Comment 27900

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2008 at 06:04:08

Mr.Meister, since unemployment would be one of the major factors in measuring government performance (based on my performance based approach to government), allowing people to go poor would not be in the best interest of city managers. In theory, each person without a well paying job would decrease the potential earnings of our city councilors. Since unemployment decreases demand for property in the city, our city government would constantly be looking to put people to work in high paying jobs.

If there were still people, who for medical reasons, could not pay their own way, I believe that charity could step in to save the day. In a wealthy prosperous city, where residents have large amounts of disposable income (unlike present day Hamilton), most people would feel obligated to share their prosperity with others. Furthermore, since having people beg for money tends to decrease the attractiveness of city streets, and thus property values, it may very well be cheaper to build housing for these people, than allow property values to drop.

As for items like restaurant inspections and snow removal, these would need to be factored into a cost benefit analysis. If politicians believed that they added to the value of the city more than they cost, then we would actually get more of them.

Ultimately, all city programs would be viewed with an eye towards the bottom line.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds