Calendar
Retailers
Stack & Reach
Custom Geometry Calculator (beta)
More To Come...
MAIN
INDEX
RULES &
LEGEND
LOG
IN
Search
this forum
this category
all forums
for
All words
Any words
Whole Phrase
(
options
)
Newsletter Signup
Slowtwitch Forums
:
Lavender Room
:
America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing"
1
2
View All
Tri Forum
Classifieds
Lavender Room
Jobs
The Womens
Print Thread
tri_bri2
Jul 1, 08 11:34
Post #26 of 33 (179 views)
Re: America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing" [fitzie]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Well, I just finished driving over 4,000 miles round trip between Florida and Colorado, through AL, MS, LA, TX, and NM, and I can certify that there is a CRAP LOAD of fixin' going on! In fact, every where I went, it seemed they were fixing something. I have been driving through nothing but repair projects back and forth to work every day for the last five years. If we aren't fixing things, you couldn't prove it by me.
Tridiot
Jul 1, 08 11:43
Post #27 of 33 (176 views)
Re: America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing" [MJuric]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I honestly don't see much difference between "
campaign money, political favors, equal access and finally votes" and "
votes first via the dollars spent". It's just as easy to bribe companies as it is (if not easier due to lack of oversight) to brib government.
People aren't willing to pay for things they actually need until they need them, and this is where government steps in, because the public infrastructure is what is important ahead of time. And in these situations we actually need a government that can wisely plan and spend for these things, often in conflict with what the public might say they want.
I'd be ok with narrowing the scope of the government, but it has to be wisely done obviously. And as much as people view big/small government as a political spectrum viewpoint issue, when in doubt, everyone looks to the government when the stuff hits the fan.
peter826
Jul 1, 08 11:51
Post #28 of 33 (171 views)
Re: America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing" [TwinDad]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
I'd love to get an annual budget summary from the city with a pie chart or two showing that I'm paying $145/yr for parks, $300/yr for this, $750/yr for that, and $500/yr for the other. It could be a single page, and the numbers could be %'s so that it's a mass mailing instead of individualized.
You know what, I've got a friend who's running for city council this year. I think I'm going to suggest it to him as a platform item. I'll probably tell my councilman as well (I'm not in my friend's district).
We get this sort of information on our property tax bill here. A pie chart broken into percentages. IIRC, 50% schools, 25% welfare, public safety is pretty high. Don't recall what parks are. Libraries are 3%, I remember that.
MJuric
Jul 1, 08 12:20
Post #29 of 33 (163 views)
Re: America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing" [Tridiot]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
I honestly don't see much difference between "
campaign money, political favors, equal access and finally votes" and "
votes first via the dollars spent".
It's just as easy to bribe companies as it is (if not easier due to lack of oversight) to brib government.
Ok let's use the the "Park" example. Let's say there are 10 parks in a city located at different area's. There is a law in place saying that the parks are to remain parks under any circumstances.
Now we have two choices, parks run by a private company or parks run by government.
A private company gets it funding via private donations or membership dues or some admission. Leaving the "Bribe" aspect out of it as that almost purely speculative, a private company is beholden only too it's patrons and funders. Most likely the bulk of the funds will come from admissions and in order to continue to get these funds or increase these funds they must keep their customers happy.
OTOH government simply strives to keep their customers happy, but their funding is not directly related to their customers happiness. The parks could become completely run down, unused and worthless and the tax dollars will continue to be present at the same level as if the parks were being run at the highest order. Sure the "customers" can vote for new representation but in most cases this doesn't affect the funds going to various factions of government, other than a few pet projects and a slight "Party shift".
Maybe I just see business as operating completely differently than government, most likely because I'm in business and end up dealing with the government :-)
People aren't willing to pay for things they actually need until they need them, and this is where government steps in, because the public infrastructure is what is important ahead of time.
But people NEED roads, want parks etc. I would pay more for a road that is better up kept because it enhances my driving efficiency and saves my car.
I think we are still stuck with government as far as initial road development, if for no other reason than I'm pretty sure I don't want a company to have the power of emminant domain...of course I'm on the fence as to whether government should have it. However once the roads are in place I see no reason why they can't be maintained by a private company. For the most part we do this however the private company is working for the government rather than directly for the people. Most of the "holding the feet to the fire" has no effect on the company doing the work and well...government really doesn't give a crap because they don't have to. They will get your money no matter what.
And in these situations we actually need a government that can wisely plan and spend for these things, often in conflict with what the public might say they want.
I don't disagree with this. I'm not sure you could have any large "Public" works projects put on by private companies. But once these projects are finished I think they can and probably should be privately maintained.
And as much as people view big/small government as a political spectrum viewpoint issue, when in doubt, everyone looks to the government when the stuff hits the fan.
