Privatization Has Its Pros and Cons

* Are privateers really “pirateers”? Surely some are only in it for the bucks, not quality, or any sense of order or responsibility.

A prime example being Featherly Park. From what I heard, it is in a shabby condition, loaded with homeless, with no one at the entrance booth collecting fees, and the operators owe the county money. I also heard that Mile Square Park’s condition is not satisfactory. Now, if these two were already turned over to private firms, and are in unsatisfactory condition, why should we turn the rest of our parks, along with our beaches, harbors and bike trails, over to private caretakers?

The county Environmental Management Agency (EMA) also encompasses the former Flood Control District. I think too few realize how large the flood-control network is, as there are literally hundreds of miles of drainage courses throughout Orange County. In the winter when rain comes too much and too fast, these channels and retarding basins need monitoring to help avoid major loss of life and property.

A lot of road and flood projects need the watchful eye of county inspectors. We don’t need expensive projects jeopardized by contractors cutting corners or ignoring proper procedures. Also, if a project were constructed and later on if there were problems or failures, who would be liable if it was out of the county’s hands and the company was out of business?

Before the bankruptcy occurred, EMA was on a five-year downsizing plan.

Let’s give EMA a chance to finish its downsizing plan, and allow it to operate, doing what is done best by an agency held accountable to the public.

Deciding in late April to privatize EMA, putting out bid packets in mid-May, giving until June 5 for all proposals to be in, and deciding on a winner on June 20 is far too hasty to dispose of an agency as important and complex as EMA. The supervisors drag their feet for five months on the bankruptcy and wait way too long to finally propose a half-cent tax. However, they want to dismantle a self-supporting agency that has a budget of $723 million, but only $30,000 comes out of the county’s pocket. How is this solving the big issue at hand? They should be backing Mr. (Chief Executive Officer William J.) Popejoy and actively campaigning for the half-cent tax increase.

D. L. MINICH

Laguna Beach

* I read with great interest that the Board of Supervisors has a county-appointed privatization task force in place (“Packed House Explores Privatizing $745-Million Agency,” May 20). Although I am not aware of any recommendations made by that task force at this time, I hope that they consider every unit in county government.

One specific unit I feel would be a great candidate for privatization is the real estate unit, made up of 20-plus county employees whose only function is to deal in real estate transactions. Since Orange County, I am sure, has a flood of highly qualified, talented real estate agents and brokers, this would seem like a natural area for privatization.

In reviewing last year’s county budget, this unit had a budget of almost $3 million. I would hope that the privatization task force headed by Vic Opincar would not overlook any area of county government. This unit of real estate brokering for county government is an excellent example of privatization that would not cost the taxpayers any money and could save them millions.

HAROLD T. MILLER

Santa Ana