Quote from: Gaspar on April 12, 2011, 01:25:06 PM
Great find. Now that is a great idea implemented by clearly superior business and corporate minds.
Let's see...affluent suburb objects to tax monies going to poorer local communities, so they wall themselves off and refuse to provide retirements or medical insurance to the few remaining employees. The people in charge and every interviewee was overwhelmingly white, and this is in Georgia, mind you.
It's a Republican/Libertarian vision of Utopia, where corporations control every aspect of public life. What's not to love?
Quote from: Ed W on April 12, 2011, 08:30:35 PM
Let's see...affluent suburb objects to tax monies going to poorer local communities, so they wall themselves off and refuse to provide retirements or medical insurance to the few remaining employees. The people in charge and every interviewee was overwhelmingly white, and this is in Georgia, mind you.
It's a Republican/Libertarian vision of Utopia, where corporations control every aspect of public life. What's not to love?
I guess you missed the part that their tax dollars were not being brought back to them or that their roads were not being maintained or that they are actually making a difference to the people that live there.
So "what's not to love"? Nothing. But I get your racist dig. ::)
Perhaps they have it wrong. Maybe more unions and pension/benefits is the answer. That's working genius right now.
Guido, Reason.TV is pushing their own viewpoint here. There's no pretense of a balanced presentation. The main speakers are the mayor and the guy who came up with the original idea. The 'man on the street' interviews may be real or contrived, but we have no way of knowing. There are no dissenting voices whatsoever. In your experience, have you ever seen such unanimous support for any city plan? I haven't. The whole thing has a Potemkin village/Stepford wives feel to it.
I'm skeptical by nature. I'd want to know, for instance, what the turnover rates are for their police and fire departments, or lacking that information, what the average age is for a fireman or an LEO. In other words, do they retain experienced personnel or do they move on to better jobs after getting a few years of experience?
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2011, 08:48:52 PM
I guess you missed the part that their tax dollars were not being brought back to them or that their roads were not being maintained or that they are actually making a difference to the people that live there.
I think he got "it". He just believes that is the way it is supposed to be. (IMO) After they support those less fortunate, they can raise their taxes to take care of their own stuff. They can afford it.
Anyone else think that one woman looked and acted a lot like Margaret Thatcher? The resemblance and similarity in diction (less the accent) was uncanny
A cursory search revealed this:
The Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit on March 28 in Georgia pertaining to the formation of five specific cities in DeKalb and Fulton counties. The suit demands that the five cities — which were alleged to create "super-majority white" municipalities — should be dissolved for diluting minority voters and violating the Voting Rights Act. The five cities are Sandy Springs, Milton, Johns Creek, Chattahoochee Hills and Dunwoody.
http://ballotnews.org/2011/04/01/redistricting-roundup-deadlines-looming-for-many-states-in-redistricting-process/ (http://ballotnews.org/2011/04/01/redistricting-roundup-deadlines-looming-for-many-states-in-redistricting-process/)
But there's a larger question is this. Should tax monies be spent for the public good, or should they be used solely to benefit those who pay the most?
The primary differences between public and private projects are efficiency andquality. These things have nothing to do with race.
It is certainly unfortunate that liberals still pimp out minorities every time they become insulated from access to other people's money.
This is an example of a city that successfully incorporated and eliminated government waste that was hurting them. This is not a unique example. There are many cities that have done this completely or to some degree. To imply that it is racest is disgraceful. No city is restricted from doing this, except by their political ideology.
The real argument should be aganst any political ideology that subjugates entire races or groups of people to an elite that dictates how they will live based on what they believe those groups are incapable of doing without their assistance. That is raciest!
Quote from: Ed W on April 13, 2011, 05:25:10 AM
A cursory search revealed this:
The Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit on March 28 in Georgia pertaining to the formation of five specific cities in DeKalb and Fulton counties. The suit demands that the five cities — which were alleged to create "super-majority white" municipalities — should be dissolved for diluting minority voters and violating the Voting Rights Act. The five cities are Sandy Springs, Milton, Johns Creek, Chattahoochee Hills and Dunwoody.
http://ballotnews.org/2011/04/01/redistricting-roundup-deadlines-looming-for-many-states-in-redistricting-process/ (http://ballotnews.org/2011/04/01/redistricting-roundup-deadlines-looming-for-many-states-in-redistricting-process/)
But there's a larger question is this. Should tax monies be spent for the public good, or should they be used solely to benefit those who pay the most?
I will not even touch the bullcrap racism charge. As for taxes, ALL should benefit equally from tax policy. I only wish everyone paid equally.
