The Great American Fire Sale

[watermock]

.S. states consider selling off roads, parks
Posted 12/28/2008 6:59 AM | Comments 175 | Recommend 19 E-mail | Save | Print |


Enlarge By H. Darr Beiser, USA TODAY

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has hinted that his January budget proposal will include proposals to privatize some of what the state owns or does. The Republican is looking for cash to help close a $5.27 billion deficit without raising taxes.


ST. PAUL, Minnesota (AP) — Minnesota has a huge budget deficit, but the state still owns a premier golf resort, a sprawling amateur sports complex, a big airport, a major zoo and land holdings the size of the Central American country of Belize.
Valuables like these are in for a closer look as 44 states cope with budget deficits.

Like families pawning the silver to get through a tight spot, states such as Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois are thinking of selling or leasing toll roads, parks, lotteries and other assets to raise desperately needed cash.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has hinted that his January budget proposal will include proposals to privatize some of what the state owns or does. The Republican is looking for cash to help close a $5.27 billion deficit without raising taxes.

Republican lawmakers are pushing to privatize the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the state lottery. Both steps require a higher authority — federal legislation in the case of the airport, a voter-approved constitutional amendment for the lottery. But one lawmaker estimated an airport deal could bring in at least $2.5 billion, and the lottery $500 million.

lawmakers are considering putting the Massachusetts Turnpike in private hands. That could bring in upfront money to help with a $1.4 billion deficit, while also saving on highway operating costs.

In New York, Democratic Gov. David Paterson appointed a commission to look into leasing state assets, including the Tappan Zee Bridge north of New York City, the lottery, golf courses, toll roads, parks and beaches. Recommendations are expected next month.

Such projects could be attractive to private investors, including foreign firms, and public pension funds looking for safe places to put their money in this scary economy, said Leonard Gilroy, a privatization expert with the market-oriented Reason Foundation in Los Angeles.

"Infrastructure is more attractive today than ever," Gilroy said. "It's tangible. It's a road. It's water. It's an airport. It's something that is — you know, you hear the term recession-proof."

Labor unions do not like privatization deals out of fear that worker wages and benefits will be squeezed as private operators try to boost their profit by streamlining services.

Taxpayers, too, can lose out if the arrangements do not work — and sometimes even if they do, said Mark Price, a labor economist with the Keystone Research Center in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Higher tolls on privatized roads can push drivers onto state-operated roads, wearing them down faster and raising public costs over time.

"You're privatizing some profits in this process and socializing some losses," Price said.

Selling or leasing public assets can produce an immediate infusion of cash for the state, while foisting the tough decisions, such as raising tolls, onto private operators instead of the politicians.

"The downsides are often after they leave office," said Phineas Baxandall, a researcher with the consumer-oriented U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Boston.

Some states struck major privatization deals well before the economic crisis hit, following a practice of leasing toll roads that is more common in Europe and Asia.

Indiana, for example, brought in $3.8 billion in 2006 by leasing the Indiana Toll Road to an Australian-Spanish partnership for 75 years. Chicago stands to collect $2.5 billion by leasing Midway Airport to a group of U.S. and Canadian investors, if the federal government approves, and has raised an additional $3.5 billion since 2005 through deals for the Chicago Skyway toll road, parking ramps and parking meters.

But in September, investors walked away from a $12.8 billion bid to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike to a Spanish-American partnership for 75 years after legislators failed to act on the deal. And Texas lawmakers uneasy over a proposed private toll road system approved a two-year moratorium on such contracts last year.

David Fisher, who managed Minnesota's state-owned properties a few years ago under former Gov. Jesse Ventura, warned that the state has a hard time finding buyers for properties such as old mental institutions.

Fisher said some public properties belong in private hands, such as Giants Ridge Golf & Ski Resort, a top-rated getaway in Biwabik, and Ironworld, a museum and library in Chisholm. Both are owned and subsidized by Iron Range Resources, a state agency.

