lizzzyyy100

In the age of "the deal" in which a real estate tycoon is President, renewed interest in the role of quasi-public development corporations that are supposed to act more like private business is in order.  Were they created to close the deal where government couldn't? Were they created to be a substitute for boss or machine system  in a time when municipal corruption was rampant? Were they created to empower people or to provide loopholes for corporations to get a better deal? Power in the city: Former Baltimore Development Corporation CEO Jay Brodie (Photo: Fern Shen) All of the above could be true, depending on what period of time is investigated, what type of quasi-governmental organization and which city one looks at. Generally, these days suspicion about those type agencies seems to prevail. Many who suspect that especially urban development corporations (UDCs, the subset of the quasi public agencies on which this article will focus) which defy classification as a cit

The last article asked if public works projects really have to take this long. This article asks if  P3s are the right answer to the funding crisis.  When the State of Maryland felt that two major "New Starts" transit projects began to break the State's bank (combined cost $5.5 billion), the solution was P3, a public-private-partnership. US-DOT defines P3 as a “contractual agreements formed between a public agency and a private sector entity that allow for greater private sector participation in the delivery and financing of transportation projects.” The Washington suburb Purple light rail line is a 100% P3 project In other words: Build now, pay later, but pay more, lots more. A P3 project doesn't mean the private sector contributes or funds a project, it means the private sector finances a project! The cost to the public is simply deferred to a future point. Cost plus interest plus profit. In the case of the Purple Line a $2 billion project balloons to $5.6 billion f