Reg Ankrom's 43 Questions
Can be found here on Ed Husar's blog.
Seems to me that these are very reasonable questions that any business would be happy to discuss with the prospective investors in a multi-million dollar venture.
Seems to me that these questions should be discussed by the city with its investors, i.e., taxpayers, in full and complete detail.
Otherwise it's a pig in a poke.
Seems to me that these are very reasonable questions that any business would be happy to discuss with the prospective investors in a multi-million dollar venture.
Seems to me that these questions should be discussed by the city with its investors, i.e., taxpayers, in full and complete detail.
Otherwise it's a pig in a poke.
posted by Allthenewsthatfits at 1:36 PM
6 Comments:
Reg himself admits that a whole bunch of these questions WERE answered at last week's public hearing.
Of course, he also says he added five or six more after hearing what they had to say. :)
I looked at the city's answers to Ankrom's questions on its website. About 30 of them were "we are not contemplating creating a municipal utility, so your question is irrelevant." OK, so the city isn't going to create a municipal utility, rather sell the electricity on the market. However, Ankrom's questions are relevant, because the ultimate payoff of the project is going to depend on the price of electricity, whether the consumers are the citizens of Quincy or not. Seemed to me that the "official" answers were rather defensive.
And why would the mayor be "surprised" that information from officials' meetings would be made public? It's public money, after all.
Why does anyone think it's strange a former CIPS guy would have questions about a potential competitor for energy revenue?
Is anybody awake out there?
If the city is not "contemplating creating a municipal utility. . .(but) rather (to)sell the electricity on the market," we've arrived at a frightening destination. This is not a function of government in a capitalist society. It's the definition of a socialist society.
If nobody but me cares and this hydroelectric thing works, then let's expand on it. Let's have the city use its advantages (like tax-exempt financings, not available to private enterprise) to build utility beds or oil field pumps or tires and wheels. To hell with the Knapheides, the Gardner Denvers and the Titan Wheels, who are out there every day facing the challenges in free and competitive markets. Our citizens may no longer have jobs when the city's unfair advantages close down their employers. But maybe they can take some consolation in the mayor's promise that hydroelectricity will bring revenue to the city.
Is anyone but me amazed that the once-reactionary Chamber of Commerce is leading the revolution?
Government competes with private entities in a wide number of situations, and private entities do just fine. Look at education: there are state-run institutions of education and there are private institutions. Look at medical care: there are government-run hospitals and there are private hospitals. Look out your window: you can use the city trash service or a private trash service. The "socialism" canard is just silly.
Whether the hydro plant is a good idea is an entirely different question. What I am wondering is if the megawattage of the wind-power facility has been overstated. If not, why isn't the city putting wind turbines on every high spot within fifty miles?
No intention to start a running debate, but I notice your examples are non-profits or city-regulated enterprises?
Post a Comment
<< Home