"Certainly those things could be privatized, I think without harm to the state, but I don't know that you could find the right buyer," Fisher said.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-28-states-selloff_N.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/cb-goodbye-bush.jpg

[defenseman]

http://www.bartcop.com/cb-goodbye-bush.jpg

Change some of the words on the kite...etc...etc.... and you have the Charlie Brown being "california" as it goes bankrupt......I'm loving it.....freaking hilarious......dman

*And the Obama adminstration better no bail the SOB's out. They deserve to fail miserably and wallow in their poor fiscal management and liberal agendas...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Change some of the words on the kite...etc...etc.... and you have the Charlie Brown being "california" as it goes bankrupt......I'm loving it.....freaking hilarious......dman

*And the Obama adminstration better no bail the SOB's out. They deserve to fail miserably and wallow in their poor fiscal management and liberal agendas...

Still deflecting for your boy the court-appointed pinhead, eh?

Pathetic. :oyvey:

As for CA, you can thank the smirking sociopath and his buddies at Enron for that one.

[W*GS]

The question is why governments own things like golf courses, airports, zoos, and sports complexes...

Any of our resident socialists (even if they won't admit it) care to explain?

[epicSocialism4tw]

The question is why governments own things like golf courses, airports, zoos, and sports complexes...

Any of our resident socialists (even if they won't admit it) care to explain?

Get ready for the propaganda cartoon.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Still deflecting for your boy the court-appointed pinhead, eh?

Pathetic. :oyvey:

As for CA, you can thank the smirking sociopath and his buddies at Enron for that one.

LOL

George W. Bush: Supreme Legislater of California. Ha!

More proof that the delusional can blame everything down to their toe fungi on the soon-to-be former president.

The dumbing down of America has been willfully advocated by volunteer propagators of this type of brain rot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL

George W. Bush: Supreme Legislater of California. Ha!

More proof that the delusional can blame everything down to their toe fungi on the soon-to-be former president.

The dumbing down of America has been willfully advocated by volunteer propagators of this type of brain rot.

Still advertising your ignorance, I see.

You might want to do your homework re: Enron's CA swindle before spouting off and looking foolish here.

[Bronco Bob]

LOL

George W. Bush: Supreme Legislater of California. Ha!

More proof that the delusional can blame everything down to their toe fungi on the soon-to-be former president.

The dumbing down of America has been willfully advocated by volunteer propagators of this type of brain rot.

Trouble with you clowns is you won't accept responsibility for the things
Bush did screw up. You always want to shift the blame on someone else.

[Bronco Bob]

The question is why governments own things like golf courses, airports, zoos, and sports complexes...

Any of our resident socialists (even if they won't admit it) care to explain?

And this is a problem because? I have no problem with the government
running a golf course, airport, zoo, sports complex. Why do you?
I get as much fun out of a zoo whether it's a city zoo or a private
zoo. More so in fact because a city zoo usually tends to be larger
and have a wider selection of animals and nicer facilities.

[W*GS]

And this is a problem because? I have no problem with the government running a golf course, airport, zoo, sports complex. Why do you?

The government's job isn't to own things like golf courses, airports, zoos and sports complexes. Those things are readily available and supplied by the private sector just fine.

Why should taxpayers be paying for things and services that are easily supplied via private means?

What limits (if any) are there on government-run enterprises, in your view?

[Garcia Bronco]

The government's job isn't to own things like golf courses, airports, zoos and sports complexes. Those things are readily available and supplied by the private sector just fine.

Why should taxpayers be paying for things and services that are easily supplied via private means?

What limits (if any) are there on government-run enterprises, in your view?

He has none.

[broncofan7]

And this is a problem because? I have no problem with the government
running a golf course, airport, zoo, sports complex. Why do you?
I get as much fun out of a zoo whether it's a city zoo or a private
zoo. More so in fact because a city zoo usually tends to be larger
and have a wider selection of animals and nicer facilities.

Well sir, You can choose to have your tax dollars spent on such items--I would prefer more police, better roads, smaller teacher to student ratios and grant opportunities for college. Take your zoo and grab a shovel.........

[Bronco Bob]

The government's job isn't to own things like golf courses, airports, zoos and sports complexes.

And who says it isn't?


Those things are readily available and supplied by the private sector just fine.


In many cases the government does a better job and for less money.
The San Diego zoo is one of the finest zoos in the country. Show
me a private zoo that can compete. Private prisons were an absolute
failure. Would you want a private army fighting our wars? Look
what a mess Blackwater is in Iraq.


Why should taxpayers be paying for things and services that are easily supplied via private means?


Because in some cases we get more bang for the buck.

[/QUOTE]

What limits (if any) are there on government-run enterprises, in your view?[/QUOTE]

There are things the government is better at doing, there are
things that well regulated private companies can do.
It just depends on which one is more efficient. There is
no blanket rule.

[Bronco Bob]

Well sir, You can choose to have your tax dollars spent on such items--I would prefer more police, better roads, smaller teacher to student ratios and grant opportunities for college. Take your zoo and grab a shovel.........

I don't need to take a shovel. The city does that for me.
And if you are so into privatization, why not hire your own
police force, hire your own teacher for your kids, fill
in potholes on your own.

[W*GS]

And who says it isn't?

Apparently the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't mean anything to you.

In many cases the government does a better job and for less money.

"Many"? Are you really that unaware of the endless instances of governments trying to act like a business and failing miserably, at huge cost to taxpayers? Think FasTracks.

The San Diego zoo is one of the finest zoos in the country. Show me a private zoo that can compete. Private prisons were an absolute failure. Would you want a private army fighting our wars? Look what a mess Blackwater is in Iraq.

Prisons and the military aren't the same as golf courses, zoos, airports and sports complexes.

There are things the government is better at doing, there are things that well regulated private companies can do. It just depends on which one is more efficient. There is no blanket rule.

If there's no compelling reason for the government to do X or supply Y, then it shouldn't. Things like genuine public goods (courts, the military, police protection, firefighting and the like) are obviously best done by the government. Zoos, sports complexes, airports and golf courses are not public goods, so should be left to the private sector.

[W*GS]

And if you are so into privatization, why not hire your own police force, hire your own teacher for your kids, fill in potholes on your own.

Considering that we are responsible for our own safety and that many kids are homeschooled or in private schools, there's latitude for non-governmental provision of those services.

Roads are different.

- The SCOTUS has ruled that the police are not liable for failing to protect a specific individual against crime; the police are there only for the general safety.

[barryr]

Yikes, people still, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, still believe government involvement always means good things happen. Eyes wide shut.

[Bronco Bob]

Apparently the collapse of the Soviet Union didn't mean anything to you.


And what was the major factor that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union?
They had too many zoos and golf courses? I was under the impression
that it was excessive spending on their military. But somehow in the
discussion of the government spending too much money, the idea
that the US spends 10 times as much money on the military
than the rest of the world combined never comes up. How many
golf courses and zoos could the cost of one B2 bomber buy?

[W*GS]

And what was the major factor that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union?

A government that tried to supply all goods and services.

Too bad you couldn't handle the rest of my commentary, and chickened out by not responding to it.

But somehow in the discussion of the government spending too much money, the idea that the US spends 10 times as much money on the military than the rest of the world combined never comes up. How many golf courses and zoos could the cost of one B2 bomber buy?

The military does cost far too much. I won't argue that.

Instead of swapping B-2s for golf courses and zoos, why not have that money left in our hands, since it's ours anyway?

Do you honestly believe that the government always spends our taxes wisely?

[broncofan7]

I don't need to take a shovel. The city does that for me.
And if you are so into privatization, why not hire your own
police force, hire your own teacher for your kids, fill
in potholes on your own.

1) any protective agency that I would hire to protect myself would not have the authority that a government provided security detail enjoys

2) If I could take my tax money that is diverted to local schools here in Frisco, I would most certainly do that.

3)Because the roads are not traveled by myself alone.

[jhat01]

Well sir, You can choose to have your tax dollars spent on such items--I would prefer more police, better roads, smaller teacher to student ratios and grant opportunities for college. Take your zoo and grab a shovel.........

And you know what part of the states budgets are cut first? Yep

[Fedaykin]

If there's no compelling reason for the government to do X or supply Y, then it shouldn't. Things like genuine public goods (courts, the military, police protection, firefighting and the like) are obviously best done by the government. Zoos, sports complexes, libraries, airports and golf courses are not public goods, so should be left to the private sector.

You are forgetting that things like zoos, sports complexes, airports, etc. generate large amounts of revenue (both public and private) through tourism and by making the city more attractive to live in (meaning they attract people to move to the city which raises property values, etc.). They also often provide opportunities to learn or acquire other skills to all citizens (think library, zoo, etc.). Often times these sorts of places are a net increase in wealth for everyone.

