![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Essential services should not be privatized.
Think about it. Look at your phone company. Do they do a good job? Probably not. Would you like your water utility run on that model of efficiency and service? Yeah, I said your water.
Take a look at bill S1961, Section 103 (J)(1)(b). Okay, don't look, it's buried pretty deep. It says that a water project in your city cannot get federal funding unless your local government has considered privatizing your water utility. "So what?" you say. "Why don't they just say, 'Nope. We considered it and we don't like it.'" Well, to prove they have considered it, they must have corporations submit plans. And if a corporation has submitted a plan which is competitive with the current public situation, and the city turns it down, guess what? They can sue. And would probably win.
Its bad enough that I can't do whatever I goddam well please inside my own home because the bible tells me so, but now I can't do whatever I goddam well please inside my own home because the court tells me so. Fundamentalists on the right, corporations on the left. I'm in the middle and nothing but fucked.
Think about it. Look at your phone company. Do they do a good job? Probably not. Would you like your water utility run on that model of efficiency and service? Yeah, I said your water.
Take a look at bill S1961, Section 103 (J)(1)(b). Okay, don't look, it's buried pretty deep. It says that a water project in your city cannot get federal funding unless your local government has considered privatizing your water utility. "So what?" you say. "Why don't they just say, 'Nope. We considered it and we don't like it.'" Well, to prove they have considered it, they must have corporations submit plans. And if a corporation has submitted a plan which is competitive with the current public situation, and the city turns it down, guess what? They can sue. And would probably win.
Its bad enough that I can't do whatever I goddam well please inside my own home because the bible tells me so, but now I can't do whatever I goddam well please inside my own home because the court tells me so. Fundamentalists on the right, corporations on the left. I'm in the middle and nothing but fucked.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 06:18 am (UTC)From:I want it to work.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 06:28 am (UTC)From:I hear ya. I'm still having landlord troubles myself, and I don't even own my living space.
*Hugs you*
*shakes fist at offending parties*
no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 06:50 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 09:02 am (UTC)From:frankly, i am rather happy that the local muni finally sold the phone company.....at least now, i can get service when i need it........n
no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 10:10 am (UTC)From:You can say that these horror stories are rare, but if they're true at all, the risk is unacceptable.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 11:17 am (UTC)From:pollution control revolving fund of the State for a project only if the recipient of the assistance--
`(1) has considered--
`(A) consolidating management functions or ownership with another facility;
`(B) forming public-private partnerships or other cooperative partnerships
i see the word "partnership", i see the word "cooperative", i do not see the word "privatizaion"i
Re:
Date: 2002-06-20 11:30 am (UTC)From:back in the 60's, we were on a private water system....Central Alaska Utilities.......it worked well, and was purchased by the muni when the muni expanded.....the level of service remained the same, only the cost went up.....today, the muni's system is grossly inadequate and because it's a public company and the public wants no-more-taxes, the system will stay inadequate.....if you wanna talk high salaries, just take a peek at the salary and benefit packages that the public employees get.....(and of course, i am speaking about my local muni)
public systems do not ALWAYS run......i often take my own drinking water to many communities when i travel......people still cut ice for drinking water in many places because the water systems are inadequate......
frankly, in most large cities, it's prolly best that the city run the water utility, and that they run the wastewater utility too........but, there still needs to be oversight to insure that the quality of the service meets federal standards....
no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 11:43 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 11:47 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 11:52 am (UTC)From:In our town, a big box store wanted to put a store in a wetland. They did all this study and engineering to prove that their plans adequately addressed the flooding and runoff problems associated with filling in a wetland. The village board did not trust the engineers and denied them their permit. They sued and won. The didn't get their way with the village, so they went to the courts. The court apparently thought their floodwater management plan was good enough, and that the village did not have sufficient reason to deny them.
Re:
Date: 2002-06-20 11:53 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 11:55 am (UTC)From:Re:
Date: 2002-06-20 12:06 pm (UTC)From:one of the problems with many muni boards and commissions is that they just don't have their sh*t together.......and they work arbitrarily.......any time they work arbitrarily, they will get shot down in court.....
and the courts are the absolute worst professionals out there.........they make all sorts of decisions for people with very little training or real knowledge.........judges make engineering decisions......they make wildlife management decisions.....it's scary the crap that they come up with......
no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 02:53 pm (UTC)From:As for the wetland plan, it was flat and marshy, but they filled much of it in, and used ponds to make up for the lack of water retention. (This of course means less wetland, but that is merely a wildlife conservation issue and not a public safety issue. They bragged that the remaining wetland would filter out the parking lot runoff, thereby reducing pollution. I felt that filtering runoff with wild land was still polluting.) I had trouble with this pond thing because ponds fill up with water, and once they're full, they no longer can retain any additional water. I can't recall if I ever learned enough to become satisfied about that.
Re:
Date: 2002-06-20 03:09 pm (UTC)From:i take it, this wetland used to be a retention area to reducing flooding?....
"Some locals told the board not to trust the word of the engineers, because they had seen firsthand that things don't always go as planned."---this is an enforcement issue......that board needs some teeth!.......basically, they can tell walmart or home despot to go stick.......of course, the major is promoting the new business in town and the "boon to the economy" it will bring......
Prolly, the whole gist is that the land was private land and zoned to allow the big box.......if everyone is to benefit from the public use of private land, that land should be purchased for the public's use......the land should have been zoned, "not for development"......i
no subject
Date: 2002-06-20 03:19 pm (UTC)From:The board thought they had teeth. They learned otherwise in court. (and the store hired a lawyer who never loses.)
The environmental and commercial overdevelopment issues are huge too.
Re:
Date: 2002-06-20 03:40 pm (UTC)From:i can't buy into stopping a project because "things don't always go as planned".....if that arguement was used universally, nothing would be built.......