Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning January 2007 » Privatizing « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Motownman
Member
Username: Motownman

Post Number: 64
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 3:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't know if its been discussed before, but would it be smart to start privatizing some of the cities services like garbage pickup, water, or power?
Top of pageBottom of page

Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette

Post Number: 1281
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 3:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why? Do you have this pressing need to pay more for worse service?
Top of pageBottom of page

Motownman
Member
Username: Motownman

Post Number: 65
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 3:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No, but like giving up garbage pick up to waste management or another company. Wouldn't this save the city more money plus better service rather then the city keep making cutbacks.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2681
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 3:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Check out Chicago. It was on the news last month that Chicago was going to privatize its water utility.
Top of pageBottom of page

Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette

Post Number: 1284
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 3:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Get out your checkbooks, boys. The private sector will determine how much you will pay! Wheeeeeeeeee!
Top of pageBottom of page

Motownman
Member
Username: Motownman

Post Number: 66
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 3:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And the city doesn't?
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 1758
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 4:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The idea in itself of privatizing isn't bad, but one has to remember how the city awards and manages contracts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 126
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 5:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wrong!!! As long as the system is open to free enterprise, the price will be lower and the service better.....Economics 101 folks.

When a coercive monopoly is in place, as is the case with government run services, then you have unilateral price and quality controlled by the service provider which takes you in the direction of poorer quality and higher cost.

Higher cost? you betcha...just because it is transparent in the form of taxation, doesn't mean it is free, quite the contrary. look at your tax bill by taking the percentage of income taxed compared to your gross income (the product of the 2) and then you have a dollar amount of what you paid in taxes. Compare that to the services received for that money, and, voila, there is what it cost you. Make sure you are sitting down when you do this calculation, the sticker shock could floor you.
Top of pageBottom of page

Granmontrules
Member
Username: Granmontrules

Post Number: 33
Registered: 01-2007
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 5:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Got to get past the unions in this town first!
Top of pageBottom of page

Mrjoshua
Member
Username: Mrjoshua

Post Number: 1213
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 6:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

At the Park Shelton the CoD is charging us $60,000 annually for garbage pickup. A private firm's recent estimate was for $6,000. Now we can use the $54,000 in savings on further building renovations instead of subsidizing a unionized workforce providing poor ROI.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 1759
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 6:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

However, not all private firms provide great service. We're very close to changing services at work because our current contractor consistently misses one of the two scheduled weekly service days. Every time they miss I have to call and demand a credit or schedule a later pick up (which is stupid - we're scheduled for Tues & Fri - if they miss Fri they say they'll be out on Sat. - once they missed Sat & came out on Mon., so the scheduled Tues. dump was worthless). Last week I pointed out they were breaching contract, but it didn't seem to make a difference.
Top of pageBottom of page

Urbanize
Member
Username: Urbanize

Post Number: 53
Registered: 02-2007
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 7:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It's not a bad Idea IF the city wold actually find a reliable licensed Private Company. Remember, city departments have had a long history of contracting, or even just hiring their "homeboy's company". Also, the contracting and management issues may aso become a problem because the Company may demand more for less service to the customers n the city.
Top of pageBottom of page

Futurecity
Member
Username: Futurecity

Post Number: 488
Registered: 05-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 7:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

City services are run by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are most noted for sitting on their ass and doing nothing, while getting a fat paycheck. So by definition, this sets up whatever they are in charge of for complete failure.

Example: The third world lighting department in Detroit. Run by an army of gross incompetents. Street lights? Off about a third to half of the time in my neighborhood and in most of the city as far as I've observed. Compare this to ANY suburban lighting department. Guess what? Their lighting is subcontracted to DTE. Street lights? Always on!

Yeah, we wouldn't want to privatize the lighting department, because stupid Detroiter's would rather pay to sit in the fucking dark.

(Message edited by Futurecity on March 03, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette

Post Number: 1286
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 8:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

When you privatize, you automatically go with the cheapest bid. Which means you get the cheapest service, and you get what you pay for.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 1761
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 8:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

When you privatize, you automatically go with the cheapest bid.

in theory, anyway - Detroit sometimes seems to have difficulty with that concept
Top of pageBottom of page

Mrjoshua
Member
Username: Mrjoshua

Post Number: 1215
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 8:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, but at least you can fire them and search for other low bidding contractors and fire them until you end up with one who will provide a low cost service or product efficiently. With a union you are stuck with high costs, sloth and an unbreakable contract.

