4 ms·
I think the problem here is the state (or city) offloading its basic enforcement functions to private corporations. And then most worryingly financially incenti
by pj_mukh 3y ago
I think the problem here is the state (or city) offloading its basic enforcement functions to private corporations. And then most worryingly financially incentivizing over enforcement. This also happens with excessive towing [1]
The city should have these folks on payroll instead of constantly contracting this stuff out.
Yes, even on private property because it’s adjudication between two private properties (the car and the parking lot)
[1] https://youtu.be/cs6u0iExry8?si=HQdJts_liwCP1_tV https://youtu.be/cs6u0iExry8?si=HQdJts_liwCP1_tV
- phendrenad2 3y agoHow would it be any different if the city applied the boots themselves? That sounds like an entirely orthogonal issue.
- pj_mukh 3y agoBecause city workers aren’t paid more to boot/tow more cars while private companies are. If the profit motive could be aligned with actual progress, somehow objectively measurable then contracting might makes sense.
- acdha 3y agoI’d add greater oversight, too: you can’t FOIA the internal policies or records of a private company, and if there’s some policy change you have to rebid or do a painful contract amendment. I think the appeal to privatization is sometimes corruption – when we lived in New Haven, at least two of the city’s tow contracts always went to cousins of council members – but mostly it’s the hope that magic pixie dust will avoid the need for competent oversight. As you noted that only works out when the incentives align, and I don’t see that here.
- wayfinder 3y agoI think cities do this because it’s cheaper. Parking enforcement costs the same whether it’s private or public but you can extract more money out of it by being dirty. It’s a bad look for the city if they’re dirty but if the private company they contract out does it, the city gets to wash their hands of it. Also pensions and stuff. Pretty bad.
- stefan_ 3y agoParking enforcement in just about any city costs nothing, it's profit making. Surely a private company can only be cheaper if it's literally paying the city?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 3y agoIf they can make money off of it, why wouldn't they pay the city for the contract? If they can double profits by being dirty and give 60% of their profits to the city, then everyone wins except the citizens.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]