Ok. Having both managed public facilities and taught facilities management, I see this. Especially the point about maintenance. I had nightmares about facilities that had not been maintained falling apart. And they did. Never talk to me about elevators.
But here in my town we are using a bunch of stimulus money to expand the library. The town has gained more than 2000 residents in the last 15 years and is still building out. We can expect about 1000 more neighbors in the foreseeable future. And as a user,, I will tell you that the library was seriously cramped before the growth of the population.
It is true that the larger space will cost more to maintain: more janitorial time, more light bulbs, etc., eventually it will need a new roof, the additional restrooms will fail from time to time. It is also true that it will never pay for itself, They don't even charge fines for overdue books (not that doing so would make a perceptible difference). And there is no reasonable way to quantify the value of the library, no way to say what, if anything, its presence adds to my property value or to the local economy. So, should we just send the money back? Or is it ok for the community (this is a popular project) to say that some values can't, aactually shouldn't, be commodified?
I could offer more examples, but while I understand what you're saying - having woken up at night worrying about the ever-expanding joints in the municipal parking garages - I cannot see how we build strong communities by financializing public goods.
"Or is it ok for the community (this is a popular project) to say that some values can't, actually shouldn't, be commodified?"
Sure, if the community is committed to maintaining the facility, and is willing to do what it takes -- raise taxes, cuts in other services, increases in productivity -- to make that happen, then go for it.
We shouldn't financialize public goods, whatever that means. We should tend to our budgets and have a clear understanding of the liabilities we are taking on. The reality is that no city does, and public accounting doesn't even ponder the question.
My sense is that local officials and staffs know that they're taking on liabilities. They pay some costs of maintenance even when they're not doing enough. Accounting practices - which are weird - don't help clarify this, but people understand and do, to some extent, at least discusss, if not quantify liabilities.
But they're in the business of providing the benefits the community, or some part of it, wants. That's where all the incentives are. The incentives for prudence are abstract, at best.
Ok. Having both managed public facilities and taught facilities management, I see this. Especially the point about maintenance. I had nightmares about facilities that had not been maintained falling apart. And they did. Never talk to me about elevators.
But here in my town we are using a bunch of stimulus money to expand the library. The town has gained more than 2000 residents in the last 15 years and is still building out. We can expect about 1000 more neighbors in the foreseeable future. And as a user,, I will tell you that the library was seriously cramped before the growth of the population.
It is true that the larger space will cost more to maintain: more janitorial time, more light bulbs, etc., eventually it will need a new roof, the additional restrooms will fail from time to time. It is also true that it will never pay for itself, They don't even charge fines for overdue books (not that doing so would make a perceptible difference). And there is no reasonable way to quantify the value of the library, no way to say what, if anything, its presence adds to my property value or to the local economy. So, should we just send the money back? Or is it ok for the community (this is a popular project) to say that some values can't, aactually shouldn't, be commodified?
I could offer more examples, but while I understand what you're saying - having woken up at night worrying about the ever-expanding joints in the municipal parking garages - I cannot see how we build strong communities by financializing public goods.
"Or is it ok for the community (this is a popular project) to say that some values can't, actually shouldn't, be commodified?"
Sure, if the community is committed to maintaining the facility, and is willing to do what it takes -- raise taxes, cuts in other services, increases in productivity -- to make that happen, then go for it.
We shouldn't financialize public goods, whatever that means. We should tend to our budgets and have a clear understanding of the liabilities we are taking on. The reality is that no city does, and public accounting doesn't even ponder the question.
Thanks.
My sense is that local officials and staffs know that they're taking on liabilities. They pay some costs of maintenance even when they're not doing enough. Accounting practices - which are weird - don't help clarify this, but people understand and do, to some extent, at least discusss, if not quantify liabilities.
But they're in the business of providing the benefits the community, or some part of it, wants. That's where all the incentives are. The incentives for prudence are abstract, at best.