Subject: Re: Yesterday's Call
From: "Nell McGarity" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, "Alex Slater" <[email-masked]>, "Hilary Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:42:47 -0400

Hi Virginia-

Following yesterday's call, we further examined the cases of FTA's involvement in the New York/New Jersey and Oakland projects to see if we could make a broader case against the FTA as a heavy-handed aggressor against local agencies and businesses, as you and Tomar suggested. The problem with conflating the three projects we discussed-Houston, Oakland, and New York/New Jersey-as the basis for an anti-FTA argument is that, in each of these cases, the FTA's involvement can be more easily construed as a consumer agency looking out for American taxpayers than as a government bureaucracy stifling business and innovation.  It is our belief that CAF USA's opposition to the FTA on these projects would be counterproductive.

In the cases of Houston and Oakland, the FTA is on the side of popular laws and programs: in Houston, the issue is Buy American, and in Oakland, it is the Civil Rights Act. In opposing the FTA's decision in Oakland, CAF USA risks painting itself as opposed to the Civil Rights Act, which is an extremely popular landmark law. If you place yourself in opposition to the FTA in Oakland, you run a very high risk of CAF USA being portrayed as pro-business at the expense of civil rights.

The situation in New York/New Jersey is slightly more nuanced, but the FTA is still seen as a reasonable actor in the debate. Having offered the opportunity for renegotiation, DOT seemed to be going out of their way to help New York/New Jersey contain their own costs. The most important distinction to be made is that the FTA was willing to help with a budgeting issue to save taxpayers money, whereas the issue in Houston was one of compliance with federal law.

All of this is not to say by any means that there are no options left to you.  However, we do want to ensure that any avenues we take in terms of communication on your behalf have the potential to be productive, and we want to avoid engaging you in a conversation that will be detrimental to your company. We will be more than happy to explore other options with you, but at this time we do not believe that the thoughts we discussed would best serve your interests.

That being said, we have reached out to the press on the letter issue, and we will touch base with you soon.

Nell McGarity |Vice President, Public Affairs | SKDKnickerbocker
202.464.6913 (O) | 202.262.0721 (C) | [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
1818 N Street NW, Suite 450, Washington DC 20036