At 12:11 PM 12/2/2002 -0600, Craig Miller wrote:
There can be good reasons for privatising some city services, but it's important to be careful about which ones - this means doing a good cost/benefit analysis -- and look at current and projected future costs. A private contractor can bid low for the first year -- then jack up the prices significantly for successive years. I'm not into outsourcing for outsourcing sake - but rather am interested in having the city look at its options and see what options are going to make sense.> Apparently no accounting for disgruntled Republicans (and a few others) who > will never be satisfied until every public service is privatized and > unavailable to everyone but the affluent and their property tax bills > disappear. Craig the Repub here. I've noticed precious few if any Mpls services privatized. Maybe one of the city officials who monitor this list can name some. Try get over the 1% threshold of total city outlays. I doubt we'll find it.
I really like Vicky Heller's ideas for bringing increased accoutability to the MCDA. I hope Mayor Rybak listens to those ideas and goes with them.
This is just nonsense. Some privately owned companies do very good at managing and running their businesses - and others don't. Knee jerk "non-profit or government is good, business is bad" is dumb stuff from liberals -- kneejerk "the private sector always does it better than the public sector" is dumb stuff from conservatives.> You don't get something for nothing. You can't expect taxes to disappear > without watching little things like your streets going unplowed, Talk to my fellow citizens in Near North. In snowy winters it is common belief that large parts of north go relatively un- plowed. street > lighting go dark, we have large parts of the city that don't get street lights repaired or replaced for longs stints already. If it was a privately owned system the bulbs would be changed within 48 hours or someone would get fired.
And part of the reason for this is the reputation for social nuttiness in the Republican Party. The fact that Republican Activists who question candidates and their campaign managers about where they go to church, and then go on in lurid detail about "gay bowell syndrom" or whatever else are gatekeepers and kingmakers for candidates in the suburbs is a problem with the current party structure.Oh and by the way. There hasn't been a republican administration in over 30 years. There has not been a Republican mayor with a republican council ever. Ever since we went with party designation there has been long uninterupted decades of DFL Majorities coupled with DFL Mayors.
Meanwhile Lavender Magazine has a rant about Gay Republicans -- it's pretty negative. Check it out at:
http://www.lavendermagazine.com/196/196_news_36.html
from the column:
Well, I belong to the Green Party, one of whose four core values is nonviolence. So, I can't in good conscience urge the rest of us to do what part of me really would like to do: slap them silly and throw them off the Washington Avenue Bridge.
======================================================
Then the column goes on about how Republican gays should get socially shunned. Whatever.
Ofcourse the column includes the anti-gay sections in the Republican platform -- and doesn't mention how out gay people in the GOP along with other moderates are trying to change those segments of the platform.
Eva Young
Near North
Minneapolis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
