tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-988599552908585128.post9102066743300468433..comments2023-10-16T01:09:58.286-07:00Comments on BC Iconoclast: Opposition to Run of River OffbaseBernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-988599552908585128.post-70464780177590318142010-03-25T12:28:52.089-07:002010-03-25T12:28:52.089-07:00There are two separate issues:
1) Is location. A...There are two separate issues:<br /><br />1) Is location. A few of the ROR' proposals have occurred in parks or on Salmon bearing streams and these have face wide opposition for good reason in many cases. <br /><br />2) Is terms and contracts. A few years ago the BC government passed a widespread omnibus bill that removed transparency and there is widespread confusion as to what this means. <br /><br />Was there a minimum guaranteed buy, so the government would be on the hook to the company if there was a drought. Are the profit margins large enough that the same projects under public control would be a net benefit to tax payers. Is the public share of leasing a stream location really fair to the public or is a private firm who donates $100K a year to the governing party getting a sweetheart deal. Is a 50 year lease on a stream really the best deal.<br /><br />The government has limited BC Hydro's ability to invest in new projects that are publicly run.<br /><br />One of the issues with "privatization" is that it is often a scam. <br /><br />Public assets do not show up on the government's books, but operating costs (even if they make money do) do. Governments move to privatize items takes infrastructure costs and operating costs off their books, but cost to taxpayers and consumer end up being higher.<br /><br />The US healthcare is an example. People don't want to pay more taxes, but if an HMO raises its price by 20%, how it that any different in cost to the consumer than if government had paid it and raised taxes.<br /><br />Its really a matter of being transparent on these issues. <br /><br />Are there areas that private sector succeeds at. Absolutely. <br /><br />A construction company with trained staff and equipment may build something for cheaper than a government trying to start its own construction team for nothing. An insurance company that handles 3 continents may be better at underwriting costs in case of a disaster than a provincial one if anything serious ever went wrong. <br /><br />The same with goods. Government should not really be in businesses that depend on marketing to survive. <br /><br />Everyone needs power. Its generic. One type is not better than another. (not withstanding environmental costs in production.)Dan Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11745618652525387414noreply@blogger.com