For once the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission made a ruling that sides with utility consumers. Mayor Greg Ballard came up with this hair-brained idea to introduce a heavily public-subsidized, all-electric car sharing service called BlueIndy, which is owned and operated by a French company, Bollore. Mayor Ballard thought Indianapolis ratepayers should be charged $12.3 million to pay for charging stations and kiosks that would be owned by the French company. The IURC said no. Ballard is already forcing taxpayers to subsidize the company by reimbursing the City's private operator of the parking meter assets for all of the parking spaces that are being taken out of use to make room for the electric car sharing business.
The IURC only approved $3 million of the nearly $16 million in proposed costs, which represents IPL's cost to extend electric service to BlueIndy. Officials of the company did not provide a comment to the IBJ on what today's decision means for the future of the electric car sharing business. Bollore claims the service will require an upfront investment of $35 million and about $15 million in annual operating costs. A similar car-sharing service is offered in Columbus, Ohio; however, the City's residents were not asked to provide a dime in subsidies to the private operator. Mayor Ballard met these Bollore folks during one of the many overseas junkets he's taken with his campaign contributors, trips which only seem to lead to ideas to bilk taxpayers while providing no identifiable benefits to the public.
9 comments:
Frickin' Awesome!!
Great ruling for the taxPAYERS!
That said: I have seen ZERO of those goofy electric cars actually being used. It appears that the people of Indianapolis REJECT those silly things. So, Mayor, GIVE US THOSE PRIME PARKING SPACES DOWNTOWN and stop blocking them with those silly electric cars!!!
That is a surprise coming from the IURC: Indiana Utility Rape Commission
Question: Are those cars even available for public use? I'm with Anon 6:29 in that I've never seen any of them driving; come to think of it, I've never seen any of the spaces where they park downtown empty. The cars are always in them.
Don't get me wrong, I think that a decent car sharing service is a fantastic idea. However, if the rate payers are forced to subsidize something, it is worthy of a genuine and vigorous inquiry as to whether it serves the common good. I have not seen one iota of evidence that this scheme is anything but corporate welfare.
What's so wrong with Zip car? I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think that Chicago subsidizes them anything beyond perhaps helping them procure parking spaces around town.
They never even had a crash test in the USA
I've always supported the city having a business partnership(not handout or subsidy) with Zipcar. Zipcar could have established a business relationship with the parking garages to have a couple cars in each one and advertised their location and availability with the public.
"Government-Business Partnerships", so called P3 [Public Private Partnerships], and deals arranged with the rationale that they are "too big" for the private market to effect are avenues for the corruption that is endemic to politics.
When the power brokers convinced the taxpayers that it was in the taxpayers' interest to pay for schemes never intended to be the proper purview of "government", pay-to-play cronyism was born.
FINALLY someone votes in our favor!!! I didn't this was even POSSIBLE anymore.
Virginia, there is a Santa Clause
All P3's and private-public "partnerships" are by definition handouts and/or subsidies.
Post a Comment