The part which made my skin crawl was referring to the state's policies and priorities on transit--that the state wants to privatize it.
-
-
Replying to @380kmh
Now, as a big fan of Japanese transit, I'm certainly no opponent of privatization. No, my problem is that they use the word dishonestly.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
Apparently state regulations ban transit authorities from actually operating transit. This is handled by """"private"""" companies.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @380kmh
The flyer boasted that PVTA created several hundred private sector jobs for bus and van drivers. Only problem: those jobs are state-funded.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
If privatization is really the goal, this is a very weird way to go about it. But if we're gonna keep transit in the state's hands...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
...then this is *still* a very weird way to go about it. Why can't we make up our minds about this? I know, I know, rhetorical question.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @380kmh
State ownership/operation is Bad even if it's unavoidable. Privatization is Good, even if unworkable. So we go for this arm's length BS.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @kev_jg
Don't think this is a shareholders thing--it's not about enriching private sector, just about appeasing taxpayers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The "private" companies involved here are de facto state enterprises. They don't turn any profit and require public funding.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It's just that taxpayers would rather be told that we're creating "private sector" jobs than know how it actually works.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.