Hell NO on I-1098

[prole]

Privatize the sidewalks!

 

Can't make any money off them. Witness the vast swaths of American sprawl in conservatard strongholds like Atlanta and Phoenix where pedestrians have carved canyons with their feet when stripmall developers and their politicians have refused to build them.

[JayB]

JayB's big on one time selling off of assets to pave over structural budget issues and push off the pain? Is it conservative cliche time?

 

oh, lets beat up the ports again! because Seattle still has a commercial port is a sure sign that the government failed.

 

Privatize the sidewalks!

 

Yes. Saving $70 million a year and actually generating money for the city would certainly aggravate those structural issues.

 

 

[JayB]

Next example - Metro.

 

Not enough money to fund existing operations. Which does the progressive favor cutting - services or pay and benefits for Metro employees?

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

[Fairweather]

A good start...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/21/california-city-officials-reportedly-arrested-salary-scandal/

 

LOS ANGELES -- The mayor and former city manager of Bell were led away in handcuffs Tuesday, charged with six other officials with taking more than $5.5 million from the working-class suburb in a scandal that triggered nationwide outrage and calls for more transparency in government.

 

Former City Manager Robert Rizzo, Mayor Oscar Hernandez and the other current and former city officials were rounded up during morning raids on their homes that prompted many of their neighbors to burst into cheers.

 

They were charged with dozens of counts of illegally paying themselves huge salaries in what District Attorney Steve Cooley called a case of "corruption on steroids."

 

"They used the tax dollars collected from the hardworking citizens of Bell as their own piggy bank, which they then looted at will," Cooley told a news conference as he stood next to photos of the eight suspects.

 

In Bell, where one in six residents lives in poverty, people began honking their horns at the news of the arrests. At City Hall, dozens gathered to laugh and applaud as someone played the Queen song "Another One Bites the Dust."

 

"I got so excited that, oh my God, I couldn't breathe," said Violeta Alvarez, a 31-year resident. "I'm excited. I'm happy. I have tears of joy in my eyes."

 

Rizzo, who was making nearly $800,000 a year, was booked on 53 counts of misappropriation of public funds and conflict of interest. Messages left at his home and with his attorney were not returned.

 

He and the others were scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday, with officials seeking bail amounts ranging from $3.2 million for Rizzo to $130,000 for former Councilman George Cole. The amounts were based on how much authorities believe each person took.

 

Others taken into custody were former assistant city manager Angela Spaccia, Vice Mayor Teresa Jacobo, council members George Mirabal and Luis Artiga and former council member Victor Bello.

 

Spaccia was making $376,288, and four of the five City Council members were paying themselves nearly $100,000 a year.

 

"I seen them take out Mirabal in handcuffs," longtime resident Hassan Mourad said after the arrests. "I seen them drag him out."

 

At the mayor's house, police briefly used a battering ram when Hernandez didn't immediately come to the door.

 

Former Police Chief Randy Adams, who was also scrutinized in the salary scandal, was not arrested.

 

Cooley, who knew Adams when he was the police chief in Glendale, said there was no evidence Adams illegally obtained his $457,000 annual salary. The figure was $150,000 more than the Los Angeles chief of police gets paid.

 

"Being paid excessive salaries is not a crime," Cooley said. "Illegally obtaining those salaries is a crime."

 

Authorities said Rizzo made $4.3 million by paying himself through different employment contracts that were not approved by the City Council. Meanwhile, council members paid themselves a combined $1.25 million for what Cooley called "phantom meetings" of various city boards and agencies.

 

Rizzo also was accused of giving $1.9 million in loans to himself, Spaccia, Hernandez, Artiga and dozens of others.

 

Cooley said his investigators have pored over more than 60,000 pages of documents and more people could be arrested.

 

His office began investigating last March, Cooley said, four months before the Los Angeles Times reported the salaries, which brought national attention to the small city of 40,000 people.

 

Since the scandal broke, public officials, city managers and others have said the situation in Bell showed why people must insist that elected officials communicate honestly and openly with them.

 

"One of the problems that was obvious with Bell was the lack of transparency and the lack of involvement on the part of the public," Dave Mora, West Coast regional director of the International City/County Management Association, said recently.

