Vic Grant on the Water Utility

Not being a PhD in sh1t, it has to cost us more for water and sewage no matter what happens. To think anything different is naive.

Exactly....but you know the litany that will follow whenever any proposed rate hikes come in.....folks have to learn to conserve that resource.....perhaps a hit in the pocketbook may finally get the message across.

on the topic of the water utility i am very confused.. on one hand you have people screaming that they are going to privatize the utility and we will all die from e coli. On the other hand there are others saying that they are not privatizing anything.

So can someone spell out for me what is going on, in layman's terms what are the proposed changes, and what they mean to us all?

Miz point wrote:I have mixed feelings because of what I have seen in other places when water services get privatized.....conversely though, what with all the infrastructure renewal needed that should have been done twenty years ago at least, I would trust a private firm ahead of government to bring in the job on budget and on time......Winnipeggers however are gonna pay higher costs.....maybe folks will stop watering their lawns during the rain?

This is NOT privatization. This is the creation of a utility just like Manitoba Hydro or MPI.

I saw most of the speeches by the councilors. Dan Vandal and Gord Steeves were the most effective speakers. And while I agree with the winning side, and most of what Steeves said, he came across as incredibly condescending and boorish.

Gerbasi was a fricking clown. She will be embarrassed if/when she sees the footage of her behaviour.

Katz was pretty good. But he also played this very politically. He was very hard on Gerbasi and her contrarian ways. He took her to task for fully supporting the sale of Winnipeg Hydro and her fear-mongering that the city was "selling" its water.

Interesting couple hours.

The fear that exists is not, imo, because of water being turned into a utility, but rather the private partnership aspect.

When a private company is involved it's because they want profits...an extra cost we'll be paying to drink water and flush toilets...a reasonable position to be fearful of in my opinion.

Well its not really a private company in that way. I'd be far more concerned if it was a monopoly situation where they could charge whatever they wanted without fear of competition or regulation....like MPI.

Gerbasi is a clown, Steeves is a boor.....so what do we do? Gather the info, break it down and be vocal when need be.

As I understand it there is no privatization. What private partner do you refer to?

...the partnership with the private sector in order to upgrade our sewer system that was expected out of this.

The new utility may be good for the city. It all depends on how it's run and on the content of the agreements that are put in place. Any kind of P3 situation always comes down to the contracts, which is why they often end up costing taxpayers more than an all-public run sutiation. They definitely have some potential for savings if done correctly.

What I don't like about this situation is that there was a vote on whether to create a utility without the public really understanding what it does, how it operates, how it's run, what implications it has on current or future operations or upgrades, etc. That's what's important, not deciding to make something called a 'new utility' or whatever it was refered to as. That doesn't mean anything without the details. So, though it may be the correct decision I agree with the motion that the vote should have been delayed. When people are protesting and signing petitions that probably aren't even relavent to this situation there's an obvious lack of public knowledge or understanding of what the city is actually trying to do. It's nearly impossible for councilors to get relavent feedback from their constituents on the issue if their constituents don't even know what the issue is. So I don't like what happened because it seems to have been pushed through before voters really understand waht was being passed.

Second thing I don't like about it is that, at least from the information floating around, the idea is nowhere close to developed enough to vote on the utility's creation yet. If you are voting to create something I think there should be an actual proposed agreement ready for approval so everyone knows the full details of the arrangement and parties involved. I'm not a fan of mandating the creation of something for the sake of creating it. If they have a full proposal with contracts ready to sign, cost/benefit analysis completed to show exactly what costs can be saved, full agreements on how the operations are run and who has what powers, that's something to vote on. Since they have decided they need to create this thing, are we now forced to do it even if we can't find a viable partner that would save the city money?

To your point umcrouc0 there are many unanswered questions. This is not a P3 program. And I don't think there is a "partner". Like I said, I watched the debate yesterday, which is why I know this is not a P3 thing. Which is also why I believe there is no "partner".

They are proposing a not-for-profit public utility, that will answer to a board of directors appointed by Winnipeg council. It is expected rates will be as dictated by the PUB.

Free from constant political interference and independent (at least not bowing to the whims of the city bureaucracy and councilor interference) it is expected they will be run more efficiently, with the ability to expand their mandate beyond the city of Winnipeg.

I believe before anything is signed a little more disclosure is desirable. Perhaps an internet site with FAQs. Maybe a mailing to all Winnipeg households.

