| March 23, “In The Year if Our Lord”, 2009 |
| Glen P. Robbins
Worldwide Magistrates
www.robbinssceresearch.com |
| Re: Meet The Press segment and British Columbia 3P’s (Private-Public Partnerships). |
| Dear: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. |
| I am writing to provide you with information --as I see British Columbia from the perspective of a progressive public opinion pollster-and political writer. Although our public opinion success, particular in America--has been outstanding-I admit that the majority of our work has taken place in the British Columbia political crucible-also producing exceptional accuracy and forecasting for over 10 years now. |
| This is my sense of the situation with 3P’s both theoretically, and from a British Columbia perspective. A little history--, please forgive the obvious indulgences. |
| Firstly, a British Columbia 3P signifies the relationship between the Corporate investor (private capital) and the B.C. Government (Public). Costs and other elements of a contract are thus shared between the corporation and the government for projects such as (roads, bridges, hospitals). |
| In British Columbia once private finance is intermingled with taxpayer dollars, the B.C. citizen no longer has any accountability with their tax dollars-as it relates to the capital project involved, most of which are significant in economic cost. This is because of the privacy laws afforded to the large corporation. This, in my opinion exacerbates a post 1970 proliferation in Canada of Crown Corporations. (In B.C. these are legal entities unrelated to government, and although they must post their financials, in B.C., their numbers do not form the basis of the Government Annual Budgets, at least not in any easily decipherable way). |
| To send signals which might be interpreted as moving away from government accountability, particularly with regards to relations with large financial corporations--at this time--is likely ill-advised. The communications difficulties--which are easily engulfed-in any major incongruence’s of public opinion confidence (P.O.C.), would be daunting. |
| Secondly, wouldn’t it be more prudent (and likely ultimately more spectacular), if we focused some attention on those corporations, particularly in California--who have performed the best under these economic conditions-examine why this is--ensuring that ultimately we set the new paradigm properly for ANY type of private public merger of interests, and any future role for these things across America? |
| Third, what of the security issues relating to offshore investment in California-, particularly when we consider the factor of new economy development dollars going to work into projects such as bridge building, roads and such. China, which holds a significant amount of U.S. debt, and is reported to be flush with cash--looks like an excellent partner on paper, but how will this be received by a Doubting Public? What are the implications for relations with the business community in the Middle East? Will the west continue to be limited in its political freedoms-while in some of these countries--while they freely do business in the United States? That’s not a judgment, it is however a gaping chasm of inconsistency--if I believe I have accurately ‘gamed’ the economic and political implications of the 3P idea and the obvious debate that might precipitate worldwide-- about the future expectations of Canadian and United States citizens. |
| There are those that would argue that government bail-outs are for friends and acquaintances--in other words-- the politicians and corporate officers are ‘in on it together’ (conspiracy). There are also those who are completely mistrustful of large corporations, and bewildered by the difficulty in accepting that their governments did not seem to be reasonably aware of the economic difficulties coming, and have adventured more time musing about implications of things--bail-out and less time analyzing the time line for implementation and searching for faster methods to attract feedback from which to measure the benefits (or not) of the bail-outs. |
| There are few who see the large corporation as the elixir for economic woes (free market), and fewer still who see the combination of government and large corporations as a good fit, right now. |
| In British Columbia--when the public discover that the corporate side of the partnership keeps the money and runs the operations--for 99 years, they are unhappy. In British Columbia, the household is the major asset of the family and there is no tax on the sale of your principal residence (and tax on everything else). Putting taxpayer dollars in any deal with no obvious return on investment simply doesn’t make it with the average British Columbian beyond perhaps those hoping to benefit. There is little discernable translation of P3 value to the common person, who is jaundiced about government and large corporations credibility unless it is ideologically accepted as good, without investigation of the nuances. (Politics as pure public relations-and little public policy relevance). |
| This too shall pass. |
| In our local news, as this relates to your Meet The Press appearance--examples of ‘successful’ P3’s were given. According to the press “These came in on budget and on time”. On what budget? How does the public know this at this early stage of the game? What happens if a large corporation runs out of money in a private public partnership as in the example of Vancouver’s Olympic Village Development?
That deal had to be rescued by the taxpayer through special laws recently passed in our provincial parliament in Victoria, B.C. The rationale presented by our mayor in Vancouver, Gregor “Hollywood” Robertson is that the values of the properties now owned by government--will increase over time (and I bet they will), and a profit will be secured. |
| Doesn’t this latter negative example of ‘a P3 relationship’ better support those who believe government alone should be building infrastructure? These advocates, argue that “Government can borrow money more cheaply than Corporations”. |
| I believe the greater debate ----far beyond the abstract 3P discussion, ought to be the philosophical pursuit of stronger ties between government and its citizens--and the role of future government and its role to corporations and financial institutions--and their ethical conduct with citizens. A triangle of mutual benefit, honestly derived. |
| This could lead to an International debate among nation states in both developed and developing nations including Afghanistan-where I hope to see my country adjust its role but certainly not its participation over the coming years. |
| One thing I would say in closing Governor is that--it would greatly benefit Canada if while ensuring security--we keep our mutual borders flowing--doing business. I know California is not a border state-however you are a significant political personality with a national presence. Indeed, many Canadians I am sure also view you favorably for President of the United States. |
| Sincerely, |
| Glen P. Robbins
(604) 996-3757 |