 

Cooley praised the Times, saying the scandal occurred in part because residents and much of the news media paid little attention to what was happening at Bell City Hall until the story broke.

 

Rizzo, Adams and Spaccia resigned and the council members reduced their salaries to about $8,000 following the disclosures.

 

The four council members, who are currently the target of a recall, would be forced to resign their positions if convicted, Cooley said.

 

Bell's interim chief administrative officer Pedro Carrillo said the arrests marked a sad day for the city.

 

"It is clear that Rizzo and Spaccia were at the root of the cancer that has afflicted the city," he said.

 

Interim City Attorney Jamie Casso said he expected Bell could carry on business as usual, adding that Carrillo and Lorenzo Velez -- the one council member who wasn't arrested -- were meeting regularly. Velez was not taking a high salary.

 

The district attorney's office is one of several agencies investigating Bell.

 

Last week, Attorney General Jerry Brown sued eight current and former officials of Bell, accusing them of defrauding taxpayers by granting themselves salaries he said were far higher than warranted for the jobs they were doing.

 

Artiga was not named in the lawsuit but Adams was.

 

Earlier this month Bell officials confirmed the city was also the target of a racial profiling investigation by the federal government for allegedly targeting young Hispanic drivers for traffic stops to raise revenue.

[AlpineK]

Why pay for garbage pick up when I can just throw it in the street. It worked fine in the middle ages why not now?

 

[img:center]http://www.globalenvision.org/files/Cairo%20Trash%20Pigs.jpg[/img]

 

[j_b]

On the flip side if you're arguing for such a change you could present a privately run Port that is pulling in a profit without proping up from public resources and is meeting it's environmental regulatory responsibilities - and is in the U.S. and is at least as big as, say, the Port of Vancouver.

 

Yes. Dig up the data and we can take a look at things like taxpayer input for unit volume, etc, etc, etc.

 

What a snake oil salesman you make. In other words, you are again telling us you have no fucking idea whether your libertarian privatization scheme has been successfully applied anywhere in the US. Yet here you are talking as if it were in the bag without providing any substantiating data for your wet dream.

 

[j_b]

Why pay for garbage pick up when I can just throw it in the street. It worked fine in the middle ages why not now?

 

In the middle ages there were toll roads, toll bridges, private fire department, only the rich went to school, etc .. I think you have perfectly captured JayB's political agenda: neo-feudalism.

[j_b]

Yes. Saving $70 million a year and actually generating money for the city would certainly aggravate those structural issues.

 

Forget about expanding/bettering port capacity and fuck the environment and you'll save $70 million/yr through 2015: this is what poses for serious economic analysis among libertarians (i.e. the looting party)

 

and don't forget, selling toasters has the same economic purpose as providing port infrastructure for economic activity

[Hugh Conway]

Next example - Metro.

 

Not enough money to fund existing operations. Which does the progressive favor cutting - services or pay and benefits for Metro employees?

 

 

 

ohhhhh lets underfund public transportation in Seattle again. Worked so well in the 30s

 

 

why don't these lazy overpaid government workers post on cc.com?

[prole]

In the middle ages there were toll roads, toll bridges, private fire department, only the rich went to school, etc .. I think you have perfectly captured JayB's political agenda: neo-feudalism.

 

The Road To Feudaldom.

[Hugh Conway]

dire irony "road to serfdom" irony here

[Fairweather]

 

What a snake oil salesman you make. In other words, you are again telling us you have no fucking idea whether your libertarian privatization scheme has been successfully applied anywhere in the US. Yet here you are talking as if it were in the bag without providing any substantiating data for your wet dream.

 

I am kind of stubby so that may explain my perspective.

[JayB]

On the flip side if you're arguing for such a change you could present a privately run Port that is pulling in a profit without proping up from public resources and is meeting it's environmental regulatory responsibilities - and is in the U.S. and is at least as big as, say, the Port of Vancouver.

 

Yes. Dig up the data and we can take a look at things like taxpayer input for unit volume, etc, etc, etc.

 

What a snake oil salesman you make. In other words, you are again telling us you have no fucking idea whether your libertarian privatization scheme has been successfully applied anywhere in the US. Yet here you are talking as if it were in the bag without providing any substantiating data for your wet dream.