That's the type of info that would have been good to really have widely known before voting. Did they go into what powers the not-for-profit would have?

well the upside is that October 2010 is NOT that far away and in the one year remaining such little work will be done towards it that a new council could take it to the voters and shut it down if need be. IF thats what the people want.

umcrouc0 wrote:That's the type of info that would have been good to really have widely known before voting. Did they go into what powers the not-for-profit would have?

Not that I can recall.

Deank wrote:well the upside is that October 2010 is NOT that far away and in the one year remaining such little work will be done towards it that a new council could take it to the voters and shut it down if need be. IF thats what the people want.

Remember, council turnover is almost non-existent. But if there is an election before anything is signed then maybe there ought to be a plebiscite.

This whole idea should totally have been presented to the people and let them voice their opinions. the problem being that apparently not even members of council have all the required information so I am not sure how the little guy could make an informed decision

Okay. So I guess the 'partner' would just be the new not-for-profit. I would have liked to see a more detailed plan before a vote taking place on if it's should be done or not but it's too late for that now. Sort of 'here's the new utility's size and structure, this is how they are funded, this is what they are able to do, this is what the city controls, this is how disputes are settled, here's why the utility is a better option than running things through the city, here are some examples of models from other cities from which we've learned to do these things and not do these things, etc'. IMO a vote on preparation of a detailed plan and assessment for the utility would have been more appropriate than voting on the actual utility.

I'm with you Dean, I'd heard a lot of conflicting information and had little idea what the actual plan was.

As an aside to all this, Doer takes the position that this is all about cleaning up Lake Winnipeg and not about anything else. When asked, that's all he talks about.

That gives me the shivers. There's a lot more to this deal than what info we have been given. (imo anyway.)

We have gotten to the point that we distrust elected officials so much, that we don't want them to make decisions, but are insisting that "we" make the major decisions. The lefties are continually demanding consultation which basically brings everything to a grinding halt. No wonder nothing ever gets done.

BINGO! You've absolutely nailed it. Some here don't even trust us to vote properly if it comes down to a plebiscite.

We are at loggerheads... How do we get back to a state where people we've elected can be trusted to get things done and done correctly?

Term Limits? :@@@:



[flame on]

Honestly...it's a very good question, how do we get back to where elected officials can be trusted?

Maybe elected officials have abused things to the point where they never should be trusted again, so long as it's always the same ruling class that gets to hold those elected positions.

Not to mention the power of outside influences, and lobbyists seem to hold over plenty of elected officials...leads me to ask, why should I ever trust in circumstances such as these?

It used to be that 'reporters' kept the politicians in line by exposing their defects. This is no longer true it seems, as the papers no longer play an unbiased role. Frankly, we're fcuked. There's no hope.

The reporters are not allowed to do their jobs and so on up the food chain. The bean counters run media and have done so for a long time.

JT Estoban wrote:Honestly...it's a very good question, how do we get back to where elected officials can be trusted?

Maybe elected officials have abused things to the point where they never should be trusted again, so long as it's always the same ruling class that gets to hold those elected positions.

Not to mention the power of outside influences, and lobbyists seem to hold over plenty of elected officials...leads me to ask, why should I ever trust in circumstances such as these?

"ruling class", I thought that the NDP were the working man's party. I would rather have someone educated, with business experience rather than some union hack. When you speak of outside influences, do you include unions in that group?

Maybe we're not getting quality candidates because the good ones don't want to be shat upon for their entire term in office?

But I digress, so, how do we get back to trusting elected officials?

Freeman wrote: When you speak of outside influences, do you include unions in that group?

Yes, absolutely!

Unions, lobbyists, lobbyists for unions, lobbyists for corporations, lobbyists for special interests, lobbyists for religious groups, there are lobbyists for everything, so they all have to be included.

The NDP is clearly not the working persons party...sorry...just have a look at Mr. Double-Dip as an example of that philosophy!

I thought the public office was supposed to be available to anyone from the populace who would like the opportunity to serve. But now, sh*t, if I or anyone else from the working class wanted to run for office, there is no way I could do it without having lots of rich friends and well, I guess "supporters" in business and other fields where I could tap into funds. Not only that, but I would somehow need to take a leave of absence from my job just to campaign. But I digress...

Of, and JTF brings up a good point (so does Miz Point) about the role of reporters, and how they have failed in their roll. I feel that's largly due to "news" being pumped full of "entertainment" and less "news"....but that's a different rant for a differnt day.

The local media is pretty useless at asking difficult questions or digging further into stories. I know a lot of people don't like the CBC but as bad as they are, they are the only ones who seem to remember that reporters once asked politicians about policies. Not that they are doing a good job these days either, but compared to the private 'entertainment' news outlets they are still miles ahead. And that's pretty sad.