Don't Retreat, Rethink.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

The drama of urban snow removal has preoccupied this newspaper for 150 years. In 1910, The Times wrote about no-show contractors failing to get men and wagons onto the streets after a storm that buried New York City and snarled the Long Island Rail Road. In 2010, we — and pretty much everyone in the city — criticized a no-show mayor who left town before a storm that buried the city and snarled the Long Island Rail Road.

So we were intrigued by a report that Quincy, Mass., has found a way to get rid of snow more efficiently and more cheaply. Last year, it decided to pay contractors not by the hour but by the inch to remove snow in about one-fourth of the city. A storm of up to 2 inches cost $8,455 per ward, rising as the drifts got deeper, up to $42,500 per ward for storms of 14 inches to 18 inches. Above that, the rate fell sharply. This means companies take a gamble when bidding on a contract, and Quincy is unlikely to be bankrupted by a monster storm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/opinion/22tue4.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

This is the sort of thinking we need. Keeping the roads clear is absolutely a responsibility of government, albeit often one contracted out to private companies, and while in this case speed is of the greatest essence, it's not bad to save money either. This is good government, and privatizing it, especially this service in particular, doesn't seem like it would be any better.

Of course, if you read to the bottom of the link, everything old is new again.

Comments

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

well, i wouldn't say it's a myth, I'd say the concept of "privatization" is broad. It's used to denote transfer of ownership from the government to the private sector but also transfer of function from the government sector to the private sector.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

See, for example, the Wikipedia article on privatization, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization) where they use it to describe Ancient Greece "when governments contracted out almost everything to the private sector" (emphasis added)

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That Wikipedia can get it wrong is not a surprise to me.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

yes, yes, it's "common parlance" but Wikipedia is, of course, too common to be taken as an indication of what in fact constitutes common parlance.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

You are awfully obstinate about the definitions of words. English is, I'm afraid, a deeply populist language.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

True, but not so populist as to where we actively lose the meanings of words.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Except it's not really known that way in common parlance.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Well, actually it is. you observed that it's often used in the context of the social security debate. I pointed to a clear example in Wikipedia, In fact, it's very often explicitly defined that way, e.g., from a quick google search.

http://www.answers.com/topic/privatization: "...Services formerly provided by government may be contracted out ..."

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The services are still provided by the government, just executed by private groups.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

um, right.

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

no, it's just (your words) a "common myth".

Just how common must this myth become before you'll accept that it constitutes parlance?