 

Um - it's not like you have presented any data either, compadre. Here's some evidence to suggest that Ports don't all require taxpayer subsidies to operate:

 

"LOS ANGELES, Oct. 12— The State of California has found a sugar daddy to help bail it out of its financial hole. The State Legislature, facing a $10.7 billion budget gap, passed a measure last month that for the first time allows cities to draw on the profits of their ports, which have become the busiest, fastest-growing and most profitable in the nation....

 

"Using no tax money, the California ports have built themselves into the country's most important gateway for world trade," "

 

 

[JayB]

Meanwhile, in Seattle, the Regressives at The Municipal League have this and quite a bit more to say about port operations:

 

"Due to its very broad mission statement, the Port has over the years wandered into numerous activities that are peripheral to its core mission. Having the luxury of a non-voted tax levy and few mechanisms for holding the Port accountable for its use of public resources, the Port has gradually increased its reliance on the tax levy and has entered into investments and contracts that do not consistently generate a positive return.

 

According to the Port’s own figures, the Seaport lost money in five of the last 10 years. Without the subsidy from the tax levy ($65.8 million in 2007), the bottom line for the Seaport and Real Estate Divisions would likely have shown a loss in all 10 years -- even if we assume that some of the levy-funded activities would not have been undertaken in the absence of levy funding. The extensive Port land holdings are not on the public property tax rolls and the economic benefits of Port activities are not always easy to determine.

 

The graph indicates that the Port of Seattle currently collects more than four times the annual tax levy revenue than is collected by the Port of Tacoma even under similar millage rates.

 

Since the Port of Tacoma’s TEU container traffic is comparable with Seattle’s, one would expect that the corresponding taxpayer contributions would be somewhat similar. Although the two ports are not perfectly comparable and Seattle’s business is more diverse than Tacoma’s, the magnitude of the difference suggests that the Port of Tacoma may be dramatically more cost- effective in the economics and management of its seaport assets.

 

We are troubled that the levy process lacks transparency and that the levy itself resembles a general subsidy to cover shortfalls across the Port's activities. We believe that the Port uses the tax levy to offset the fact that revenues in the Seaport and Real Estate Divisions continue to be insufficient to cover on-going capital costs and expenses. We do not think taxpayers should be satisfied with the general assertion that the levy is justified because the Port contributes to economic activity. We believe the levy should be used for those activities and investments of the Port that cannot reasonably be made self-sustaining by sound business practices and that are justified by specified benefits to the community, (and only after those activities and investments have been analyzed to ensure costs do not exceed benefits).

 

The Port’s tax levy revenue, most of which is devoted to non-aviation activities, has in recent years increased significantly faster than business activity or job growth. The levy has increased by 136% since 2001, an average annual increase of 11% -- this also far exceeds tax levy revenue growth at the Port of Tacoma."

 

http://www.munileague.org/2009PORTREPORT.pdf

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

clearly the only solution to reforming the corrupt Port of Seattle is privatization

 

sell off the national forests and wilderness areas first. fewer people benefit.

[JayB]

Blah:

 

"In March last year, the Oakland port agreed to turn over operation of some of its terminals to a private investor, Ports of America, in exchange for $686 million over the life of a 50-year deal. Oakland got $60 million upfront, plus annual payments starting at $19.5 million.

 

The port had been getting $18.9 million a year in rent from berths, according to the San Francisco Business Times."

 

Blah:

 

"Port of Galveston seeks private partners"

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/154815

 

Blah:

 

rru.worldbank.org/documents/publicpolicyjournal/193somme.pdf

[j_b]

Relevant examples not privatization schemes that took place 6 mos ago because of the financial crisis and for which there is no record. Stop cheating.

 

 

[j_b]

What a snake oil salesman you make. In other words, you are again telling us you have no fucking idea whether your libertarian privatization scheme has been successfully applied anywhere in the US. Yet here you are talking as if it were in the bag without providing any substantiating data for your wet dream.

 

Um - it's not like you have presented any data either, compadre.

 

???? I gave you the actual budget number showing that the port wasn't losing money (despite your assertion to the opposite).

