Rich Stern wrote:

I have no problem with privitization of public assets when it's done to enhance
the interests of the customers of those assets.

Hmm... if you put it that way, it sounds reasonable enough...

The problem is that greed & human nature tend to coincide to produce results
ranging from awful to tragic for anybody not sharing the profits. Of course, those
reaping the bucks always think it's fine. So the best answer is to keep profiteers
hands OFF public assets as much as possible; and/or to shine the bright light of
publicity on the back room deals.

"Public assets" are owned by all members of the public. That's who should get the
benefit.

Getting back to the Corp of Engineers...



But in this case, the customers are well served. Millions of people use these
resources every year, and few complain about the quality (excellent) or the
price (nearly free...small tax burden, small burden for various licenses).

Truly a solution in search of a problem when there isn't one.

Agreed, but not everybody feels this way. I have to listen all the time to what a
bunch of pointy head tyrants the COE is for not letting people build whatver they
want in sensitive areas. The ones that get the least polite response are the jerks
who want to build some big expensive project in a flood plain.

DSK