City of Chicago trying to implement new infrastructure trust

Mayor Rahm Emanuel is trying to implement a new way of funding infrastructure improvements. I am extremely skeptical of this being in my best interest. While he is claiming that it will be bringing the best aspects of the private and public sectors to work on this I just can't get over the idea that it will be the opposite. All our adventures into privatization so far have been rousing failures. Here are some articles detailing his plan.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-tr...
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/...

Best aspect of the private sector: generous lobbyists.
Best aspect of the public sector: free money.

Can't fail!

Hell, here in Detroit we just wish someone would offer us money for something. I'm seeing a future where the names of cities become adspace like the names of sports arenas. Chicago could be call "Wrigley's City" and Detroit will be...uh.... Cars/Sports/Gambling/Drugs! Something like "Ford Lion Pistons MGM Crackville".

I wonder if GWJ can get a Kickstarter going to buy the name of Detroit and change it to "Ooogaba".

I don't get it. This whole thing is predicated on the idea that the private sector can do something cheaper with the same level of quality and still make a profit. If that is true why can't the government just do it cheaper? They should be able to do it even cheaper than a private company since they don't need to make a profit. I have seen no explanation for this, do they just expect it to be magic?

Also the ABC article has a great example, why would they expand private sector partnerships when the ones they have already done have gone so badly? How many times does it need to fail before they say it is a bad idea?

But that is not to say there are not risks involved in Chicago’s plan. In the past, the city has suffered from public-private partnership projects gone wrong, such as the fiasco that has resulted from a 2008 deal that leased Chicago’s parking meters for 75 years to a private company. It now costs Chicago drivers a whopping $5.75 an hour to park downtown during peak hours.

The price of parking is not the part that bothers me. The city needed to raise its meter costs. What bothers me is that the city has to pay the meters if, for any reason, the street is shut down and that the city isn't taking in all that money themselves.

Privatization has been very expensive in the Federal government.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I don't get it. This whole thing is predicated on the idea that the private sector can do something cheaper with the same level of quality and still make a profit. If that is true why can't the government just do it cheaper? They should be able to do it even cheaper than a private company since they don't need to make a profit. I have seen no explanation for this, do they just expect it to be magic?

Magic. It's all about ideology. If government does it, it must be inefficient, because government is by definition inefficient.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I don't get it. This whole thing is predicated on the idea that the private sector can do something cheaper with the same level of quality and still make a profit. If that is true why can't the government just do it cheaper? They should be able to do it even cheaper than a private company since they don't need to make a profit. I have seen no explanation for this, do they just expect it to be magic?

Oftentimes the "magic" comes from anti-employee practices that wouldn't fly in city hall.

Another kind of anti-union attack? City works are unionized, but you cost too much, so we will privatize your job and hire a company that doesn't have a union for it?

This whiffs of Tammany Hall to me. I hope it works out better than that did.

LeapingGnome wrote:

Another kind of anti-union attack? City works are unionized, but you cost too much, so we will privatize your job and hire a company that doesn't have a union for it?

I don't think this is an anti union move. Just large scale cronyism.

momgamer wrote:

This whiffs of Tammany Hall to me. I hope it works out better than that did.

You must not be from around here.

NathanialG wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

Another kind of anti-union attack? City works are unionized, but you cost too much, so we will privatize your job and hire a company that doesn't have a union for it?

I don't think this is an anti union move. Just large scale cronyism.

I honestly haven't figured out what the plan is here, unless it really is just selling privatization contracts. If that's all it is, then it strikes me as a foolish notion, or at least one that I hope is implemented much more carefully than previous ones.

This city has a bit of a history for doing things the wrong way, but getting results (for targeted demographics, at least). If this can't hit that mark, then I'm sure we'll find some other candidate to try. I'd heard pre-election that Rahm wasn't expected to be a long-termer, anyway.

They claim that it won't be privatization because people will be investing in a trust that will be used to build city owned infrastructure and then will be payed dividends on their investments. I could be misunderstanding or deliberately misinformed though!

Here is Carol Maureen leading a talk, explanations from both sides of this:
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2012/...
EDIT: I will add this to the OP.

wordsmythe wrote:

This city has a bit of a history for doing things the wrong way, but getting results (for targeted demographics, at least). If this can't hit that mark, then I'm sure we'll find some other candidate to try. I'd heard pre-election that Rahm wasn't expected to be a long-termer, anyway.

Yeah but when you are locked into decades-long contracts, like the parking meters, it doesn't matter what the next candidate wants.

"To preserve disorder" and all that.

You wanna get rich? Here's how you do it. He privatizes a parking lot, you give away a bridge. He sends one of his friends a hospital contract, you send one of yours the city morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get filthy rich!