 

Here's some evidence to suggest that Ports don't all require taxpayer subsidies to operate:

 

"LOS ANGELES, Oct. 12— The State of California has found a sugar daddy to help bail it out of its financial hole. The State Legislature, facing a $10.7 billion budget gap, passed a measure last month that for the first time allows cities to draw on the profits of their ports, which have become the busiest, fastest-growing and most profitable in the nation....

 

 

and the rest of the article (for which you didn't provide a link ... certainly not a coincidence): "What's good for the state, though, could be bad for business. The ports worry that channeling tens of millions of dollars to city coffers will force them to curtail much-needed expansion plans and, ultimately, to raise rates, sending shippers hunting for better buys at ports in the Northwest, Canada and Mexico.

 

"We are committed to California, but there are certain amounts of cargo that are truly discretionary in terms of where we bring them into the country," said Chris Lytle, general manager of North American operations on the West Coast for Sea-Land Service Inc., the nation's largest shipping concern. "We would consider bringing cargo into other areas like Tacoma, which is less expensive. Our customers in New York don't know or care if their goods come in through California or Washington as long as they get them at a fair price."

 

Though Mr. Lytle says California's rates are already higher than those in some other states, he acknowledges that its links with Sealand's rail and trucking operations make it more convenient.

 

Indeed, California's strategic position as a gateway for Asian countries is one reason why rate increases would be felt broadly. In recent years, California has become the nation's pre-eminent shipping state, with everything from cars to computers to consumer goods arriving from Asia at its ports.

 

In 1989, Los Angeles eclipsed New York/New Jersey as the nation's largest port in terms of value of goods handled and tonnage. Today California's five major ports, which also include Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego, handle more than a quarter of the country's waterborne trade.

 

"The entire country has a stake in what California does," said Ron Gottshall, managing director of the Transpacific Westbound Rate Agreement, a shipping industry group. "If California raises the cost of doing business there, the shipping companies will pass it on to the customer, and in some cases it may be too much for the market to bear." Credit Ratings At Risk

 

Squeezing the ports may actually add to California's economic difficulties by stifling capital construction projects already undertaken by the ports to meet growing shipping demand. That puts thousands of construction jobs at risk, economists and port officials said.

 

Under the state's Tideland Trust Act of 1911, money generated by the ports could be used only for port and tideland activities, like navigation, recreation, commerce and fishing.

 

That revenue screen helped California's ports earn higher bond ratings than any other port in the country. But since the enactment of the new law, the Standard & Poor's credit agency has issued a negative credit watch for all California ports.

 

"The Tidelands Act was put into effect to keep cities from raiding the funds of the ports and our ratings were based on that assumption," Peter Bianchini, a director in Standard & Poor's municipal finance department in San Francisco, said. "We are re-evaluating because it appears that capital projects are now less feasible and the ports are less competitive."

 

Thomas Dowd, professor of port and marine transport management at the University of Washington in Seattle, said a downgrade would increase the ports' cost of financing and force many to scale back expansion plans. "Why is the California Legislature sabotaging its own team?" he asked. "It's like putting leg weights on your winning relay team." 'A Dangerous Precedent'

 

Many in the shipping industry also fear that California's action may give ideas to other states grappling with their own budget crises.

 

"The clear concern for the ocean- carrying community is that we don't view it as a one-time deal," said Leo Brien, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, an industry group that represents 46 major carriers. "We see it as a dangerous precedent. The ports and carriers had a sacred agreement. Now this money will be used for purposes other than what were intended."

 

California budget officials said the Tidelands Act allowed the ports to keep their profits as an initial incentive to develop the land. That done, the time has come to rethink their financial arrangement with the state, they said.

 

"It's almost scandalous that these ports have such enormous net income and they don't want to share it with the people of California," Allan Lind, a staff member for the State Assembly Ways and Means Committee, said. "To suggest that sharing a portion of profits would paralyze the harbors is simply ridiculous."

 

State budget officials estimate that more than 60 percent of the operating budget at the Long Beach port and more than 50 percent of the Los Angeles port's operating budget is profit.

 

Exactly what impact the budget agreement has on the ports depends on how much money each city requests. Under the budget stipulation, for each of the next two years, cities may solicit a minimum of $4 million from their respective ports to offset state budget cuts, and up to 25 percent of the difference between the port's current assets and liabilities.

