Private Parts
Now that the wedding stuff is over and my new wife and I have started to settle into a routine, I can now get back to the business of paying closer attention to local government.
I’ve found most of the budget hearings to be pretty mundane and nothing out of the ordinary, with the exception of two areas; parks and the Capitol Improvement Board. Both of these areas caught my attention because both are possible targets of privatization.
Now many of you know my thoughts on privatization, if a private company can provide the same service cheaper and/or more efficient than the government, then I frankly don’t have a problem with it. The job of government is to provide services, not keep people employed in perpetuity.
However, I admit to being somewhat surprised at the votes in a recent Parks budget meeting by Democrats Bill Oliver, Vern Brown and Monroe Gray. They voted against a measure that would transfer more than $600,000 in funds from the contractual services category to the personnel services category. The money was originally put into contractual services so the parks department could bid out mowing and other services. However Democrats and their union supporters complained the Ballard administration was making a foregone conclusion that the city would outsource those services, even though the union employees could have formed their own organization and bid on the contract.
Councilor Susie Day proposed the amendment to transfer the money into personnel so that if there was no acceptable bidder no money would be moved. The Democrats on the committee voted against that proposal, therefore voting against their own constituents, the union, and voting for privatization.
That struck me as rather odd, seeing how traditionally urban Democrats have opposed privatization efforts. One would assume that they would have jumped at the chance of taking a step to further ensure the protection of union jobs from private interests.
But then again, all my married friends have told me that things change once you tie the knot. I just figured that adage would only apply to my personal life, not to Marion County politics.
September 13th, 2009 at 6:52 am
I don't understand the votes, either, Abdul, but here's one thought: perhaps they want to shove the issue into the “worst possible scenario” (from their viewpoint). To use as a campaign issue. I realize that is ascribing a great deal of forethought to these three councillors, who haven't previously demonstrated the ability to think beyond their noses.
DPR is a mess. They actually had the gall to give a 20-year encroachment/drainage easement to the new Nora Kroger, next to the Monon. Their own comp plan actually calls for no commercial sight-line encroachments on the Monon Trail. But they did it anyway. And they had the gall to say it wasn't a “transfer of value.” But–here's the kicker–if the city ever wants the land back, they have to pay the developer over $300,000. So, I guess it has some “value”, huh? All this on parkland beside the Monon Trail.
The move saved the developer hundreds of thousands in drainage abatement costs.
This was a no-brainer and they effed it up. If you need further proof that DPR is adrift, drive by any of these parks: Riverside, Broad Ripple, Garfield. There are weeds along sidewalks that haven't been pulled all summer.
If we can't take care of our parks, we need to find other answers. Privatization could work, but it won't save the dollars needed. Evidently, the city's answer is to grossly violate their own Comprehensive Plan to allow private developers to use city land. If so, can we at last get some money for it? Geeeeesh.
September 13th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
These three stooges vote against the wishes of their constituents regularly. Vern, Sweetpea and Duke are controlled by others. The “others” don't live in their districts.
September 13th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I wish it were true, Ernie. You're wrong. In reality, they're just not very bright. It's that simple.
September 13th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
These three stooges vote against the wishes of their constituents regularly. Vern, Sweetpea and Duke are controlled by others. The “others” don't live in their districts.
September 13th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I wish it were true, Ernie. You're wrong. In reality, they're just not very bright. It's that simple.
September 20th, 2009 at 6:02 am
[...] along party lines. Republicans voted for it and Democrats against. Point of clarification, Indiana Barrister had previously wrote that all three Democrats on the Committee voted against an amendment that [...]