Dem-ruled city corruptly rejects bid for public toilets, costing city $34 million over 10 years
I want to show you a tiny example--a microscopic slice--of how brazen corrupt politicians have gotten when it comes to awarding contracts to an inferior provider of services over a far better deal for their constituents.
The reason, of course, is either bribes or that the pols have an equity interest in the favored company--commonly called a "brother-in-law deal." Either way, citizens get worse service and pay more for it.
This particular story is from Democrat-ruled shithole San Francisco. Faced with a need for public toilets on the street, 30 years ago the city's rulers had a novel idea: Make a deal for a private company to build and maintain a certain number of toilets, and make money by selling ad space on the structures. The company would pay the city part of that revenue and keep the rest.
It was a good idea, but predictably the pols had it rigged before the first Request for Proposal went out. The winner has had the contract ever since. But where similar contracts have the winner paying the city 55 percent of the ad revenue received, this particular company was paying just seven percent.
Also, the company that had always gotten the contract skimped on cleaning and maintenance, to the point that the toilets were a constant source of complaints.
Three years ago the toilet contract came up for renewal, and now a new company bid an amount that would have paid the city $40.5 million over ten years. By contrast, the company currently holding the contract offered the city $12.5 million over a staggering 21.5 years.
On a 10-year basis, the current holder would be paying just $6 million total, compared to the new bidder's $40.5 million. And the more-generous bidder also offered to provide more toilets.
You'd think that would have been a no-brainer, eh? But the city turned down the more-generous bidder.
Why in the world would the city forego $34 million bucks, eh? Ah, but this is corrupt, Democrat-ruled San Fransisco, and every pol from top to bottom wanted to go with the long-time winner, ignoring the $34 million loss to the city.
Wow, that's...so hard to figure, eh? Almost like there may have been some quiet kickbacks, eh?
Rather than simply accepting the crappier bid--which might have invited some unwanted attention-- the city's notoriously corrupt Public Works department cancelled the request for new bids, then quietly wrote a new Request for the toilet operation so that only the previous contract-winner had a chance to win.
Fortunately a brave journalist published all the details, and the corruptly-awarded contract was rescinded and people went to jail for taking bribes.
Hahahahahahaha! Just kidding. Remember what city this is, and who the ruling party is. Nothing has happened to upset the corrupt pols' sweet little scheme. While a journalist did write up the story, the thrust of the story was sort of a shrug. "Hey, just another day ending in Y."
Liberals really do get the crappy, corrupt governments they vote for.
Source.
The reason, of course, is either bribes or that the pols have an equity interest in the favored company--commonly called a "brother-in-law deal." Either way, citizens get worse service and pay more for it.
This particular story is from Democrat-ruled shithole San Francisco. Faced with a need for public toilets on the street, 30 years ago the city's rulers had a novel idea: Make a deal for a private company to build and maintain a certain number of toilets, and make money by selling ad space on the structures. The company would pay the city part of that revenue and keep the rest.
It was a good idea, but predictably the pols had it rigged before the first Request for Proposal went out. The winner has had the contract ever since. But where similar contracts have the winner paying the city 55 percent of the ad revenue received, this particular company was paying just seven percent.
Also, the company that had always gotten the contract skimped on cleaning and maintenance, to the point that the toilets were a constant source of complaints.
Three years ago the toilet contract came up for renewal, and now a new company bid an amount that would have paid the city $40.5 million over ten years. By contrast, the company currently holding the contract offered the city $12.5 million over a staggering 21.5 years.
On a 10-year basis, the current holder would be paying just $6 million total, compared to the new bidder's $40.5 million. And the more-generous bidder also offered to provide more toilets.
You'd think that would have been a no-brainer, eh? But the city turned down the more-generous bidder.
Why in the world would the city forego $34 million bucks, eh? Ah, but this is corrupt, Democrat-ruled San Fransisco, and every pol from top to bottom wanted to go with the long-time winner, ignoring the $34 million loss to the city.
Wow, that's...so hard to figure, eh? Almost like there may have been some quiet kickbacks, eh?
Rather than simply accepting the crappier bid--which might have invited some unwanted attention-- the city's notoriously corrupt Public Works department cancelled the request for new bids, then quietly wrote a new Request for the toilet operation so that only the previous contract-winner had a chance to win.
Fortunately a brave journalist published all the details, and the corruptly-awarded contract was rescinded and people went to jail for taking bribes.
Hahahahahahaha! Just kidding. Remember what city this is, and who the ruling party is. Nothing has happened to upset the corrupt pols' sweet little scheme. While a journalist did write up the story, the thrust of the story was sort of a shrug. "Hey, just another day ending in Y."
Liberals really do get the crappy, corrupt governments they vote for.
Source.
posted by SF at
4:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home