 

The Port of Los Angeles stands to lose the most. Last week, Mayor Tom Bradley submitted a revised budget package that proposes taking $44 million this year from the port to help offset the city's $71 million shortfall. The City Council leadership has already expressed its intention to approve use of the funds.

 

"The transfer of funds from the harbor to the city's general fund is a difficult option for me to recommend because of the inevitable deleterious effect it will have on the port's competitive position," Mayor Bradley wrote to the City Council. But he said the harbor department is in a "strong financial position."

 

Port officials said the request would be a "devastating blow" to the port's plans to consolidate rail traffic and to create a new 350-acre pier by deepening part of the harbor to meet growing demand. The port's revenues climbed to $160.4 million last year, up from $24.9 million in 1975 and $91.7 million in 1985.

 

"We expect to keep growing for the next 20 years but we have to make preparations for it now," said James Preusch, the port's chief financial officer. "This is a very short-sighted way to resolve a budget crisis."

 

Mr. Preusch is concerned that the Los Angeles port would take a much bigger hit than its neighbor across San Pedro harbor, the Port of Long Beach, which estimates that its municipality can request only about $5 million this year, given the port's assets and liabilities. Mr. Preusch believes that Long Beach, with the same customer base as Los Angeles, would thus gain an unfair competitive advantage.

 

Paul E. Brown, assistant executive director at the Long Beach port, agrees that the budget agreement is unfair because it does not treat all cities and ports equally. He also fears that the state will give cities additional authority over port funds in future years. "We have effectively lost control over how we can run our business," Mr. Brown said. Ports Vow Lawsuit

 

Officials of the ports said that they plan to challenge the constitutionality of the budget agreement, contending that the Legislature violated the intent of the Tidelands Act.

 

"Using no tax money, the California ports have built themselves into the country's most important gateway for world trade," said Robert Middleton, a spokesman for the Port of Oakland, which stands to lose $4 million this year. "That success is being wiped away in one fell swoop. The shipping does not have to go through California. The Pacific Northwest and Canada are waiting."

 

William Friedman, a spokesman for the marine division of the Port of Seattle, said that it was too early to tell if ports in the Pacific Northwest would benefit from the California action. "But port officials up here are not happy to see it happen because they understand the increasing demands that all ports face in putting infrastructure in place to meet the global shipping market," he said. "

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/13/business/california-draws-on-ports-profits.html?pagewanted=all

 

LOL You are a snake oil salesman indeed

 

"Using no tax money, the California ports have built themselves into the country's most important gateway for world trade,"

 

because as is explained in the article that you didn't give us, California ports have natural advantages over other Pacific ports, and can charge a little more, AND at any rate, they were the most important gateway for trade and generated healthy profits for the state to tap into without any privatization! You just shot yourself down by showing that publicly managed port are successful.

 

What a cheater you are! Don't you have any pride?

[j_b]

 

What a snake oil salesman you make. In other words, you are again telling us you have no fucking idea whether your libertarian privatization scheme has been successfully applied anywhere in the US. Yet here you are talking as if it were in the bag without providing any substantiating data for your wet dream.

 

I am kind of stubby so that may explain my perspective.

 

Then, morons like Billcoe wonder why I remain anonymous when it's plenty obvious that scumbags like Fairweather would distort any information available about me to demonize my person. Note how that POS went to the Alpine Lake section to mine a quote out of context, BUT I am confident that Billcoe will straighten him out (not).

[j_b]

In the middle ages there were toll roads, toll bridges, private fire department, only the rich went to school, etc .. I think you have perfectly captured JayB's political agenda: neo-feudalism.

 

The Road To Feudaldom.

 

Heh! Lord Fairweather could string a chain across the road from his house and charge a toll.

[ivan]

Note how that POS went to the Alpine Lake section to mine a quote out of context...

agreed - lame - but the quote/counter-quote/counter-counter-quote jerk-off cycles all ya'll tend towards are warning signs enough of Deep Mental Instablity

[kevbone]

This amazing thread might need some old school.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Note how that POS went to the Alpine Lake section to mine a quote out of context, BUT I am confident that Billcoe will straighten him out (not).

 

It was a joke, you humorless twat.

[j_b]

who is going to believe that? I certainly don't.

 

Note how it always turns out to be meant as a joke when jackboot is caught with his pants down.