They incorporated in 2005. They don't have the years of legal and administrative undergrowth or the piles of fiscal compost to snag their nylons and stink up the joint.
If we could toss all the contracts, bonds and codes (over one hundred book-feet) that are the millstones around the state's neck we too could look like we know what we're doing.
The income per capita in Sandy Springs is 165.1% greater than the Georgia average and 150.6% greater than the national average. The median household income in Sandy Springs is 74.1% greater than the Georgia average and 61.6% greater than the national average. The median household income in Sandy Springs for owner occupied housing is 117% greater than the median household income for renter occupied housing in Sandy Springs.
The poverty level in Sandy Springs is 65.1% less than the Georgia average and 47.3% less than the national average.
Sandy Springs is home to the headquarters of more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere in the State including Atlanta. United Parcel Service, Newell Rubbermaid, and First Data are all headquartered in Sandy Springs. Global Payments, Inc., Mirant Corp., Spectrum Brands, and Wendy's/Arby's Group, which are Fortune 1000 companies, are also based in the city. The city is also home to Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, InterContinental Hotels Group, IBM Internet Security Systems, Northside Hospital, Porsche Cars North America and Saint Joseph's Hospital.
What you have here is an extremely wealthy and affluent population that decided to exercise their right to segregate themselves financially from the surrounding communities. Thus their taxes which were distributed thorough out the County, are now "privatized" (if you will) to the newly incorporated city.
So, here you have a population that took advantage of the State when it was to their benefit. Yes, --the State and thus ALL of the taxpayers of the state-- created business incentives to lure many of these Fortune 500 companies to the State. An example is the Georgia Business Expansion and Support Act of 1998. This act gave Corporations tax breaks to relocate to Georgia. Because Sandy Springs happened to be a very nice, higher end area of Atlanta, and commercially zoned (much like Century City or Irvine), many of these Corporations took the bait and re-located there.
These residents have effectively "succeeded" from the County, but only AFTER reaping the benefits of the Counties taxes that helped subsidize the incentive programs that helped make Sandy Springs wealthy in the first place.
So it's very misleading to take the most wealthy section of a large and economically diverse city, carve it up, make it it's own city and claim it now has no financial issues.
It's like leaving ones wife or husband with all the debt accumulated during marriage, then taking all the assets, and proclaiming how smart one is because they have assets and no debt.
I wish solving our governments economic problems were as easy as that, but they aren't.
You're trying hard to dance around the point my friend. By privatizing city services they are able to provide more services for less money. It would have worked as well if they average income were 50% the surrounding communities. The residents were simply knowledgeable enough to avoid the empire building mistakes made by other cities. It's pretty much an indisputable fact that competition works better than bureaucracy. They also avoided the trap of bloated pensions. In other words they setup the city in an intelligent way and took advantage of free markets.
LA could have done the same thing before their politicians sold their souls to the unions. They could have saved huge sums by outsourcing to low bidders (no silly "living/prevailing wage foolishness) all of the city maintenance function, jail management, clerical and payroll and social services functions. They could also outsource fire and paramedics and save a fortune there without reducing service.
what makes you think that there was any competition for providing the newly privatized services? i have yet to see a newly incorporated city actually go through a competitive bid process for their first round of contracted services (there are plenty of laws that let you side-step this when incorporating anew), and i think we all know what kind of advantage an incumbent contractor has ongoing. most likely, they've exchanged a pension burden for large executive pay (and you can bet the executives and their companies have put the city under severe contract obligations that are just as bad or worse than the pension obligations elsewhere). the difference with privatization is that the contracted company can evaporate at will, after distributing the contract cash, and the city has to then come up with the ready cash to sue the ephemeral remains of the old company AND contract out with a new services company, except this time, they're doing it under a time constraint that puts them at a severe disadvantage.
point being, competition doesn't magically eliminate a need for vigilance, and vigilance puts what you call bureaucracy in a better position than your suspiciously naive concept of "competition."
in other words, privatization is a poor business decision if your plan actually includes long term goals... and long term goals are actually a useful and efficient concept for local governments.
what makes you think that there was any competition for providing the newly privatized services? i have yet to see a newly incorporated city actually go through a competitive bid process for their first round of contracted services (there are plenty of laws that let you side-step this when incorporating anew), and i think we all know what kind of advantage an incumbent contractor has ongoing. most likely, they've exchanged a pension burden for large executive pay (and you can bet the executives and their companies have put the city under severe contract obligations that are just as bad or worse than the pension obligations elsewhere). the difference with privatization is that the contracted company can evaporate at will, after distributing the contract cash, and the city has to then come up with the ready cash to sue the ephemeral remains of the old company AND contract out with a new services company, except this time, they're doing it under a time constraint that puts them at a severe disadvantage.
point being, competition doesn't magically eliminate a need for vigilance, and vigilance puts what you call bureaucracy in a better position than your suspiciously naive concept of "competition."
in other words, privatization is a poor business decision if your plan actually includes long term goals... and long term goals are actually a useful and efficient concept for local governments.
