Colorado Springs cuts into services considered basic by many (Democrats?)

The Denver Post ^ | o1/31/2010 | Michael Booth

[FreedomPoster]

Nicely done.

I hope that has been put forth in plenty of places such that anyone paying attention to this issue will see it.

[Timeout]

I was told that the Utilities Department has over 30 people in Communications plus employs the services of an outside PR agency. [The Broadmore has] 1 person in PR and we have to compete for our business across the nation.

And that's just the Utilities Dept. How many "spokespersons", public relations staff does the mayor have? The Council? Each department head? I'd love to see the total headcount for those jobs.

Every time I hear this canard about firing cops and firefighters, I want to yell at them: "Eliminate your public relations departments, then we'll believe you're getting serious!".

Here we have all these public workers who tell us they're worth those extravagant salaries...but they can't write their own press release? Or speech? The fact is, IF YOU'RE TELLING THE TRUTH, you don't need someone to write spin for you.

[worst-case scenario]

Many municipalities apparently have decided, through their electoral process, to provide services to all of their citizenry, through secular means and without regard to those citizens’ ability to pay. These policies would reflect a general attitude that it is healthier, in some way, for the polity to let all citizens enjoy free library borrowing or public open-space recreation, without having to divide them by social or economic class, through “charity” v “pay” services.

If the citizens of aa municipality wish to combine their money, through taxes and elected oversight, to provide these services, they obviously believe that this method is actually superior than charity or a marketized system that has to provide a profit to someone right off the top. Perhaps it has turned out to be cheaper for them. In my own state, several municipalities have opted to return garbage pickup or senior services to local government, having found that privatization provided poorer service at a higher cost.

Luckily, people can vote with their feet. If paying less in municipal taxes, and then paying out-of-pocket for (formerly municipal) services, is what you prefer, there’s bound to be a place for you to live in this great country that will match your philosophy.

[riri]

Have you ever been to a private city park? I've never even heard of one.

No, but the planned master developments have their own parks and they blow doors off any city park, at least the ones I have lived in. The most recent subdivision I lived in had several comprising many acres. They had basketball courts, tennis, great modern play equipment, green grass, bbq areas with ramadas, etc. it was maintained by our HOA dues which were 115 dollars a quarter.

Now, living here in the Utopia of Sweden even my kids comment on how decrepit the parks are.

[SnakeDoctor]

I am aware of the “vote with your feet” idea — and fully acknowledge the federalist argument. Self-government at its finest.

My argument was more in principle than as a criticism of a particular municipality.

SnakeDoc

[A Liberty Belle]

I support what most of you are saying, parks could be privatized easily, just like membership pools. Maybe have one organization in charge of the city’s parks, and you purchase a membership or something. A cut in benefits for city employees is probably long overdue, since those things seem to go up when the economy does well, but never go down when the economy does poorly

But I have to really disagree about libraries and parks being non-essential. While it’s true that you don’t need them to survive, I think that having access to a library is one of the most important parts of any society. A literate population with the ability to educate itself is important, and libraries make it so you at least have the option to study anything you really want.

You could say they should rely on fees, but really, when you need libraries most is often when you CAN’T afford fees, and access to knowledge gives people who are impoverished a chance to better themselves and become productive and prosperous.

You could say they should rely on donations, but really, libraries should be a long-term, stable, available organization. People are generous, and I think they WOULD support libraries, but they get distracted by other things, or whatever, but generally, donations DO drop off unless something is an immediate project. For a long-term project, the libraries would have to constantly advertise and plead for money to remind people that libraries do take money.

That’s how you get things like NPR which are ‘commercial free’ but it’s like 90% “send us money send us money” (gee, good plan). If NPR didn’t get donations and vanished tomorrow, that is fine, but libraries shouldn’t be that fragile.

I really think, and I think all the founding fathers would agree, that libraries are fundamental to liberty, at least as important as national defense to our country.

[trumpetvine]

Your post centers around privatizing libraries but I see absolutely no problem with that. If a community values a library then they can seek out funders - or donors as you mention - and create one that contains exactly what their community wants! Local businesses that see value in, say, providing internet service there, that include their advertising and allows them to address their local target users makes perfect sense to me.

Why do you have a problem with simply letting market forces provide the services a community is interested in?

Local citizens organizations are perfectly capable of identifying their own needs and identifying businesses that can supply them and also profit in the supply. In fact community standards are much easier to maintain when the community itself has control of what their members are exposed to - which is a problem with liberal run schools that indoctrinate rather than teach. A publicly run and publicly stocked library simply allows the liberals to provide their material and suppress ours!

This is a great opportunity for Colorado Springs to show the rest of the country how it’s done.

[A Liberty Belle]

Because I believe that it is important, actually, that the information in a library not be subject to market forces. If a boy in a West Virginia coal mining town, whose family consists entirely of people working in the coal industry, decides he would like to learn to launch rockets into space, he should be able to. The market would not likely support one person’s interest in rocket science.

The cost of books is relatively small, and the rewards of learning are priceless.

Homer Hickham grew up in West Virginia, in a town based around a coal mine and, after learning of Sputnik’s launch, became driven to teach himself (with some help) about rockets, and eventually was influential in America’s (and the entire world’s) progress in rocket science.

The market is great for many things, and in theory, it would handle everything. If everyone acted rationally, and was always aware of everything and always fully educated, then the market would be perfect, but the world, and people, are not this way, so a few things should maybe not rely on the whims of unstable market.

Libraries, however, are so important. And our systems, and ourselves, are imperfect.

On a more practical, literal level, the greatest value of the library is that it is always there if you need it. No matter what else happens, you can count on your library to be there.

I guess the difference is that I support small, limited government in only certain areas, but you seem to support nonexistent government. Fair enough!

Besides, a library subject to market forces or the demands of the people is how you end up with Wikipedia.

[A Liberty Belle]

Also, it shouldn’t bother you if there are liberal books in libraries. There are conservative books too. That’s one of the aspects of libraries that’s so important.

The only reason liberals could have some sort of monopoly on libraries (and I don’t think they do), is if we, as conservatives, neglect libraries because we’ve somehow already surrendered any “place of learning” as a liberal victory.