[Funny] Arizona wants it's state capitol back...
- Thread starter DarkAudit
- Start date
- Status
Heh, actually I'm not worried about that. Our state constitution supposedly guarantees public access
Could you explain for me? Not sure I follow on that.
ElJuski
Staff member
Well, when all that shit started boiling up, I was so for the protesting of your hack governor. Although since I moved out of Chicago I stopped paying regular attention to what's been going on in my ex-neighbor state, I still definitely support the process of protesting a redress of government, even if I find many of the protesters themselves to be...equally lacking.
Necronic
Staff member
Wow these guys were stupid. This is the kind of "small government" mentallity that makes me cringe. Everything has to be leased or contracted out to other workers, god forbid the government own anything. Up to and including the capitol buildings themselves.
And I mean....consider the conflicts of interest that this will raise, not owning the property you use to develop the policy of the state.
Arizona: The Next Florida.
And I mean....consider the conflicts of interest that this will raise, not owning the property you use to develop the policy of the state.
Arizona: The Next Florida.
They need to investigate. $21 million profit on owning the building for a little over a year, not to mention the rent collected in that time.
Wash my back...
Wash my back...
I'm just about as small-government-loving as you can get in Canada and not live in the middle of nowhere (like my wife's Uncle... seriously, he has a place 100% off the grid down a dirt (not gravel) "road" an hour-ish from the highway ), and one of those tenets of small-government and more private ownership is well... ownership. That it's a good thing. And thus the government would run (and own) its own resources if reasonable to do so. This example of leasing the buildings... is just pretty stupid. Similar to whenever I see "Public-Private Partnerships" I hear "pay less today, but pay way MORE in the long run." It's just not financially sound. Thus buildings and such should almost-certainly be owned by the government. Contract for cleaning/upkeep/maintenance? Ya, probably, but the land/buildings themselves? Definitely should be publicly owned.
There's other areas that are grey IMO. One example would be snow removal (a big deal in most cities in Canada). Should the city have enough snowploughs for the snowstorm of the century always on-hand, along with enough people on-call for such an event? No, they shouldn't IMO, as most winters that would be a complete waste. Should they have enough for the typical once-a-week dump of snow? Ya, probably. But when you get beyond that (dump of the season let's say), have contractors available to pick up the slack. You pay them for days needed, but not beyond. A small "core" force of workers (and equipment) is owned and operated by the city (county, or whatever), but your reserve is private on-demand. Contracted ahead-of-time sure (to get competitive bids) and so you're not screaming day-of and they can charge whatever they want, but not costing money when not used either.
Btw, on the whole "Public-Private Partnerships" thing (called "PPPs" sometimes), they're usually to get some type of expensive infrastructure (bridges, hospitals, whatever) up in places that need them, but they don't have the money for right now. So they use the PPP concept to say that they're not deficit-spending, when they really are. They essentially still are (the private corp they're contracting with is almost-certainly getting a loan), but not SAYING they are, and neither is it on the government's books. And c'mon, what government in relatively good standing couldn't get a better loan rate than the average construction company? Of course they could, so PPPs are just a big scam to not SAY they're running a deficit, when they really are, and paying a worse rate at the same time.
There's other areas that are grey IMO. One example would be snow removal (a big deal in most cities in Canada). Should the city have enough snowploughs for the snowstorm of the century always on-hand, along with enough people on-call for such an event? No, they shouldn't IMO, as most winters that would be a complete waste. Should they have enough for the typical once-a-week dump of snow? Ya, probably. But when you get beyond that (dump of the season let's say), have contractors available to pick up the slack. You pay them for days needed, but not beyond. A small "core" force of workers (and equipment) is owned and operated by the city (county, or whatever), but your reserve is private on-demand. Contracted ahead-of-time sure (to get competitive bids) and so you're not screaming day-of and they can charge whatever they want, but not costing money when not used either.
Btw, on the whole "Public-Private Partnerships" thing (called "PPPs" sometimes), they're usually to get some type of expensive infrastructure (bridges, hospitals, whatever) up in places that need them, but they don't have the money for right now. So they use the PPP concept to say that they're not deficit-spending, when they really are. They essentially still are (the private corp they're contracting with is almost-certainly getting a loan), but not SAYING they are, and neither is it on the government's books. And c'mon, what government in relatively good standing couldn't get a better loan rate than the average construction company? Of course they could, so PPPs are just a big scam to not SAY they're running a deficit, when they really are, and paying a worse rate at the same time.
Depends on the city for this one. I know for a fact that one Chicago mayor regretted not having adequate snow removal during a week long snow storm.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up Juski. While I find a lot of the protesters in the OWS movement thing to be distasteful (and perhaps a bit hypocritical), generally this state doesn't throw a fit unless it is deserved. I would, however, like to see the Milwaukee Teachers Union reformed quite a bit. That is one corrupt bass-ackwards organization.
I mean that there needs to be a plan for the removal, but it doesn't need to be all city-owned. Hence my contracting "backup" stuff. Plan for the average, and keep that kind of force in-house to keep costs reasonable (hopefully), but keep the "oh shit" amount on-hand through 3rd-parties to hopefully keep costs down the other 95% of the time.
ElJuski
Staff member
I should probably dig a little bit more into the Milwaukee Teachers Union before I get defensive, but I'll say this, I always get a bit in a stir when people try to fuck with those of my profession, good sir.
AYE!?
Generally I'm in favor of the teacher's unions. I think there are some problem areas, but for the most part they do good work.
I can vouch for MPS teachers. On the whole, it's a pretty messed-up system. Probably contributed to Kim Il Walker's dislike of unions in general. That and the whole pension scandal stuff is why I'm sitting up here in snow-bound North Central Wisconsin typing this instead of that condo I used to own back in Waukesha.
- Status