That's little more than FUD. A city official that takes a bribe to steer a contract is committing a felony and looking at severe prison time. On the other hand a city official taking a bribe to boost salaries and retirement to astronomical Calif style pension from the shovel leaners in the union is committing politics as usual. I've negotiated contracts and it's not that hard to lock down companies and protect the taxpayer. Contractors can be fired for poor performance while it's almost impossible to fire unionized bureaucrats and shovel leaners. And contrary to the FUD no agency pays for a full year up front so a company going belly up is no big deal - the services aren't paid for until completed. Bottom line competition almost always provides a better product at a lower price. The people of California are being forced to buy the "Trabant" of taxpayer funded services with a Rolls Royce sized price tag.
Tech firm founder to plead guilty in $9M Naval kickback scandal
The founder of a technology firm with offices in Rhode Island and Georgia has agreed to plead guilty to charges he bribed federal officials as part of a kickback scheme involving more than $9 million in naval funds, according to federal authorities.
The Justice Department said Advanced Solutions for Tomorrow (ASFT) president and founder Anjan Dutta-Gupta, 58, of Roswell, Ga., has agreed to plead guilty to bribing an official with the U.S. Navy's Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).
Gupta was arrested in February on charges he paid at least $8 million from 1996 through January of this year to Ralph Mariano, 52, of Arlington, Va., a civilian program manager and senior system engineer at NAVSEA, along with his family members and associates, authorities said.
In return, Mariano increased funding for Naval contracts held by ASFT, the Justice Dpartment said. The complaint alleges another $1.2 million was funneled through subcontractors back to a corporation owned by Gupta.
This is a private contractor doing business with the Government. Where's the Unionistas in this kickback scheme? Where are the big pensions?
As long as we have humans in charge of anything that involves granting some other human a contract worth money, we are going to have corruption. Taking civil employees out of the loop really will change nothing. It simply replaces one special interest (greedy Employee unions) with another (greedy business owners).
I don't remember reading about Madof paying off any public officials. Did MCI? Enron? AIG? Countrywide I'll grant you. Do I have to list every city in California with a looming pension crisis or crappy unionized school? Every city and county with an over compensated workforce? Bet my list would be longer and that's without adding the state and other states.
Privatization has little to do with the success of Sandy Springs. As a long-term Atlanta resident, I have watched this so-called miracle happen, but it's not really much of a miracle.
Historically, Sandy Springs was part of 'unincorporated Fulton County'. Fulton County is where Atlanta is.
FC has unbelievable costs....a huge school system, a major international airport, and sprawling transit system and an overloaded and crumbling sewer system....not to mention the issues of crime, urban blight, public housing, etc, etc.
So historically, areas such as Sandy Springs were the 'meal ticket' for Fulton County, paying LOTS of taxes, yet getting second rate police, fire, water/sewer services from FC, plus some mediocre schools, and some libraries. It was partly distance, partly some racial element to it, and partly the practical matter that FC has very high fixed costs, so something has to give.
So, in effect, Sandy Springs simply took their tax dollars and walked away from FC. They did not change to privatization, they started from scratch with it.
Fulton County and Atlanta have also gone hog-wild for privatization. But consider the results:
Privatizing their parking enforcement has been a debacle. Downtown businesses are reporting losing a third of their customers, citizens who own homes are having their cars booted and towed if they park too close to their own driveway on a residential street....there have been protests, angry council meetings, etc.
FC has also privatized animal control, which means that the private company only works 9-5, does not do emergencies, and now has something like 1/3 the staff, so now the reports are that vicious dog attacks are at an all-time high.
BUT, keep in mind that Sandy Springs does not have the huge fixed costs of things like an Airport or a mess of a sewer system, so naturally they can afford to provide great services based on the tax rates that people are used to.
But in real terms, Sandy Spring benefits from things like the Atlanta airport, sewer, water, and transit systems, even if they don't pay for them.
I'm shocked that bureaucrats can screw up vendor selection and fail to include service level agreements. Now the Atlanta morons will either learn a lesson or not but the proof that it works is Sandy Springs. Competition and choice almost always leads to a better result than socialism. But the wild card is the bottomless pit of bureaucratic stupidity and sloth that is the heart and soul of the public sector.
It always amazes me that your first instinct is to always defend bureaucrats and shovel leaners as the epitome of efficiency.
I think if there were real competitive bidding agreements in place that could not simply be changed or sidestepped by the officials in power at the time (something like a public vote to allow a change) then this idea is great.
