3 ms·
Honestly, I imagine he would LOVE to pay $82 per year for that level of extra patrolling. In fact, I'm sure they'd prefer it, because taxation can remove the f
by Lazare 13y ago
Honestly, I imagine he would LOVE to pay $82 per year for that level of extra patrolling. In fact, I'm sure they'd prefer it, because taxation can remove the free-rider problem Kirsh is struggling with, meaning that he'd get more patrolling for less money, all else equal.
The problem is that all isn't equal. Krish no doubt knows, just as you do if you'd think about it, that there is no possibility of paying $82 in taxes to obtain that level of extra patrolling. The local government is dysfunctional, their cost structure bloated, the political process broken. Keep in mind, Oakland has some of the highest local taxes in America; in a very real sense Kirsh is already paying that $82 per household (and more besides) yet not getting the patrolling he wants. What would adding another $82 do? Would it fund 12 hours of patrolling, five days a week? If you know ANYTHING about the cost structure of modern police departments in general, or Oakland in particular, the notion is absurd. The city of Oakland is not capable of providing what Kirsh and his fellows want.
It's like looking at someone buying a second hand Acer laptop $200 off Craigslist, and muttering that you bet he would refuse to pay $300 for new Macbook Retina. He almost certainly would not refuse that, but we'll never know, because that deal is certainly not on offer.