One of the current debates in our community is whether the state should deny a license renewal to a hydroelectric company in favor of the state taking it over. I am amazed at the number of people that think this is a good idea. Their reasons for approving the theft of a private business by the state seem to distill into one of two arguments: 1. The company has polluted the water (the hard Left), and 2. They might sell it to foreigners (the hard Right).My stance is that if pollution is your concern, enforce the laws already on the books and make the company pay for cleaning up their mess. And if you’re concerned about “Johnny Foreigner” controlling your water access, make it a condition of the relicensing that the state gets first option on any resale of the license, whereupon they can offer it to another local company.
My primary worry is not that a governmental group wants to steal a private business – hell…that doesn’t even blip on my radar anymore; I assume that’s a matter of course lately – my concern is that these folks that think it’s a good idea aren’t really considering the ramifications of the group that taxes us having total control over a truly necessary commodity. What do they think will happen the next time the state hits a budget shortfall? Our Governor has already diverted funds from our “Education” lottery to prop up their deficits, I can’t imagine she’d hesitate for one damned minute on raising fees for the water the state supplies.
On another stage, our city is planning to start a new fiber-optic service to every resident, and the big cable monopoly here in the area (Time Warner) is spending a hellacious amount of our subscription fees to lobby against it. At the same time, TW is trying to institute bandwidth “caps” because so many people are using the internet to watch shows when they want to, not when cable broadcasts them.
I’m squarely on the side of the city in this one because they’re not taking over anybody’s existing business, and it’s about time someone challenged the cable monopoly. With the amount of streaming data I consume, I’d be thrilled with fiber-optic. One of the very few things government does effectively is projects that involve dense infrastructure, and running lines to everyone’s house and business falls under that definition.
I’ve had people who know I lean Right question how I could be pleased with the city government offering internet service and be against the state offering water service. The answer is threefold: 1. The internet is not a necessity. As much as I joke about it, I don’t have to have it to live. Water, I do. 2. If I don’t like the city’s services, prices, etc., I can go back to TW. Competition is a good thing. If I don’t like the prices of my water bill (or the taxes attached to it, more likely), what do I do, invest in rain barrels and a home filtration system? Sure, there’s a monopoly with the private company, too, but they don’t raise their rates every time another division loses a few million dollars, and the state would. 3. State bureaucracy versus city bureaucracy. The larger the agency, the more complicated the labyrinthine warren of petty power players. Obviously, the Feds are the champions of this, but it’s plenty bad at the state level. At their best, they are merely competent. At their worst, they are colossal fuckups insulated behind thick tomes of regulations and phone trees whose maps resemble illustrations of the more complex ganglial structures. You can ask three different people in the same department the same question, and get three different answers. And if you call them back the next day, each answer has changed, and none of the six answers agree.
I think this is how, four years later, there are still Katrina refugees living off governmental assistance. They just keep calling FEMA employees until they get the answer they want, then cling to it as if it were holy writ.
Try that with Time Warner and see how far you get.
No comments:
Post a Comment