Guess privatized transportation doesn't always work (Atlanta: 2014, leases, credit)

[dysgenic]

Atlanta is a city that is basically filthy rich. Why would they need to outsource their roads to private corporations to soak the taxpayers even more than they already do?
From the Atlanta Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 2013:

http://www.atlantaga.gov/modules/sho...cumentid=12107

(page 4)

The assets of the City exceeded its liabilities at the close of 2013 by approximately $7.6 billion. This amount represents the City’s Net Position.

In other words, the city is 7.6$ billion dollars to the good. I think they can afford to not outsource the roads.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Except soft drinks aren't necessary so very bad example.

And Pepsi is horrible! Why in the world would a government promote Pepsi over Coke??? Must be some darn socialist / communist plot to overthrow the Western world!!!!! Send in the F-22s!!!!!

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by dysgenic

Atlanta is a city that is basically filthy rich. Why would they need to outsource their roads to private corporations to soak the taxpayers even more than they already do?
From the Atlanta Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 2013:

http://www.atlantaga.gov/modules/sho...cumentid=12107

(page 4)


In other words, the city is 7.6$ billion dollars to the good. I think they can afford to not outsource the roads.

You think they can afford to fix the potholes, repair the streetlights, pay for the parks, get rid of the thousands of abandoned houses and build some sidewalks?

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

And Pepsi is horrible! Why in the world would a government promote Pepsi over Coke??? Must be some darn socialist / communist plot to overthrow the Western world!!!!! Send in the F-22s!!!!!

damn straight

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by dysgenic

Atlanta is a city that is basically filthy rich. Why would they need to outsource their roads to private corporations to soak the taxpayers even more than they already do?
From the Atlanta Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 2013:

http://www.atlantaga.gov/modules/sho...cumentid=12107

(page 4)


In other words, the city is 7.6$ billion dollars to the good. I think they can afford to not outsource the roads.

Things like roads count as an asset to the city. So what are you suggesting? We sell roads off to private companies in order to repair other roads?

[bu2]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

And Pepsi is horrible! Why in the world would a government promote Pepsi over Coke??? Must be some darn socialist / communist plot to overthrow the Western world!!!!! Send in the F-22s!!!!!

[jsvh]

Think we all can agree that Pepsi is commie pee water.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Put the true cost of transportation on the user, no matter which format. Roads, bikes, transit, pedestrians, all of them. Everybody should pay their own freight.

Sure, just as soon as we do that for all the other government services. Call 911 to report a burgler? That'll be $1,000 to send the police. Fire department puts out your little house fire? That's $5,000. Arrested for something? That'll be $1,500 to the court if you plead guilty, $5,000 per day of the trial if you don't. Want to take the kids to the park for an afternoon? That's $10 to enter, plus an extra $5 for each additional person after the second, and $5 for each additional hour after the first two.

Originally Posted by jsvh

Things like roads count as an asset to the city. So what are you suggesting? We sell roads off to private companies in order to repair other roads?

Isn't that essentially what you've suggested before? Also, thanks for finally admitting that roads are an asset for the city and not JUST for someone that happens to drive on them. Shouldn't people pay for their assets? So shouldn't the city/county/state pay for the roads that are its asset?

[jsvh]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Isn't that essentially what you've suggested before? Also, thanks for finally admitting that roads are an asset for the city and not JUST for someone that happens to drive on them. Shouldn't people pay for their assets? So shouldn't the city/county/state pay for the roads that are its asset?

Yep. Doesn't make sense for most smaller streets at this points. But tolled highway lanes are making a lot of sense now with electronic tolling.

Never denied roads were an asset. Of course any time you add an asset it requires additional capital or liability.

[dysgenic]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Things like roads count as an asset to the city. So what are you suggesting? We sell roads off to private companies in order to repair other roads?

Things like cash accounts also count as assets to the city. I'm suggesting that the city has the money to repair the roads, but doesn't want to use it. Take a look at the report, the city is filthy rich.