In my first post I referred to a terrible idea that inspired me to write this blog. Well, that terrible idea has evolved into a bill being carried by Rep. Frank. Here is the run down.
Rep. Frank's bill (HB 76) may make your local rec center be a thing of the past. The bill forces government entities (counties, cities, etc.) to create a commission that would evaluate if government run facilities such as rec centers, reception halls and golf courses unfairly compete with businesses. If it is found that they do unfairly compete, those facilities would have to be sold to the private sector. This is what that means, Gold's Gym could make a push and possibly get the South Davis Rec Center, or Dimple Dell Pool or the Clearfield Aquatics Center sold. Source
How is this right? We, as taxpayers, paid for these buildings to be built. They provide opportunities for recreation that most families could not afford otherwise. They also provide services to a sector of the community that is not targeted by the private recreation sector. Senior Citizens. How many Senior Citizens, who get to use many of these facilities for free or at a reduced rate, could find the same services elsewhere? If these establishments are cheaper than the private alternatives it is because we are subsidizing them with our taxes.
In the days when obesity reigns and most cities are not planned to be walkable, these recreational facilities play a vital role. Privatization in not always better. Let's keep these facilities accessible and affordable for our families.
Please write a letter. This bill will be heard on Monday morning by the House Government Operations Committee. The Committee members and their emails are listed below. Rep. Frank, the bill sponsor, could also profit from a note.
Rep. Frank cfrank@utah.gov
Rep. Donnelson, chair gdonnelson@utah.gov
Rep. Mathis, vice chair jmathis@utah.gov
Rep. Aagard daagard@utah.gov
Rep. Bigelow ronbigelow@utah.gov
Rep. Bowman bbowman@utah.gov
Rep. Fowlke lfowlke@utah.gov
Rep. Grover keithgrover@utah.gov
Rep. Hansen neilhansen@utah.gov
Rep. Hendrickson nhendrickson@utah.gov
Rep. Hutchings ehutchings@utah.gov
Rep. Oda coda@utah.gov
Rep. Wiley lwiley@utah.gov
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"If these establishments are cheaper than the private alternatives it is because we are subsidizing them with our taxes."
How is putting a gun to everybody's head and taking their money to "spread the cost around" moral?
Government keeps pushing the private sector out, building boondoggles and raising taxes on people with fixed incomes to build "feel good" projects. And yet every year core services such as fire and police are short-changed because they're not "bread and circuses".
In North Ogden we have a crappy pool that can only be used a few months out of the year and actively pushed out a private venture that would have built a much more sensible year-round facility for less money.
People have been socialized — made to praise government and fear the public ("private sector"). The shackles are laid around our necks one link at a time, one "public" (government) project at a time.
People on fixed incomes are hit the hardest, yet we say that they have "free" access.
Public rec centers are far from immoral. Privatization is not always better. These rec centers are used tremendously by those on fixed incomes, especially senior citizens.
I obviously feel differently than saddened, but I would love to hear other opinions as well. Let's keep the conversation going.
I never said the government-owned (socialist) rec centers were per se immoral. Putting a gun to people's head and taking their money by force so others can have **goodies** at their expense is immoral.
When we were square in the bottom ranks of the "poor", we could rarely afford the fees rec centres charge, assuming that you can get to one readily. Yes, there are people who can afford them, but the bottom classes cannot. Take money from them and shut them out. The fact that people use the facility doesn't change this.
The bill would allow the efficacy of government-owned facilities to be open to question. Having the ability to placing such facilities under discussion is to you a "terrible idea?" Why are such facilities assumed to be above reproach? Why do people fear the question even being on the table?
- - -
As far as "walkable" cities... put your shoes on and walk, for crying out loud. The cure for wide-spread obesity lies not in more taxes and confiscated private property to build more and more goodies that lay largely unused by the population... but more simple activities like actual, honest-to-goodness walking.
Utah is beautiful. Get out and join the rest of us enjoying the wonders of nature. It costs nothing, requiring only a pair of shoes (or even none whatsoever during pleasant weather).
Utah is a beautiful place. After having lived other places in the country what I love about Utah is that is has four distinct seasons. In the winter and for part of the spring and fall I do not enjoy exercising outside. Call me a whimp, but it's cold here! I also like to take my kids swimming in those cold seasons at indoor pools. I can do that whenever I want because the rec centers are open to the public for my sporadic use.
No one could argue that the government is an efficient opperation. A committee working to make government more dollarwise would be great. But this bill creates a commission to look at unfair competition by a government entity. Not one to evaluate the way these facilities spend their funds.
Someone called me yesterday and gave me a bad time about saying that privatization is not always better. They argued that 99% of the time that a more efficient and better service can be offered by the private sector. I feel that government owned facilities provide wider access though. While the private sector may be more efficient, they are often that way by tailoring their product to a specific group of people. It's a trade off, you'll have to decide what is more important to you, efficency or access?
