Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex
No, it's not... it's zero. I'll explain...
I feel like the City hasn't done a good job defining "public" (which I think, annoyingly, is deliberate). When Nenshi and council talk about "Public benefit for Public dollars" I feel they're using the term "public benefit" to mean either a revenue stream that nets out to ≥ 0 for the city or that provides a public service (a service provided by a public body).
|
The thing is, by that standard, anything done by private enterprise is not a public service by definition. The revenue-stream standard is also the wrong tool for the job, because what is good for the financial statements of the Corporation of the City of Calgary is not necessarily the same thing that provides the most benefit to the city's residents.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
‘You see in Calgary, [Ryan] Huska is no joke. It’s good. He’s really set on a specific model defensively. If you can be reliable, you have the freedom to play offence.’
—Ethan Wyttenbach
|