In the list of terrible wastes of money that the government does, public works are pretty far down.

[rastaman]

The government's job isn't to own things like golf courses, airports, zoos and sports complexes. Those things are readily available and supplied by the private sector just fine.

Why should taxpayers be paying for things and services that are easily supplied via private means?

What limits (if any) are there on government-run enterprises, in your view?

Yeah sure, keep drinking the kool aid of the private sector myth of effectivenes and the "Almighty Free Market". The mantra that we reap the benefits promised by private enterprise is a bunch of bull crap. The myth is alive and well and says: "Let the private sector handle it, they say -- privatize it! They are convinced that it will be "better" more efficient, more effective and more competent"....yeah right!

The private sector is the sector where individuals look out for themselves. Often there is a mutual benefit and both (or all) parties profit but the marketplace is a heartless beast -- efficient at allocating scarce resources but indifferent to the fate of anyone who brings nothing of value (no saleable goods or services) to the table.

Something that lovers of the free market and private sector forget is that, without the regulation of the private sector by the public sector, the free market would or will quickly descend in the chaos of the jungle from which it originated from in the first place.

Remember, the public sector is the sector where individuals as members of the group look out for the public good. It's not me looking out for me (as the private sector does so well), it's not me looking out for you........but, rather, we are working together to look out for all of us -- especially the least among us and we never know when that might be us.

[watermock]

Trouble with you clowns is you won't accept responsibility for the things
Bush did screw up. You always want to shift the blame on someone else.

Greenpan is no part of the government, as head of the reserve, his comment was essentially:

"We misjudged the honesty of wall street. and essentially "We didn't think they would destroy the system via greed, WE were wrong.

All the major indexes and stocks wer majorly short sold, from the inside.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yikes, people still, despite the overwhelming evidence against it, still believe government involvement always means good things happen. Eyes wide shut.

There you go getting it bass-ackwards again. tsk tsk

The American middle class was created by "government involvement."

Take a history class sometime - you might learn something.

[W*GS]

The American middle class was created by "government involvement."

Of course, this is the myth the Left uses to rationalize the middle class being ****ed up the ass by the government. The government created us, therefore, it can do whatever it wants with us...

Go move to Venezuela, ya pud.

[W*GS]

It's amazing how just one person can have so many wrong ideas.

Yeah sure, keep drinking the kool aid of the private sector myth of effectivenes and the "Almighty Free Market". The mantra that we reap the benefits promised by private enterprise is a bunch of bull crap. The myth is alive and well and says: "Let the private sector handle it, they say -- privatize it! They are convinced that it will be "better" more efficient, more effective and more competent"....yeah right!

If what you say is true, then explain why the Soviet Union collapsed and why North Korea is the biggest pile of **** on the planet. Their ideologies agreed with yours 100%, yet one disintegrated and the other is pure hell.

Something that lovers of the free market and private sector forget is that, without the regulation of the private sector by the public sector, the free market would or will quickly descend in the chaos of the jungle from which it originated from in the first place.

The one thing that statists forget is that regulation is not an *a priori* Good Thing, and that it's quite easy to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Their other problem is one of hubris.

Remember, the public sector is the sector where individuals as members of the group look out for the public good. It's not me looking out for me (as the private sector does so well), it's not me looking out for you........but, rather, we are working together to look out for all of us -- especially the least among us and we never know when that might be us.

Snort. Bureaucrats are not selfless - they are often petty, rule-bound, and interested only in protecting their turf and expanding their power over us. Your ideas about the altruistic ever-suffering public servants are delusional.

[W*GS]

You are forgetting that things like zoos, sports complexes, airports, etc. generate large amounts of revenue (both public and private) through tourism and by making the city more attractive to live in (meaning they attract people to move to the city which raises property values, etc.). They also often provide opportunities to learn or acquire other skills to all citizens (think library, zoo, etc.). Often times these sorts of places are a net increase in wealth for everyone.

So why stop at golf courses, zoos, airports, and sports complexes? Why not clothing stores, grocery stores, malls, factories, and so on? Those are surely Good to all; why do we keep the government from running those things too?

In the list of terrible wastes of money that the government does, public works are pretty far down.

I disagree; once we accept a government that runs golf courses (!), there's really no limit to the growth and reach of the tentacles into our lives.