Will $5+/ga start to impact where people buy housing here in Austin

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

The case for the private sector and roads would be the rise in toll roads. It's unknown how much we would pay for roads in comparison to road taxes and licensing. If the government would ever give up its monopoly, then I suppose we would know.

There is no monopoly in road building. Any private firm that wants to propose a road may do so, just as transportation planning agencies and highway departments do. They would go through the same environmental clearance, permitting, and planning steps that a government agency would go through. It's instructive that private companies aren't leaping into the gap.

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

That is the case for all the other services that people always assume would never be taken over by the private sector- fire, police, and schools. If the government gave up its monopoly, the private sector would take them over. All you have to do is look at: Priebe Security Services, Inc.
Austin Security Guard Austin Security Patrol Tx
Security Officers-Private Investigators-Austin-Dallas-Houston-San Antonio
SRS Security | Security guard services, Bodyguard serviceSecurity Guard Services Austin | SRS Security
Providing Contract Security Services to Texas
Security Guard Company * Austin TX | Guards, Officers, Bodyguards TX
Bodyguard - Private investigator - Emerald P.I. - Austin - Texas
Bodyguard Services Houston | Executive Security | Security Guard Service Houston TX
Austin Texas Event Security
I could go on longer. Private industry can do almost anything that the government does more efficiently and more equitably.

So, I ask you to provide a business case for having police services taken over by the private sector, and you give me a list of security guard firms that you no doubt copied from Google. Emblematic, I think, of the depth of your thinking on this and similar topics.

You do know that many of these firms (or firms like them) already provide private security services to the government, right? And do you know how they're paid? Amazingly enough, with tax revenues! But that's not really private sector now, is it? In fact, some of your own federal tax money has gone to pay a private security firm to provide armed guards at a nuclear power plant thousands of miles away that you'll never see, get power from, or even think about.

If you're actually more than just an ideologue who spouts buzzwords like "privatization", then it should be easy for you to provide a simple business case for Austin Police Department, Inc. - a private sector firm that provides police services to the city of Austin using no tax money. Where does APD, Inc.'s revenue come from? Do they charge by the call? And how much do you suppose they should charge? Or do they simply bill everyone who lives in Austin? What if you don't pay? The costs of a law enforcement organization are large and manifold - everything from salaries and benefits to the purchase and upkeep of buildings, vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc. It includes huge insurance requirements, and a large cash reserve. It includes retirement plans and administrative costs. So, I'm the CEO of a private security company. Make the pitch to me as to why I should risk my capital, my business, and my career on this venture.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by jb9152

There is no monopoly in road building. Any private firm that wants to propose a road may do so, just as transportation planning agencies and highway departments do. They would go through the same environmental clearance, permitting, and planning steps that a government agency would go through. It's instructive that private companies aren't leaping into the gap.



So, I ask you to provide a business case for having police services taken over by the private sector, and you give me a list of security guard firms that you no doubt copied from Google. Emblematic, I think, of the depth of your thinking on this and similar topics.

You do know that many of these firms (or firms like them) already provide private security services to the government, right? And do you know how they're paid? Amazingly enough, with tax revenues! But that's not really private sector now, is it? In fact, some of your own federal tax money has gone to pay a private security firm to provide armed guards at a nuclear power plant thousands of miles away that you'll never see, get power from, or even think about.

If you're actually more than just an ideologue who spouts buzzwords like "privatization", then it should be easy for you to provide a simple business case for Austin Police Department, Inc. - a private sector firm that provides police services to the city of Austin using no tax money. Where does APD, Inc.'s revenue come from? Do they charge by the call? And how much do you suppose they should charge? Or do they simply bill everyone who lives in Austin? What if you don't pay? The costs of a law enforcement organization are large and manifold - everything from salaries and benefits to the purchase and upkeep of buildings, vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc. It includes huge insurance requirements, and a large cash reserve. It includes retirement plans and administrative costs. So, I'm the CEO of a private security company. Make the pitch to me as to why I should risk my capital, my business, and my career on this venture.

What is interesting is that there is competition between cities. So cities do have incentive to improve otherwise they lose people (detroit). States also compete - there are low tax low service states and high tax high service states. People like mimimom can always move to a small town (under a few hundred) with no services and no taxes. There are tons of these places - there is a system for everyone.

Countries even compete, there are low tax low service countries (india) and high tax high service countries (france)


mimimom: here is the place for you (loving texas)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/na...ing.html?_r=1&

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Austin97

What is interesting is that there is competition between cities. So cities do have incentive to improve otherwise they lose people (detroit). States also compete - there are low tax low service states and high tax high service states. People like mimimom can always move to a small town (under a few hundred) with no services and no taxes. There are tons of these places - there is a system for everyone.

