Terrence Wall Makes Big U-turn on Rail
Wall Supported Rail Projects Before He Opposed Them
MADISON – As high-speed rail – funded by the Recovery Act – is set to come to Wisconsin, Terrence Wall, the multimillionaire, Republican U.S. Senate candidate and former supporter of rail has flip-flopped on trains and has made an abrupt u-turn about the potential of rail projects in our state.
“Terrence Wall has yet again proven his inability to shoot straight with the voters,” said Mike Tate, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. “Whether it’s his constantly shifting excuses for not paying income taxes, or hiding his failed runs for public office, it’s clear Terrence Wall will say anything that he thinks will get him elected.”
In the June 2007 edition of In Business magazine, an article by Wall titled “Surprise! Wall’s argument for commuter rail,” details his support for commuter rail. From Wall’s op-ed:
“…I do support Kathleen Falk’s commuter rail proposal. …Some people say that commuter rail won’t work and people won’t ride it. Well let me tell you different. When I worked in London during my summer internship with Prudential in 1988, I rode the rail line every day to work. Not only was riding the rail convenient, I didn’t have to fight traffic or pay for expensive parking… Riding the rail just became second nature… Commuter rail stations located on the periphery would also promote economic development, including retail, housing and office space, which would add to the city’s tax base and anchor neighborhoods… Of course there are the added side benefits to commuter rail as well, like less vehicle pollution, fewer beltline traffic deaths, less traffic hassles, and less sprawl.”
Yet in his column in this month’s edition of In Business, Wall rails against rail. He details his opposition to high-speed and commuter trains, and consistently contradicts his 2007 article – calling rail less “convenient.”
“Flip-flopping seems to be a regular theme for the Republicans running in the primary for U.S. Senate,” said Tate. “Being for something, before you were against it isn’t usually a tactic voters appreciate.”