Not everyone and I think this is not only the wrong approach but a "Learned" approach. I'd guess you'd have two very different results from a poll in 1950 on how much people depend on government than you would today. I guess in a sense this is my entire point. People are relying more and more on government in areas that maybe they shouldn't be.
~Matt
Old and Haggard
Jul 1, 08 12:23
Post #30 of 33 (159 views)
Re: America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing" [BarryP]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
In Reply To
Maybe we should go back to having tolls and insurance cover everything? House on fire? Pay a fee. Someone break into your house? Hope he doesn't steal any money, because how are you going to pay the police? I'm still waiting for all those who supported the invasion of Iraq to come up with the money to pay for it.
I read a science fiction short story a long time ago about an alien (yet very human) civilization didn't use money, but bartered everything. When there was a fire at the local brewery, everyone and their brother tried to get on the fire truck.
-----------------------------------
Ken Lehner
"reread klenher [sic] and pretty much skip the rest." - desert dude 5/25/2008
MJuric
Jul 1, 08 12:31
Post #31 of 33 (154 views)
Re: America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing" [tri_bri2]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
Northern Illinois, two seasons, winter....and road construction season.
~Matt
Tridiot
Jul 1, 08 12:56
Post #32 of 33 (146 views)
Re: America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing" [MJuric]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
What would happen in your first example is that the park that started out with a wide array of offerings to the public would quickly be changed into an all tennis or golf facility, because those offer the highest premium of price for the square footage. So one can make the argument that we should allow this, and for the majority of other parks to be converted in this nature by businesses, because it is what the public demands.
But what Parks departments actually do is balance the market demand for profitable services with the intent of most communities to have a wide array of offerings. So yes, it might not be very popular to have an extensive network of trails, the county chooses to have these because it is in the best interest of the public.
There are many models similar to what you are talking about, and what most (specific to the parks example) have found is that when you strip the profit making parks offerings from the system, you are left with all the stuff that is not self-funding. And then no one wants taxes to go to it. And then those offerings get closed. And then a few years later people wonder why there aren't public parks that are readily accessible to the poor or handicapped.
I'm not disagreeing with you that people turn to the government in areas they shouldn't, as that's not what I brought up. I'm talking about large scale catastrophes. When the Great Depression hit, there were some number of charities that were able to fill in the gap that the companies no longer could fill (giving free food to the poor isn't really a great business model I believe you'll agree). But on the whole, it takes a coordinated central government to fill this role, so be able to bear the burden of the budget deficit to respond etc. Same goes for the infrastructure. And I believe we are in agreement in that area.
MJuric
Jul 1, 08 13:19
Post #33 of 33 (136 views)
Re: America's aging infrastructure: "The Cracks are Showing" [Tridiot]
[
In reply to
]
Can't Post
What would happen in your first example is that the park that started out with a wide array of offerings to the public would quickly be changed into an all tennis or golf facility, because those offer the highest premium of price for the square footage.
Again I would say that there would be need to limit and control the level and type of usage. In short you're not going to hand over the public lands to private companies and then expect them to keep them parks. you'll hand over a specific type of park and expect the business to be the "Curator or parks". It would be up to them to operate them profitably and within certain guidelines to be agreed upon before hand.
I'd suspect any business taking on the job or quoting on the job would be able to say they could operate profitably or not based on the criteria.
And then a few years later people wonder why there aren't public parks that are readily accessible to the poor or handicapped.
And the answer is because it wasn't being used enough to be supported, which is my point. Government will keep parks open as to "Not to offend" or as you put it "
to have a wide array of offerings." even if those offerings are a complete money sink.
I'm a big fan of parks, but I can't see everyone paying 100$ a year just so that I can have 100 miles of trails I can run and ride on once twice a week, doesn't make any sense. A business wouldn't make that kind of decision and would tell me I'm SOL or expect me to pay a membership fee that would cover the cost, government will not.
That is how the market works and government doesn't. The public may demand something and more than likely the government will give it to them whether it's economically feasible or not. OTOH the public may demand that Best Buy carry tuna fish, but they won't unless their customers make it profitable.
Maybe I'm just saying it's high time government starts saying "Nope you can't have that it doesn't make economic sense"...but I'm much more comfortable in the idea that business will say this before government will.
I'm talking about large scale catastrophes.
I would agree that in a general basis that many times government is good at dealing with VERY LARGE scale problems. Economic collapses, major infrastructure projects, catastrophes, trips to the moon etc. However the only reason this is true is because the US government is the US's largest corporation AND it's pretty much a monopoly.
OTOH the first responders to catastrophes is often private organizations and if memory serves the first relief supplies delivered to the victims of Katrina were delivered by none other than Walmart :-)
I'm certainly not saying that government has no place in these things as for the most part government is integral. I'm just saying government has their finger in too many pots and in many cases I think the public would be better served dealing directly with the companies doing the work rather than a middle man.
~Matt
1
2
View All
Print Thread
MAIN
RULES &
LOG