Countries even compete, there are low tax low service countries (india) and high tax high service countries (france)


mimimom: here is the place for you (loving texas)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/na...ing.html?_r=1&

I would add that there is no hospital, no city water, no schools etc. You get to contract it all out to private companies. A libertarian paradise.

[jb9152]

It just bugs me to no end, as I see this a lot in my own industry (transportation). When the tax money is not there to build a project, the cry immediately goes out to "get the private sector involved!!" All well and good, and if it can work, it usually works *really* well - mimimomx3 is right about one thing: when the private sector has its own capital at risk, it finds some damn innovative and cost-saving ways to do things, for sure.

The problem is this - you HAVE to have a business case and a business plan. And I see no way whatsoever to make private police, fire, and EMS work. Nor hospitals (they get tax subsidized too). Nor roads. Nor many things that are supported with taxes.

A private business is simply not going to jump into a field of endeavor simply out of the goodness of their hearts. The proposed endeavor had damn well better offer a sustainable source of revenue which not only pays the bills, but allows ample room for profit. Low profit margin, high risk activities like law enforcement would be a dead loser - what CEO in his or her right mind would take on such a high-visibility, high-risk, thankless, low profit margin, expensive task? You'd have to be incompetent or insane.

This is why mimi will never be able to make that case - there is no reasonable, affordable price that a police "customer" could pay that would assure APD, Inc. of a profit. The only reasonable way we've found as a society to do it is to support it with tax revenues. Now, could some functions of the police department be spun off to private companies? In some limited circumstances, sure! Why not? Especially if they can do it for lower incremental cost. But to pretend that all we need to do is completely privatize everything because "the market" will take care of it is child-like in its naivete.

[eileenkeeney]

I initially considered living central, and commuting north to work.
But they kept delaying the rail, and I did not know if it was going to be running by the time I moved here (it turned out it wasn't, but then it was up and running soon after I moved here).
Because my work is in walking distance of Howard Station, I wanted to live closer to town, but in walking distance of a rail station.
I looked in the Crestview area.

I think I would enjoy living in the Barton Creek area. I wish my job was located in that area, then I could justify the expense of living in that area.

I ended up living in walking distance of work (3 minute walk).

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by jennyinatx

I'm a state employee and a downtown student (some semesters anyway). I currently live in Cedar Park and drive a 30 mpg rated car (get about 25 with traffic). I would LOVE to live in central austin but I don't make the kind of money to afford it unless I move to Georgian Acres, etc. Which honestly, I am considering.

Not so much for the money savings, but for the time savings. My commute is on average 55 minutes in the morning, and 1 hour 20 minutes to get to my kids from after school daycare. Home life is literally homework, dinner, kids in bed by 8:45. I'm up later trying to do my homework, and preparing for the next day. The night of sleep is short and my day is incredible long.

I daydream about home ownership but like I said, "undesirable" areas or places like Leander where the drive/commute/ opportunity cost is even heavier.

It probably makes sense for someone like me to buy in a not so great area of Austin with a better commute time and fight for school transfers, charter school acceptance, or struggle to pay for private schools if I want to keep working as a public employee.

Did you need to live as far away as Cedar Park, to get housing you can afford?
Could you choose a smaller residence?
I live in North Austin, and housing here is still very reasonable.
The train takes about 30 minutes to get downtown.
Schools are not the highest rated, but they are rated fine.

Often when housing starts to get really expensive, people start buying houses in cheaper (currently undesirable) places. But enough people who care about their neighborhoods and schools buy in these areas, and then these areas start to become more desirable.
I saw this happen in Portland Oregon. An area, where I went to high school, that was a really run down area, is now a very classy (and expensive) area. This is because people who could not afford to buy homes in areas that were already classy, bought into the less classy neighborhood, and then made it classy.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by jb9152

There is no monopoly in road building. Any private firm that wants to propose a road may do so, just as transportation planning agencies and highway departments do. They would go through the same environmental clearance, permitting, and planning steps that a government agency would go through. It's instructive that private companies aren't leaping into the gap.

And compete with "Free" roads that are paid for with tax money (including tax money of any that would choose to take these hypothetical private roads). It's not exactly a free market for companies to compete in.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by Novacek

And compete with "Free" roads that are paid for with tax money (including tax money of any that would choose to take these hypothetical private roads). It's not exactly a free market for companies to compete in.

No, it's not. But there is no monopoly.