If your responsibility is to provide governance, and you want to do your job the best you can, you set about establishing the fairest of laws, and the best of government services.
Like, shall we say, prisons? Doesn't a good elected official seek to ensure that the prison will do the best job of rehabilitating the prisoner as can be done? Let's say, you have a site that has the prisoners close to their legal representatives, close to medical help, and -- most importantly -- close to volunteers.
Maybe your job as an elected official is to leave the prison right where it's at.
There are others who have other jobs. If you are a real estate developer, you might seek to use the property for its highest real estate benefit. That's a real estate developer, though. It would be perfectly understandable for them to use the property that way. They have a different interest.
Now, let's say you're a government official, and you turn the responsibility of deciding what to do with the property over to real estate developers, is that wise? You know full well what the are going to do, and their guiding goal isn't likely to be squarely centered on good governance.
No, I don't like it that the state has a commission headed by (if I have heard correctly) someone from the real estate industry. And, I like it even less that the commission is now asking that they be allowed to make the final decision on where the prison will go.
Government officials should do their own job and not leave it to those who have different interests. Let the elected officials make this decision, and let's hope they base it largely on what will be best for rehabilitating the prisoner.
Yes, a vibrant economy is important. And, yes, good governance means you also seek a vibrant economy. But, let it be the legislator who weighs that factor in, and not the real estate developer.
No comments:
Post a Comment