So Councilman DeLong thinks that my objections to selling city assets and services to private entities is because I received so much money from the unions.
Don't know if he or his handlers wrote the response to my blog but whomever writes his responses needs to be truthful first. I have not received one penny from the unions that provide the services he is trying to sell -- street sweeping, towing, etc. Both Mr. DeLong and I received $350 from the LB Police Officers Association. I received an in kind contribution of printing of campaign signs from the LB Firefighters Association. That's the sum of what the city unions contributed.
But I did not receive one penny from the unions whose services I believe should not be contracted out.
Now in comparison, I took no money from Tom Dean either. Mr. DeLong did. So are we to infer that is why he pushed the Dean land swap so vigorously? Since councilpersons are limited to receiving $350 from one source (union or non-union) it would seem silly to infer that any council person could be bought for $350. Don't you think so?
I also sent back a check a towing company sent me during the campaign because I had heard that after the election Mr. DeLong would be trying to get the city to contract out towing services and I felt the money was a conflict of interest.
So back to the facts about contracting out city services. Towing and street sweeping provide an incredible amount of revenue for the city. Revenue that pays for the salaries and benefits of the people who provide the services and then some. The "then some" provides for funding for other things in the city.
So why would we want to share revenue with an outside business? Does that make sense for the taxpayers? No.
So let's have a discussion on the merits and shortfalls of contracting out and what is best for the taxpayers and not the politicians.