I've negotiated contracts and it's not that hard to lock down companies and protect the taxpayer.
spoken like someone who has never litigated a contract with anyone, let alone a business that's taken the money, distributed it, then evaporated before completely performing the contract.
i'll just say this - maybe your vigilance, integrity and forethought could manage a privatized city to the benefit of the taxpayers over a 10 year period or so. so, get off your ass and do so, because it's pretty clear you're one of few. i wonder how much compensation you'll be asking for? i'll be available to sue your under-performing contractors (but I won't be doing it pro-bono... I won't overcharge though). also, no fair blaming the taxpayers if you're voted out of office/fired before the 10 years is up - part of the job is keeping the client happy, right?
I think if there were real competitive bidding agreements in place that could not simply be changed or sidestepped by the officials in power at the time (something like a public vote to allow a change) then this idea is great.
there are many, many cases where the low bidder gets the contract by underbidding the cost, then does a shitty job, requiring twice as much money as a decent contractor in the end after suing/demo/rebuild. there's no good way to legislate around gaming the competitive bidding system, other than giving the managers the ability to evaluate the bids in a competent way and choose based on the evaluation, of which price is only a part. that type of evaluation can't be summarized in a way for even competent voters to base a vote.
here's an idea, that's probably never going to fly: contract request and bids are all posted online, with commenting available like here at DSLreports, except there are no anonymous posts (you figure out how to moderate it appropriately - only district voters and a single bidder representative/bid can comment). oh, wait. now we're relying on tech that not every voter has access to in a meaningful way, which means the technoliterati are making the decisions. and even then, do we require some percentage of the voters actually make a comment of some kind before we vote? is it worth setting this all up if only 0.1% of the voting public ever voice an opinion (it doesn't seem fiscally worthwhile, does it?)?
i don't think you could even get the bidders to agree to post their bids online. if you can articulate some way to address gaming the bidding process, post back. if all we're talking about is vigilance again, i'm not sure i see the fundamental change to how things run now.
So simply add that payments are made as work is performed correctly. They do a shitty job, they don't get paid till they make it to the standards they originally bid on.
So simply add that payments are made as work is performed correctly. They do a shitty job, they don't get paid till they make it to the standards they originally bid on.
Exactly. That's how private business does it. Only a fool pays up front. The vendor knows that they have to deliver and then and only then do they get paid.
In Jig's world if you decide to hire a janitorial service you go out for bids - insisting that the vendor pay top dollar to all employees and provide employees with Cadillac healthcare. Then you pay for a year of service up front. If the vendor goes under you complain about the private sector.
In the business world you take bids with no employment requirements other than the vendor assure that employees are legal and pass a background check. Then take the bids and investigate the credit history of the bidders. Then follow up on references and select a vendor. At the end of each month the vendor invoices for completed services and the customer signs off that the services for the month are complete and have accounts payable pay the invoice. If the vendor goes under you just go back to the bids and ask the #2 choice if they would like to finish out the contract. In no case does any vendor get paid until each phase of the work is complete.
The problem with bureaucrats is that nobody is responsible for anything. If they screw up the union and civil service rules protect the bumbler. In the private sector you're betting your job when you select a vendor and your job depends on keeping that vendor performing to everyone's satisfaction.
The problem with bureaucrats is that nobody is responsible for anything. If they screw up the union and civil service rules protect the bumbler. In the private sector you're betting your job when you select a vendor and your job depends on keeping that vendor performing to everyone's satisfaction.
So the problem really isn't solved by outsourcing, the problem is solved by removing civil servant tenure and job protection right?
If, as in private enterprise, the department who chooses the vendor (internal vendor or external vendor) has a downside responsibility risk (they risk getting fired as a result of a bad decision), then they will be more vigilant when it comes to performance and budgets.
The problem with bureaucrats is that nobody is responsible for anything. If they screw up the union and civil service rules protect the bumbler. In the private sector you're betting your job when you select a vendor and your job depends on keeping that vendor performing to everyone's satisfaction.
So the problem really isn't solved by outsourcing, the problem is solved by removing civil servant tenure and job protection right?
If, as in private enterprise, the department who chooses the vendor (internal vendor or external vendor) has a downside responsibility risk (they risk getting fired as a result of a bad decision), then they will be more vigilant when it comes to performance and budgets.
Not quite right. The problem is solved by a combination of outsourcing the most of the functions of the city and enforcing downside risk to the bureaucrat that approves and supervises the contract.
As a resident of Atlanta and having a brother that live in Sandy Springs, this article does not (IMO) describe accurately what's going on this city. Many companies are leaving and/or planning to leave the city because of taxes; including Porsche of North America. Although still just a rumor, (but many city leaders have "off the record" confirmed) this will be a huge loss for Sandy Springs. Don't get me wrong, Sandy Springs is a nice city to live in. Some of the best schools in the Atlanta area, nice parks and a lot of high end homes. But they (Sandy Springs) are hurting all the small businesses who make the city what it is.........................IMO
