13 ms·

Companies that use this infrastructure should be paying the costs of maintaining it. If this system were privately owned, not maintaining it would mean lost re

Companies that use this infrastructure should be paying the costs of maintaining it. If this system were privately owned, not maintaining it would mean lost revenue. With the government doing it, there isn't such a clear and direct incentive to spend the money. Well, I don't think the river is going to be privatized any time soon, so government should change how it obtains revenues for this maintenance. It should be charging fees sufficient to do the required maintenance. In fact, it should be charging fees that raise the most revenue. That also means keeping fees low enough to keep the traffic it has. It seems like this is too much to expect from legislative bodies to fine tune. Perhaps the states involved should create an entity that they own to manage these issues, just as New York and New Jersey have down with the Port Authority. Each state would own a percentage based on how much of the Ohio River runs through their state and other relevant considerations. And get a corresponding share of proceeds, if any.

nickff 10y ago
The problem is that any 'fee' is subject to political economy. The government may begin by charging the monopoly rent, but will soon grant exceptions to favored groups. After that, the government will raise fees on disfavored groups, and redirect revenue to 'where it is most urgently needed'. The locks will then fall into disrepair, users will find other alternatives, and by the time the government goes on another infrastructure-repairing frenzy, it will be much too late.
- stretchwithme 10y ago
  Yes, its still going to be government. I'd rather resources be managed privately but I just don't river traffic being managed privately in this country. Even if a private company managed it by contract, there would be the inevitable kickbacks to the pols making the decision. Which is why I also advocate reducing the concentration of power our system has created. Specifically, I'd like to see proportional representation replace winner-take-all elections, even in the executive branch.
  - nickff 10y ago
    The issue with proportional representation is that it may reduce the concentration of power amongst the parties, but it will make political parties more important than individual representatives, and promote a hyper-partisan attitude. When turning out 'your side' is more important than convincing the median voter, the parties will focus on their bases, and the candidates will be dependent on the party, which means there will be less room for compromise. This is not so important in multi-party parliamentary democracies such as Italy which have a history of 'minority governments', but will make the executive branch of the USA even more partisan.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The issue with proportional representation is that it may reduce the concentration of power amongst the parties, but it will make political parties more important than individual representatives, and promote a hyper-partisan attitude. What you say is arguably a valid concern for one particular method of achieving proportional representation (the Party List Proportional method), but there is no clear reason it would be for other methods of promoting proportionality (such as multimember districts with candidate-centered elections using Single Transferrable Vote.) > When turning out 'your side' is more important than convincing the median voter, the parties will focus on their bases, That's already exactly the case with the US system, where elections are won more by turnout and less by conversions. The duopoly naturally produced by FPTP makes efforts to depress turnout of the other sides likely voters (whether by targeted propaganda or actual suppression) a strong tactic.
tacostakohashi 10y ago
Hmm, I don't suppose you've ever actually used any of the facilities provided by the PANYNJ?
- stretchwithme 10y ago
  You mean like the World Trade Center?

nickff 10y ago

The problem is that any 'fee' is subject to political economy. The government may begin by charging the monopoly rent, but will soon grant exceptions to favored groups. After that, the government will raise fees on disfavored groups, and redirect revenue to 'where it is most urgently needed'. The locks will then fall into disrepair, users will find other alternatives, and by the time the government goes on another infrastructure-repairing frenzy, it will be much too late.

stretchwithme 10y ago
Yes, its still going to be government. I'd rather resources be managed privately but I just don't river traffic being managed privately in this country. Even if a private company managed it by contract, there would be the inevitable kickbacks to the pols making the decision. Which is why I also advocate reducing the concentration of power our system has created. Specifically, I'd like to see proportional representation replace winner-take-all elections, even in the executive branch.
- nickff 10y ago
  The issue with proportional representation is that it may reduce the concentration of power amongst the parties, but it will make political parties more important than individual representatives, and promote a hyper-partisan attitude. When turning out 'your side' is more important than convincing the median voter, the parties will focus on their bases, and the candidates will be dependent on the party, which means there will be less room for compromise. This is not so important in multi-party parliamentary democracies such as Italy which have a history of 'minority governments', but will make the executive branch of the USA even more partisan.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The issue with proportional representation is that it may reduce the concentration of power amongst the parties, but it will make political parties more important than individual representatives, and promote a hyper-partisan attitude. What you say is arguably a valid concern for one particular method of achieving proportional representation (the Party List Proportional method), but there is no clear reason it would be for other methods of promoting proportionality (such as multimember districts with candidate-centered elections using Single Transferrable Vote.) > When turning out 'your side' is more important than convincing the median voter, the parties will focus on their bases, That's already exactly the case with the US system, where elections are won more by turnout and less by conversions. The duopoly naturally produced by FPTP makes efforts to depress turnout of the other sides likely voters (whether by targeted propaganda or actual suppression) a strong tactic.

tacostakohashi 10y ago

Hmm, I don't suppose you've ever actually used any of the facilities provided by the PANYNJ?

stretchwithme 10y ago
You mean like the World Trade Center?