Comments about ‘Privatization a possibility for recreation centers?’

Maybe we should privatize Rep. Craig Frank's job. Obviously, he's no "public" servant.

Government needs to provide more services, not fewer. When government provides services and owns the means of production, profit accrues to the people, not to the owners of capital.

Government, through no fault of those in office or those working for it at any given time, is burdened with some pretty hefty inefficiencies. That means that there is rarely profit when government runs things.

I think the idea of the bill has some merit, because government services that are targetted by the bill are likely to be those that most of us don't use. Not everyone uses the rec centers and golf courses, and if everyone did, we'd all complain because they'd be really crowded. Since not all of us use them, then those services represent a failing of the political system, because a small group of vocal voters have managed to get the rest of us to subsidize their particular hobbies. No one has a right to my money to pay for their time on the treadmill or their time on the links. We all share a responsibility for things like roads, police and fire protection, etc., but surely we don't share a responsibility for providing small groups access to nice golf courses.

I wonder if this bill would have gotten any traction last session when our leaders were sending $35 million to Sandy for a privately owned soccer stadium. At the time the debate was framed that the funding didn't come from residents since it tapped hotel/motel, car rental and restaurant taxes. Those are the same taxes that pay for recreation centers, parks maintenance and operations, convention centers, golf courses, arts facilities and Wheeler Farm. So, your property taxes aren't being spent on these types of quality of life programs.

Since when did selling whiskey become a core government activity? Private retailers can't do a better job? What disgusting hypocrisy.

The argument contending that "selling whiskey" is a "core government activity" is based on the economic jargin of externalities. it goes a little something like this...the act of selling alcohol has a negative externality associated with it because a community often has to pay for the unintended consequences of drunkdrivers destroying property and running a muck in the streets, not too mention hurting innocent people (these are costs that neither the buyer or seller of alcohol pays. If left up to the private market, alcohol sales would be unresonably high, and the good folks of utah would have to pay taxes to remedy all of the social ills associated with alcoholism. On the other hand, one could make the argument that there is a positive externality associated with Rec centers. But, alcohol related accidents is an easier statistic to guage than say, a warmer sense of community.