In her interview with Mile Square View, Mayor Dawn Zimmer was asked if she considers any municipal services ripe for privatization or outsourcing. To her credit, the mayor revealed that she's in the process of reviewing several areas of government for privatization. We'd very much like to hear what those areas are. Unfortunately, however, the mayor refused to share that information. She indicated that she'd only discuss potential areas for privatization after "a decision has been made."
This reticence, in our view, is misguided. For starters, the people should know what the mayor is thinking. Moreover, simply mentioning that a municipal service is under consideration for privatization can lead to efficiencies--even if those services are never ultimately privatized. City employees might suddenly realize they don't need quite so many supervisors, for instance. Or smoking breaks, for that matter.
Mayor Zimmer should go even further, and clearly demonstrate that municipal services are costing too much. The most effective way to do that is to simply request price quotes from multiple vendors. Let's find out what private firms can do, at what cost. This would expose, in specific terms, how much we're currently overpaying for municipal services. City employees would then have to compete.
Flint, Michigan, provides one example of this phenomenon. After the mayor received bids from private firms, the union found ways to collect trash for $1.4 million less. As a result, the city decided not to move forward with privatization. The same municipal workers collected Flint's trash. They just did it faster, smarter, and cheaper.
Like Flint, the City of Indianapolis found that sometimes merely threatening privatization prompted city employees to work more productively. Often, however, using a private firm makes sense. Indianapolis saved $15 million when it privatized trash collection. Closer to home, Jersey City under Bret Schundler found ways to save money via privatization. So did Steve Lonegan, in Bogota.
One area Mayor Zimmer ruled out for privatization was the library. We hope that she reconsiders this stance. There is certainly no harm in at least studying privatization, and receiving bids from vendors. The mere process might uncover inefficiencies that current employees could rectify. Or we might find that a private firm could run it at a much lower cost. Explaining her opposition to privatization, the mayor offered her belief that our library is significantly underfunded. In reality, that's all the more reason to consider some form of privatization. A firm could potentially invest some of its own capital as part of a privatization deal. At a minimum, reduced overhead costs would free up tax dollars for needed improvements or purchases.
In the midst of our city's fiscal crisis, there's no reason not to explore privatizing or contracting out municipal services wherever practical. As other cities have demonstrated, there's no reason to stay mum on which services you're thinking of opening up to competition. On the contrary, it sometimes pays to think out loud.
The Hoboken Tax Reform Coalition
Let's Talk Privatization
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gene on -
It only makes good business sense to explore ways to save money for any enterprise. For too long cities and states have operated "in the box". It's time for some thinking "outside the box" as the expression goes.
Even when a service is deemed worthy to be outsourced; the employees in the city government should be allowed to bid for the contract. Supposedly they know what the contract entails and could do it cheaper if pressed to privatize.
With over 10% of NJ unemployed and people leaving the state we need to look at all options to bring down costs. Like I keep saying; the time to do something is NOW!
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
So, if Nathan had a mortage and, therefore, rented from a bank instead of a landlord he'd have stronger roots in the community?
RealDealHobo said:Nathan, how about joining the taxpayers of Hoboken by setting some roots here rather than renting? Or is Rent Control tooooooo seductive? As seductive as male teens were to the anti gay Larry Craig?
-
Permalink Reply by SmartyJones on -
Although Mile Square View agrees Hoboken should review potential areas for outsourcing, the characterization of the mayor here is incorrect. Mayor Zimmer indicated she is open to it and will review areas where it may have potential. But to suggest she should verbalize it without the proper review and presentation to the public is frankly unfair criticism.
We already have someone in our City government who is known for flying off the handle and making lots of charges without the facts at hand. You hardly would want the same in the mayor.
The mayor's office is not a place for grandstanding. You do the hard work first, review your findings and then you go to the public and present the idea.
To do otherwise is frankly just not logical.
The library could be one area for review but the mayor declined interest in that institution. Let's see what does come up at some point. The city had privatized the sewer system and that's not exactly been a winner for the town. Some caution is in order.
Perhaps later the mayor will even reconsider the library after greater thought and research.
-
Permalink Reply by robert randall on
-
Funding levels for the library are mandated by state law so the library can't be privatized and we can't spend any less on it no matter who runs it.
Advocating for something that can't be done as a matter of law is not productive and makes us look not serious. I suggest that we all do our homework and try to identify places where privatization is legally and practically possible and can actually result in savings.
I hope that's what the mayor is doing and if we want to contribute meaningfully to the public dialogue that's what fiscally conservative public advocates need to do as well.
-
Permalink Reply by scott m siegel on
-
To rattle off departments to be privatized would be rash. Any decision like this should be studied and vetted. No one should have a preconceived notion. Let the facts speak for themselves. If it makes fiscal sense do it. But privatizing for sake of privatizing is a foolish endeavor without backup facts to support it.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Dawkins on
-
Agree, our town's extreme (my emphasis) conservative public advocates, are teetering too close to preventing meaningful public dialog with continuously intractable viewpoints, from my point of view. Complete ALL (their view) or NOTHING (let's find lock-step candidates to oppose the mayor's slat 2011 NOW.) OUR way or we'll organize AGAINST you, is disturbing and will surely be a serious roadblock to righting Hoboken's ship.
For example, there are a lot of valid positions on things like privatization. A simple Google search will yield solid pro & con arguments for municipal privatization. For every (and I mean every) example of privatization that is listed in the above article, I could provide a counter example of privatization gone wrong where municipalites in-sourced their functions. Hey, I think we did that right here in Hoboken....
I'm pleased that our mayor is willing to consider privatization (even though, I personally oppose it.) It demonstrates that any and all possible solutions are on the table for her. And I commend her for not sharing her preliminary thoughts with the Red Elephant(s) until she has a reasoned position on IF and WHAT, in reference to privatization because, regardless of what her ultimate reasoned decision is, it appears that, unless she governs in EXACTLY the way the Red Elephant(s) want, they will be looking to throw a monkey wrench in her legislative administration in 2011. Meaningful dialog requires that both (and all) sides accept that their preferred options aren't the only viable and available ways to govern. I don't see that sensibility in the Red Elephant(s).
robert randall said:Funding levels for the library are mandated by state law so the library can't be privatized and we can't spend any less on it no matter who runs it.
Advocating for something that can't be done as a matter of law is not productive and makes us look not serious. I suggest that we all do our homework and try to identify places where privatization is legally and practically possible and can actually result in savings.
I hope that's what the mayor is doing and if we want to contribute meaningfully to the public dialogue that's what fiscally conservative public advocates need to do as well.
-
Permalink Reply by Red Elephant on -
I can think of no harm in simply mentioning that a municipal service is under consideration for privatization. It could even spur city employees to work more productively.
Some have raised concerns over the legality of private library management in New Jersey. I would point out that Jersey City outsourced library management to a private firm. If they could do it, why couldn't we?
Mr. Dawkins: We're simply offering a fiscally conservative, market-oriented perspective on municipal policy. In so doing, we're hoping to fill a void (however imperfectly) in our city's political discourse. And I see no harm in that, either.
© 2012 Created by Administrator.
Powered by 
.
