|
When I think of Utah, Salt Lake City and the Editorial Board of the SL Tribune, I don't think of a bunch of pinko lefties. I think of them as bedrock conservatives. So when I read the appended editorial against Utah's proposed legislated mass privatization of public recreation facilities and saw their impassioned outcry against excessive free-market ideology gone exceedingly wrong, I smiled.
I figured that if THEY were starting to figure out what was going on and if THEY were opposed to it, then perhaps there was hope after all.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE understand that just about every word in this SL Tribune editorial can, and should, be said about the privatization of recreation on federally-managed public lands. The forces as play are, near enough, identical and the issues at stake are indistinguishable.
Don't take my word to that last statement. Go to these two links
and either read to, skim to, or jump to the very last line on those pages.
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
Privatization: State targets local government services
Tribune Editorial - 02/04/2008
Municipal golf courses. Recreation centers. Swimming pools. Ice-skating
rinks. Things that local governments commonly provide for their
residents.
They're inexpensive alternatives to pricey private facilities. They
keep kids off the streets. And they're an excellent use of tax dollars,
helping improve the quality of life for regular folks of all ages.
They're also potential targets of the free market-obsessed majority in the Utah Legislature.
In the past, state lawmakers have only considered privatizing services
provided by the state, like prisons and the state mental hospital. But
now they're turning their guns on local governments, and attempting to
usurp the power of local elected officials. It has municipal officials
worried, including recreation managers in Salt Lake County, where the
public can swim, golf, skate or exercise at 38 separate facilities.
The privatization proposals are spelled out in House Bills 75 and 76,
sponsored by Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove, a small-business
owner. (If both measures pass, the bills will be merged.) While
recreation facilities are not mentioned by name, make no mistake,
they're in the cross hairs.
HB75 creates a 15-member state Government Competition and Privatization
Council to field unfair-competition complaints leveled by private
enterprises against the state, and compile an inventory of state
services that the council believes could be provided by the private
sector. The governor would be required to select at least three
activities from the list every two years and determine if they should
be privatized.
HB76 takes privatization to the extreme, creating seven-member state
and local privatization commissions that would include at least four
business owners or officers, a built-in, unjust majority.
The omnipotent boards would serve as clearinghouses for complaints from
the private sector. They would determine if a service is a core
government function, and if privatization is feasible. If an activity
is deemed to be outside the public realm, the commissions could order
that the service be privatized, and seek court injunctions if a
government entity refuses to cease operations.
State lawmakers often rail against federal mandates. Now they're trying
to impose their will on duly-elected local government officials, and
strong-arm the governor. These Capitol privateers need to take note of
the contradiction, preserve the autonomy of local governments, and
defeat these bills.
|
- Privatization 
