CanAm in the late '60's.
  • Cprescott The problem with this fable by the FTC is:(1) shipping of all kinds was hindered at ports because of COVID related issues;(2) The President shafted the Saudis by insulting them with a fist bump that torqued them off to no end;(3) Saudis announced unilateral production cuts repeatedly during this President's tenure even as he begged to get them to produce more;(4) We were told that we had record domestic production so that would have lowered prices due to increased supply(5) The President emptied the strategic petroleum reserve to the lowest point since the 1980's due to number 3 and then sold much of that to China.We have repeatedly been told that documents and emails are Russian disinformation so why now are we to believe this?
  • Ollicat Another Biden attempt to say, "Look over there!"
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh Who cares. Price of gas is not the issue. spending an extra 100$ a month over 4 tanks of gas is not the issue.this a political scam to distract really dumb people from the real issue. if rent and house payments were not up by 50% to as high as 150% higher in a ton of locations, then paying an extra 100$ in gas would be annoying but not really an issue. But the real-estate market with hedge fund investors, power-relator groups bought a ton of houses and flipped them into rentals and jacked up the rates uplifting the costs on everything else. and ironically no-one seems to be in any hurry to build more houses to bring those costs down because supply and demand means keeping less houses available to charge as much as you want. It is also not the issue as a secondary issue is child care costs and medical... again 100$ extra per month in gas is *nothing* compared to 800$ a month in ''child care'' and 300$ per visit to the doctor office, 300$ for a procedure less dentist trip..
Next