I'll take the lowest bidding private contractor. Next.
Top of pageBottom of page

Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette

Post Number: 1289
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 8:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't excuse in any way Detroit's terrible track record. They have unions for a very good reason in the city. I know city workers and their frustrations are real. I also know the best way to stick it further to the citizens is to let the "private sector" in. I repeat. You get what you pay for.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mrjoshua
Member
Username: Mrjoshua

Post Number: 1216
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 8:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"You get what you pay for."

We assume that risk. Next.
Top of pageBottom of page

Oldredfordette
Member
Username: Oldredfordette

Post Number: 1290
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 8:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Will you pay for all the people who aren't war profiteers?
Top of pageBottom of page

Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed

Post Number: 456
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 9:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If they privatize then they should require it to be a Detroit based company.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 881
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 9:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mrjoshua wrote, "With a union you are stuck with high costs, sloth and an unbreakable contract."

Um, DTE's workers are unionized, too. Seems that the problem with Detroit's department lies more with the management.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mrjoshua
Member
Username: Mrjoshua

Post Number: 1217
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 9:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Um, DTE is a publicly traded company that is motivated to return a profit to its shareholders. Detroit's unionized workforce is motivated to do little as their shareholders, the residents of Detroit, can't fire them for ineptitude, sloth and indifference.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 127
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 11:04 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Private companies that provide poor service, in a free market system, will be forced out by competition.

Yes, the unions need to be put in their proper place or eliminated if they are unable to root out corruption and know their boundaries.

You automatically go with the cheapest bid? Wrong!! You go with the cheapest bid that provides the best service....a balance between these two characteristics.
Top of pageBottom of page

56packman
Member
Username: 56packman

Post Number: 1065
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 12:35 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If a private contracting firm fails to deliver on what they are hired to do, you can fire them. Simple, done, then get a better contractor in. With the current (city/union) monopoly, there it is, that's what it is, there's no firing anyone or making meaningful change because you're stuck.
There is a theory (that is actually practiced) where you don't automatically take the lowest bid, but investigate each potential contractor, see how they have handled previous accounts, factor in their size, history and reputation against the proposed amount and make a rational decision based on that information. and if they don't come through, you can dump them.
There is also a theory that the lowest bid is omitting something and you are going to get less than you think you are contracting for, and the highest bid is either gold-plating everything or has highly uncompetitive overhead and cannot be considered as a viable bid.
Top of pageBottom of page

Tkelly1986
Member
Username: Tkelly1986

Post Number: 245
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2007 - 12:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ccbatson: while I agree this may be a good idea for the city; the free market will not always guarantee a cheaper product. Take health care for instance, the US pays over 15% of their GDP on healthcare and Canada around 9%. Now, does the US have better healthcare? Not according to the WHO, United Nations or OECD. Sometimes efficiency comes in the form of bureaucracy. According to the WHO we have the 37th best healthcare. Now, before everyone starts crying out that I am a communist, read up on your health statistics, we are getting a raw deal. But American’s want there choice because they “think” it is better, although this spells out of control costs for administration and drug company advertisement. Along with unnecessary usage of technology that we think is better…..however, this may be a conversation for another thread.
Top of pageBottom of page

Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman

Post Number: 359
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 10:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Before the Livonia opt out, I was frequently late for work taking the bus. If DDOT was privatized then the buses would always be on time because if they were not then another company would take over.

And this is exactly what happened. Today the DaimlerChysler company is now provides bus service for me.

