For many years now, banks have been lobbying the federal gov't to allow them to join the real estate industry, by setting up their own real estate arms. Their reasoning is that since they supply most of the mortgages, it would be a natural outgrowth to also sell the real estate that they fund.
Every time the matter arises, the real estate industry successfully lobbies against it, stating an unfair advantage over the industry as a whole. For instance if someone wants a mortgage, the bank could potentially turn them down unless they use a bank realtor.
Now that the banks are fully into the real estate industry, albeit by the back door of foreclosure, it's not hard to see that real estate is not, and would not, in the future, be well served by having banks involved as realtors.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Top Heavy Administrations should be combined
I live in a city where there are many different city gov'ts and many different school districts, each with their own buildings, staffs, managements and rules.
Could we not combine at least the smallest of these to cut out all the administration costs of each different one? Surely a school district that only oversees 2800 students could combine with one close by that only oversees 7500 pupils, eliminating one entire administration.
Surely one library bouard could oversee all the libraries in all the cities instead of each city having its own board.
I know some jobs would be lost by combining, but if it results in lower taxes, would that not be better in the long rung? I know from experience that many administrations are top heavy with people whose only role in life is to convince someone who distributes money, that their existence is worth the money to support it.
Just as you cannot spend your way out of poverty, you cannot administrate your way out of the need for money necessary for the front line where the customers or pupils are. Remember, too many cooks spoil the broth.
Could we not combine at least the smallest of these to cut out all the administration costs of each different one? Surely a school district that only oversees 2800 students could combine with one close by that only oversees 7500 pupils, eliminating one entire administration.
Surely one library bouard could oversee all the libraries in all the cities instead of each city having its own board.
I know some jobs would be lost by combining, but if it results in lower taxes, would that not be better in the long rung? I know from experience that many administrations are top heavy with people whose only role in life is to convince someone who distributes money, that their existence is worth the money to support it.
Just as you cannot spend your way out of poverty, you cannot administrate your way out of the need for money necessary for the front line where the customers or pupils are. Remember, too many cooks spoil the broth.
Once upon a time, when the first settlers arrived, one of the most important things they did, after setting up shelter for themselves & their livestock, was to build a school. The school doubled as a church on the weekends, a community center for meetings, dances, weddings, and other celebrations. It was a good example of multi-use building, & could & should be utilized today for energy savings. Now, we have separate churches for every denomination, & schools every few blocks so no one will have to travel very far.
It seems to me that a church used only on Sundays, & for the occasional church wedding on Saturday, could well be used for a school auditorium during the week. Or why couldn't a school gym be used as a church on weekends, when no one is around? All these buildings have a power plant, and cleaning staff, & surely they could use one power plant for several schools if they were built close enough together to be connected to the power surce. Surely several churches could use the same space at different times of the week.
Am I the only person who feels that we could save a lot of money on buildings & operation, & thus energy, by combining several uses in one building?
It seems to me that a church used only on Sundays, & for the occasional church wedding on Saturday, could well be used for a school auditorium during the week. Or why couldn't a school gym be used as a church on weekends, when no one is around? All these buildings have a power plant, and cleaning staff, & surely they could use one power plant for several schools if they were built close enough together to be connected to the power surce. Surely several churches could use the same space at different times of the week.
Am I the only person who feels that we could save a lot of money on buildings & operation, & thus energy, by combining several uses in one building?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