This idea isn't new. Cities have done this before. Paradise Valley in the Phoenix metro area did this 50 years ago. They have their own police department, but fire, schools, water, trash service and sewer (where available) is all contractracted out. Fire and schools to Scottsdale, trash to Waste Management, water and sewer are either Phoenix, or SRP (Salt River Project). The biggest boost in the tax base is the fact they they have 12 resorts inside their city boundry.
http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/ (http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/)
http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/ (http://www.ci.paradise-valley.az.us/)
Bsically these places are overgrown HOA's, and the only thing missing are the gates to get in and out of.
Quote from: guido911 on April 13, 2011, 09:36:38 AM
I will not even touch the bullcrap racism charge. As for taxes, ALL should benefit equally from tax policy. I only wish everyone paid equally.
Has the Legislative White Caucus weighed in on this yet?
Quote from: Conan71 on April 13, 2011, 11:05:13 AM
Has the Legislative White Caucus weighed in on this yet?
No, but the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is delighted. Last year the City of Maywood (one of the densest populated mostly Hispanic cities in the country) incorporated and outsourced everything including law enforcement. Crime is down, the city is out of debt, and the citizenry (investors) are very happy.
Apparently Maywood's Hispanic residents were tired of their tax dollars going to build roads and schools in affluent white neighborhoods.
Viva Maywood!
Apparently, we've gone from "a rising tide lifts all boats" to "I've got mine, Jack." Presumably, taxes are raised for the public good, yet some of you applaud the legal 'secession' of a few rich enclaves so they can retain more tax money for their own purposes. The concept of the common good is lost when one part of the county can decide that their taxes cannot be spent for maintaining roads in another part of the county. They don't want to support all the local schools, just the ones in their neighborhood.
Why stop at the local level? I'd certainly prefer that my taxes not go toward providing credits to oil companies, bribes incentives for luring businesses, or bombing the beejesus out of countries that won't acquiesce to our oil foreign policies.
Snark aside, we once adhered to the idea that schools, roads, and other public projects were for the benefit of all, and we had a common duty as citizens to see that those basics were available to all. It's a social contract. But when a wealthy enclave can essentially secede from local government and say, "I'm all right, Jack", that social contract is irrevocably broken, and we're all the worse for it.
Quote from: Ed W on April 13, 2011, 06:09:29 PM
Apparently, we've gone from "a rising tide lifts all boats" to "I've got mine, Jack." Presumably, taxes are raised for the public good, yet some of you applaud the legal 'secession' of a few rich enclaves so they can retain more tax money for their own purposes. The concept of the common good is lost when one part of the county can decide that their taxes cannot be spent for maintaining roads in another part of the county. They don't want to support all the local schools, just the ones in their neighborhood.
Why stop at the local level? I'd certainly prefer that my taxes not go toward providing credits to oil companies, bribes incentives for luring businesses, or bombing the beejesus out of countries that won't acquiesce to our oil foreign policies.
Snark aside, we once adhered to the idea that schools, roads, and other public projects were for the benefit of all, and we had a common duty as citizens to see that those basics were available to all. It's a social contract. But when a wealthy enclave can essentially secede from local government and say, "I'm all right, Jack", that social contract is irrevocably broken, and we're all the worse for it.
If you watched the video, one of reasons they did this was because their tax money was not returning to them--to the point where their infrastructure was hurting. I guess the "rich" don't get any of the "common good" thingy, though; right?
I did watch the video, Guido, and they did indeed say that. We have no way to know if it's true, however, and we're both aware that what people believe is often at odds with reality.
We know that individuals, communities, and even states put more into the common pot than they receive. That's a given. Historically, this is nothing new. Nor is it new for a community to figuratively wall itself off from its neighbors.
The new part, though, is the spread of this kind of information through the internet, and the opportunity it offers to see that similar ideas and similar efforts in our own area receive the ridicule and opposition they deserve. Another way to consider it is to think about how this sparks debate...and that's always a good thing.
Quote from: Ed W on April 13, 2011, 09:44:35 PM
I did watch the video, Guido, and they did indeed say that. We have no way to know if it's true, however, and we're both aware that what people believe is often at odds with reality.
Kind of like the way we in the Tulsa area complain that OKC area gets more in funding than we do.
Quote from: guido911 on April 13, 2011, 07:05:09 PM
If you watched the video, one of reasons they did this was because their tax money was not returning to them--to the point where their infrastructure was hurting. I guess the "rich" don't get any of the "common good" thingy, though; right?
There's a big counterexample right in our own back yard. Or would that be the front yard?
Quote from: Ed W on April 13, 2011, 09:44:35 PM
Another way to consider it is to think about how this sparks debate...and that's always a good thing.
No one can honestly argue with that, which is what this forum IMO is all about.