It was gross incompetence that caused me to lose bus service but some of you DY'ers just don't see this. No, I don't think SMART and DDOT should be privatized but they DO need to shape up or ship out very soon if we really want the city of Detroit to once again become a World class city, in my opinion.
Top of pageBottom of page

Barnesfoto
Member
Username: Barnesfoto

Post Number: 3191
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 - 11:42 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

City services are run by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are most noted for sitting on their ass and doing nothing, while getting a fat paycheck.
Yeah, that sounds like George W. Bush, when he was a businessman. (See: GWB Resume)
Private companies that provide poor service, in a free market system, will be forced out by competition"
Except for Haliburton/KBR

The last time I had problems with garbage pickup in Detroit was when Coleman was in office.
If it's not broke, don't fix it...
Same with the water dept.
PLD is an issue, but who is going to replace the aging grid? If someone wants to do it, privatizing this dept. would be a good idea.
DPD is pretty much useless at this point, but as DPD Blue pointed out on another thread, the closing of so many precincts has also resulted in a shortage of jail cells. (That seems to be more than a city problem, and the decision to close half of the precincts? That was a KK decision).

Maybe it's time for regional govt, but would that not be a bigger government?
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 160
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 12:05 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Health care??? A free market service??? Not since FDRs' new deal when Medicare/medicaid were born. Now we have socialized medicine for the elderly and poor, plus Ted Kennedys' pseudo private HMO industry for the middle class/working class, and diminishing fee for service insurances for the wealthy.

Next?? "Universal health care" courtesy of the Democrats.

As it stands, our health care industry is in bad shape (but still one of the best available...scary, but true). Unfortunately, it is likely to get worse.

Solutions? Very difficult. In principle, that's right, PRIVATIZE!! Have third party privately paid insurance for elective and non catastrophic health care services. If someone chooses not to be insured, then they will pay out of pocket for the expenses.

For catastrophic nonelective health care (hospitalization, nonelective surgery, intensive care, life saving emergency/urgent medications, etc), restructure the current Medicare/medicaid system to pay for this (tax funded...I know, distasteful, but necessary for now), for all citizens (not just elderly and poor).

The premiums will go down for the private insurance because they will be unsaddled with the hugely expensive catastrophic care (which is most often payed for by Medicare/Medicaid right now). Higher risk purchasers will have higher premiums (but they do now also), but still less than the cost needed to cover the risk of having to pay for catastrophic health care.

Medicare/caid costs will go down as they will no longer be paying for elective, preventative, and medication costs. Even though more people would be covered, the utilization would be much lower (only catastrophic items are addressed).

Eventually, you could privatize the catastrophic care by offering a substantial tax credit in exchange for having the subscriber seek out catastrophic insurance privately (via a new third 4th tier industry). Healthier folks would probably on balance do better as their risk and premiums would be modest (and less than the taxes paid). Sicker folks would stick with the socialized plan.

I am dreaming, I know, but.....
Top of pageBottom of page

Erikd
Member
Username: Erikd

Post Number: 822
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 12:59 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Privatization is not inherently bad or good. It all depends on the situation.

Privatization tends to be a better solution for peripheral services, whereas maintaining an 'in-house' staff tends to be a better solution for core services.

The core city services, such as police, fire, or water and sewage, should be the focus of city government, and privatization of these core services is probably not a good idea.

On the other hand, privatization of some peripheral city services would be a good idea.

Unlike the DPD, DFD, or DWSD, the management of Cobo is a perfect candidate for privatization. The city should not be in the business of running a convention center. The city could hire a private company that specializes in the management of convention halls and arenas, and get much better results for far less tax dollars.
Top of pageBottom of page

_sj_
Member
Username: _sj_

Post Number: 1752
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 9:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

ORF, did you ever own a business in the city and have to use the city garbage services.

We would go 2-3 weeks without pickups because the trucks were full. Instead of emptying the truck and coming back they were done for the week.

I know you can't have non-union opinion but please just look at the world around you and make an educated decision.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2764
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 10:14 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

On our block, maybe four to eight trash containers are put out every week, depending on how full they are. On one trash pickup day, a trainee city employee dumped three of those small number of trash containers into the truck (receptacles and all) and drove to the next location.

How could anybody be so stupid as to throw away half of those 96-gallon containers on our block into the city garbage truck and drive on as if nothing happened?

Fortunately, I didn't put my nearly empty receptacle out that week. But an alert person on our block noticed what was happening and caught up with the truck and the trainee and her "instructor" supervisor before they could split the scene. So the city had to bring out three brand new receptacles to those homes to replace those dumped into the truck after a week or so.

Could a private company operate like this and still stay in business? Doubtful.

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on March 14, 2007)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1

Post Number: 8520
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 10:19 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Privatization forces accountability with the company that has the contract. With the city unions right now there is very little accountability.

