4 ms·

Why do we allow municipalities to keep secrets in the first place? Unless it is personnel-related it should be public. If the communications happened on taxpaye

Why do we allow municipalities to keep secrets in the first place? Unless it is personnel-related it should be public. If the communications happened on taxpayer funded equipment they should be open.

bloak 9mo ago
They'll tell you it needs to be confidential "for commercial reasons". They always do.
- 9dev 9mo ago
  Then you'll need to tell them democracy overrules commercial reasons.
- hrimfaxi 9mo ago
  If corporate IT can read the CEO's emails despite commercial reasons I think we the people can see what our servants are doing with our equipment on our time.
petcat 9mo ago
In a lot of cases, it's the only way that municipalities can submit bids for projects they want. And in the commercial space the bidding process is usually confidential. So it's just basically a requirement of public private partnership. Of course the municipality could just say that they don't want the project and they won't submit a bid. That's fine too.
- buellerbueller 9mo ago
  Municipalities should not be bidding on corporate benefaction; this is exactly the opposite of how the relationship between the public and private sector should be.
  - petcat 9mo ago
    > the municipality could just say that they don't want the project and they won't submit a bid. That's fine too.
    - buellerbueller 9mo ago
      The submitting of corporate largess to multiple government entities for bids is (imo) a de facto hostile act, and should be treated as such.
bell-cot 9mo ago
There are valid uses. McDonalds may not want Burger King to know they're planning to build a new location in Smallville, 'till they actually break ground, or vice versa. Don't blabber to everyone that the City wants to expand a park, so neighboring property owners will know to demand top dollar. Etc. But yeah - honest uses are pretty limited. Which limits we can hope will be tightly enforced by new legislation.
- buellerbueller 9mo ago
  Tough shit, Mickey D's, that's the cost of doing business.
  - bell-cot 9mo ago
    Smallville is entitled to a no-exceptions policy. OTOH, if Smallville seems too unfriendly to developers, the latter may decide to build outside the city limits. Which might become a problem over time, by holding down Smallville's commercial tax base. Forcing the voting citizen to make unhappy choices between high taxes on their own homes, and Smallville having too little money to afford nice things that they want.
    - buellerbueller 9mo ago
      If McD builds outside of Smallville, they don't get any of the services that Smallville taxes subsidize. Smallville taxes serve Smallvillians, not corporate villains.
      - bell-cot 9mo ago
        True. But McD may decide that the services in developer-friendly Small Township are just as good, for their use case. And Smallville residents may be content to drive another 500 yards down Smallville-Littleton Rd., to spend their money at the new McD out in Smallville Twp. In public policy, everything is a tradeoff.
        9mo ago
SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
Because municipalities want to be able to collaborate in the early stages of a potential datacenter project, when it's not fully nailed down and may never happen. A world where municipalities aren't allowed to keep secrets is a less transparent world, where Meta dumps a fully formed datacenter project on the local government and nobody has a chance to suggest that residents would prefer it on the other side of the creek.

Why do we allow municipalities to keep secrets in the first place? Unless it is personnel-related it should be public. If the communications happened on taxpayer funded equipment they should be open.

bloak 9mo ago

They'll tell you it needs to be confidential "for commercial reasons". They always do.

9dev 9mo ago
Then you'll need to tell them democracy overrules commercial reasons.
hrimfaxi 9mo ago
If corporate IT can read the CEO's emails despite commercial reasons I think we the people can see what our servants are doing with our equipment on our time.

petcat 9mo ago

In a lot of cases, it's the only way that municipalities can submit bids for projects they want. And in the commercial space the bidding process is usually confidential. So it's just basically a requirement of public private partnership. Of course the municipality could just say that they don't want the project and they won't submit a bid. That's fine too.

buellerbueller 9mo ago
Municipalities should not be bidding on corporate benefaction; this is exactly the opposite of how the relationship between the public and private sector should be.
- petcat 9mo ago
  > the municipality could just say that they don't want the project and they won't submit a bid. That's fine too.
  - buellerbueller 9mo ago
    The submitting of corporate largess to multiple government entities for bids is (imo) a de facto hostile act, and should be treated as such.

bell-cot 9mo ago

There are valid uses. McDonalds may not want Burger King to know they're planning to build a new location in Smallville, 'till they actually break ground, or vice versa. Don't blabber to everyone that the City wants to expand a park, so neighboring property owners will know to demand top dollar. Etc. But yeah - honest uses are pretty limited. Which limits we can hope will be tightly enforced by new legislation.

buellerbueller 9mo ago
Tough shit, Mickey D's, that's the cost of doing business.
- bell-cot 9mo ago
  Smallville is entitled to a no-exceptions policy. OTOH, if Smallville seems too unfriendly to developers, the latter may decide to build outside the city limits. Which might become a problem over time, by holding down Smallville's commercial tax base. Forcing the voting citizen to make unhappy choices between high taxes on their own homes, and Smallville having too little money to afford nice things that they want.
  - buellerbueller 9mo ago
    If McD builds outside of Smallville, they don't get any of the services that Smallville taxes subsidize. Smallville taxes serve Smallvillians, not corporate villains.
    - bell-cot 9mo ago
      True. But McD may decide that the services in developer-friendly Small Township are just as good, for their use case. And Smallville residents may be content to drive another 500 yards down Smallville-Littleton Rd., to spend their money at the new McD out in Smallville Twp. In public policy, everything is a tradeoff.
      - 9mo ago

SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago

Because municipalities want to be able to collaborate in the early stages of a potential datacenter project, when it's not fully nailed down and may never happen. A world where municipalities aren't allowed to keep secrets is a less transparent world, where Meta dumps a fully formed datacenter project on the local government and nobody has a chance to suggest that residents would prefer it on the other side of the creek.