Thanks for writing again saddened.
As the one that was arguing that privitization leads to better and more efficient services to Karen yesterday. I would like to add a couple of points. Private facilities do their services for a cost and are in it to make money. They are not in business to provide services out of the goodness of their hearts. Thus, those who cannot afford rec fees most certainly would not be able to afford the fees at a private facility.
Additionally, in most communities that I have lived in, the rec center fees can be waived or reduced for those that do the research and a little leg-work. One place I lived students who volunteered ten hours a month at the rec center got to use the facilities for free. The area I currently live in, low-income individuals and families just fill out a form and then are allowed to use the facilities on a sliding scale depending on their income level. These types of incentives are far more likely to occur at a public owned facility rather than a private one (again, because of the motives behind the businesses).
Additionally, your tax dollars are only a waste if you do not use the services that the government spends your dollars on. While it may take me a little longer to reach places on public transit, I might get a little wet in inclement weather, and I might have to walk a couple of extra blocks. I am using a service that is subsidized by my tax dollars and I am making those dollars work for me. When I get to attend one of our local, state, or national parks I am doing so again at a rate that is subsidized by the government, but I am using the facility and appreciate that their funds keep it open for my use. If you feel that your tax dollars are a waste, you need to either make that money work for you OR get in the ear of someone to change how those dollars are spent.
Final point, the US economy works on a supply and demand basis. If a entrepreneur believed that he could make money by building a pool in North Ogden, he would find a way. Our economy dictates that private facilities WILL spring up wherever a market exists for them. The government may throw some red-tape the businesses way, but if the potential to make money exists they will find a way around that red-tape.
I find it so interesting that people are so caught up in valuing things and using people for their own benefit, and repeat the same tired excuses.
"Private facilities ... are not in business to provide services out of the goodness of their hearts."
Neither does government. Private facilities depend on providing value for people. Government just puts a gun to your head and says, "We want to give away some more goodies. Pay up."
If a private facility doesn't provide greater value than what they ask in return, you pay nothing. If a government facility doesn't provide greater value than what they ask in return, you still have to donate your life's blood.
It's so natural for people to blame the victim and cheer the perpetrator when they see some personal gain. Value things. Use people. Get goodies.
Because the abuse of liberty is general, people not only feel justified in getting "their share" of ill-gotten goods. They furthermore attempt to silence those who object to being abused by saying things like "your tax dollars are only a waste if you do not use the services".
Such nonsense. "Liberty, justice, and compassion be damned. We want our goodies! It's your fault if you don't join in! "
"Final point, the US economy works on a supply and demand basis."
Worked. Past tense. Those days have been in decline for decades. This does work as long as individual people are free to exchange with each other without force or deception. Government distorts this, as it introduces force into the equation.
Where government permits free enterprise to operate, it does so with conditions that distort the market. The ordinary effect is that it drives prices up and reduces the amount of value provided to the public.
Other times, government prohibits free enterprise. To use your example, as one among an abundant number...
"If a entrepreneur believed that he could make money by building a pool in North Ogden, he would find a way."
This may sound nice, but it conveniently discounts active government force that is involved every step of the way, and pre-supposed that those in government do not have something to lose.
When elected and unelected officials in public meetings openly — with glee, I might add — mock the entrepreneurs and tell them that their hopes will never see the light of day, that should be a clue that we're dealing with human beings, and the idealism you express does not always exist.
In this particular case, these government officials were "monument builders." They wanted bread to throw to the people.
The courts were no help, stating that it was the city's prerogative to allow the project to go forward or not.
They openly refused to let the project go forward, which eventually led to those willing to donate their money to the project to withdraw.
Once the court hurdle was cleared, the city moved forward and forced everybody to pay for a far inferior product that can only be used for a few months out of the year. During elections, this becomes a "selling point" of why they should be re-elected.
Bread for the masses; bread ground from their own blood. In this era of self-gratification, people profess to enjoy the taste.
"The government may throw some red-tape the businesses way, but if the potential to make money exists they will find a way around that red-tape."
Such gross naïvité needs no comment.
If history is to serve as a guide, people will continue to choose goodies for themselves at the expense of other people. Then complain that every year that things become more expensive, they have less money, and have to work longer hours. As it becomes increasingly unbearable, they will turn to government for more goodies for themselves at other's expense. As long as everybody feels the pain, it must be alright, no?
This is not pessimistic, it's just a natural tendency. History also has some bright spots where people generally have rejected their baser natures and assumed lives of gratitude and joy; lives without treating others as chattel. These are currently not those times, but it need not be that way.
But, why argue about morality when platitudes and good intentions excuse all sins?
Post a Comment