It would also allow the city to change companies if performance was subpar.

How anyone can really say that privatizing will drive up cost is beyond me.
Top of pageBottom of page

Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc

Post Number: 2198
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 11:48 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Wrong!!! As long as the system is open to free enterprise, the price will be lower and the service better.....Economics 101 folks.

When a coercive monopoly is in place, as is the case with government run services, then you have unilateral price and quality controlled by the service provider which takes you in the direction of poorer quality and higher cost.

Higher cost? you betcha...just because it is transparent in the form of taxation, doesn't mean it is free, quite the contrary. look at your tax bill by taking the percentage of income taxed compared to your gross income (the product of the 2) and then you have a dollar amount of what you paid in taxes. Compare that to the services received for that money, and, voila, there is what it cost you. Make sure you are sitting down when you do this calculation, the sticker shock could floor you.



Then I guess you didn't hear about the private company that was contracted to provide military health care at Walter Reed Hospital--at a higher price than what the government could have done it.

Blindly stating that privatization is always better is merely a product of an ideology. And we see how well the "free-market" ideology is playing out nationally. Not that I'm arguing in favor of socialism, but there are some things better left to the public sector. For example, contracting out the Detroit Police Department to OCP is probably a bad idea.

There's no reason, however, for the City of Detroit to have a Department of Public Lighting. Or to have to operate its transit system. Water and sewerage could be operated by a quasi-independent authority as well.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 2768
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 11:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

One problem with or without privatization of municipal functions lies with the oversight of them by the public sector. Also potential corruption due to cronyism.

A recent contract awarded to some crony of Coleman at DPS comes to mind. Some "firm" on paper was created in Texas for one of those contracts and was chosen over Compuware. This firm didn't even have any staff of employees yet except for its "leader."

Just going "private" isn't the answer without proper public-sector oversight.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dds
Member
Username: Dds

Post Number: 166
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 12:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In my opinion, the private companies that come out to plow the neighborhood street during a snow emergency suck. One pass through, and residents still have to two track until the next melt. At least on the east side. Then again, one pass is better than no passes, which is how it used to be.
Top of pageBottom of page

Mthouston
Member
Username: Mthouston

Post Number: 763
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 1:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

quote:

Just going "private" isn't the answer without proper public-sector oversight.


And there lies the rub, who ends up running these oversight Committees? Elected Officials? Government Beaucrats, or do we just trust the companies hired to do the work?
Top of pageBottom of page

3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity

Post Number: 532
Registered: 01-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 6:21 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I tend to agree w/ Ericd.

One city asset that should have been sold years ago is the Misterski Power Plant. I did a research paper on it in law school in 1970 and it was very clear then what should be done then.

Edison and the City have apparently discussed deals several times over the years and I'm told Edison made offers to acquire the plant from the City and provide its electrical needs and they were always rejected. Politics and the Union. Too bad. Edison probably doesn't want it any more and I don't blame it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 162
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 - 11:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is correct to assert that the arguments that I am making in favor of privatization are idealic in nature. Of course, corruption can occur in either approach. However, more likely to occur in the public sector than the private one if history is any measure.

OCP?? Wasn't that fictional?...no, even more far fetched...science fictional. You can't seriously be argueing a point with Robocop as a reference point, can you?
Top of pageBottom of page

Trainman
Member
Username: Trainman

Post Number: 368
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 9:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Privatize DDOT. The state of Michigan will not pay and the city of Detroit is broke.

Or, we will be faced with a fast food tax.

By taxing those who make $7. per hour, we can help the union bus drivers to hefty pay increases and the management to large bonuses.

This is the purpose of the Transit meeting in Dearborn tomorrow with DDOT. They say they are going to improve mass transit and get more funds from the FTA.

But it's all just talk, talk, talk and more broken promises.

The promoters of transit today are snake oil salesmen. They want you all to feel soooo good about digging a little deeper in your pocket to pay more taxes.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ccbatson
Member
Username: Ccbatson

Post Number: 190
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 5:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why not privatize DDOT? Sell it for a song, and let someone run it properly like a business. Then, and only then, does it have a chance of standing on its' own (without raping the public with more taxes to prop it up).

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.