3 ms·
I think having a sunset clause on the sweetheart deals would be enough. You do want the municipalities to be able to offer the deals in order to get big projec
by dhimes 10y ago
I think having a sunset clause on the sweetheart deals would be enough. You do want the municipalities to be able to offer the deals in order to get big projects done in the first place, but a lot of these deals go back to the 1970s and it's time for them to be gone.
But if, for instance, it becomes difficult/expensive to built electric car recharge stations for some reason and we as a society make a strong shift to electric cars, you want the municipalities to have some way to encourage somebody to make an investment in the infrastructure, and that may not happen without some kind of promise that after they build the infrastructure they can benefit from it (for a while anyway). I know that's not a great example, but hopefully you can abstract to my point, that is, that there could be some reason in the future to want to allow the deals. Just have them expire.
- rayiner 10y agoIt's illegal for municipalities to offer "sweetheart deals" (i.e. exclusive franchises). Those were banned in 1996.[1] Current municipal franchise agreements don't stifle competition by giving anyone a monopoly. They do so by being so onerous that only the incumbent is willing to agree to the terms. [1] In theory existing ones were grandfathered in, but they were of a fixed-term (e.g. 10 years), and exclusivity was lost when the original deal expired.
- dhimes 10y agoHey thanks for that- I didn't realize that's been the law.