Which city services or assets, if any, do you believe should be privatized and what is your criteria?

City Services

In a moment in which the City of Chicago is facing record deficits, I think it would be the
wrong time to privatize our city services or assets without very careful judgment. We have
already suffered as a result of the privatization of our City’s parking meters, and the red
light and speed cameras. However, if the Council decides to move forward with more
privatization I would set a criteria that (1) we have enough time as a Council to review the
contracts and investigate the impact to the City’s budget, and (2) that the revenue
generated be allocated to specific areas of the budget.

I oppose the privatization of public assets and I will continue to fight efforts to sell off City assets. I support the Privatization Transparency and Accountability Ordinance to establish a process to provide for public input and City Council review of any proposed City privatization plans.

I would not privatize any further assets that the city control. In fact, if possible, I would like to
retrieve some of the city owned assets that we have mortgaged.

I am not a fan of Privatization of city assets or services.

No response provided

Currently, I do not believe any additional city services and/or assets should be privatized.
The budget should never be balanced on the back of hard working people. No
decisions on public services, privatization or staffing levels should be made
without having conversations with the experts, and those are the people who
actually do the work for the City of Chicago. Therefore, I would seek input from community organizations and organized labor when making budgetary decisions
about staffing levels, efficiencies and privatization in city departments.

I lean strongly against privatizing public assets.

Chevette A. Valentine IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

When it comes to the Privatization of prison and education it opens the door to private
interest groups whose numbers are driven to meet their projected revenues in order to maintain
cost and budget(s). With such options we gamble with the risk of those who are only numbers
driven versus results driven. For example the privatization of jails means that now police are
locking up people on minor offenses to meet their quota, the focus diverts from the quality of
service and shift to the focus on maintain numbers versus the need the programs were proposed
to project. I am not a fan of privatizations of any government or city run agency

I think privatization deals have not worked out well for the City historically, and I don’t believe
any additional services or assets should be privatized.

I lean strongly against privatizing public assets.

I do not support the privatization of any more city assets. With respect to services, the
City should contract for outside professional services only under the most limited circumstances,
when it is clearly demonstrated that no city employee is qualified to provide such services, and/or
it is in the best interests of the taxpayer for such services to be rendered by an outside
professional. I was the sponsor of the Accountability in Privatization Ordinance which set into
place a set of stringent criteria that needed to be met before a particular service was privatized.

based on the needs of each ward

I do Not believe in privatization, too much already. People have been employed for
years and lose their jobs even though most companies claim they would hire the displaced worker
first that had NOT be true in most cases, from the Park District to O’Hara Airport

Joseph J. Moseley II IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

N/A

I would seek a moratorium on the sell/privatization of city assets (i.e. parking
meters, airports, skyway, etc.)

I am generally opposed to privatization, given the City’s experiences so far. I am willing to review
any proposals brought forward, but I believe such proposals require a stringent and thorough
analysis before moving into serious discussion.

NONE!!!!

I do not believe any city services should be privatized

Michael E. LaFargue IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

I will not vote to privatize union jobs in Chicago? Privatization at can become another name for
patronage. The transparency in the city benefits has not been as transparent as they should.
Parking Lot, Parking Meter and other debacles come to mind.

I don’t believe in privatizing city services or giving up our assets.

Haven’t thought about it, but before we look to privatization we should analyze the
proposed benefits, carefully. Sometimes the effort ends up costing us more than the
reward.

No response provided

I do not currently see the need to privatize city services or assets. Privatization is not the most
effective process for the city at this time

Michael E. LaFargue IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

I will not vote to privatize union jobs in Chicago? Privatization at can become another name for
patronage. The transparency in the city benefits has not been as transparent as they should.
Parking Lot, Parking Meter and other debacles come to mind.

Unless an exhaustive study is conducted to show where privatization of city service will benefit the city 20, 30 or even 50 years down the road, I am against any privatization of any more city
services

I don’t know of any City asset that should be privatized at this point.

Carlos Ramirez-Rosa IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

I am adamantly opposed to privatization.

I am not in favor of privatizing city assets because it ultimately reduces revenue sources for the city, even though it provides short term cash. I would recommend a moratorium on all privatization of City services and assets until we develop criteria for effective and fair privatization. We continue to engage in privatization without proper assurances for good returns for the transactions. The criteria I would support must include clauses that ensure workers earn a living wage with acceptable work conditions, and that significant savings are generated from privatization and measurable performance increases are realized. For example, there were aspects of the parking meter deal that were positive: the new meters accepted credit cards and the remote refilling was an upgrade from the antiquated coin operated machines. However, the terms of the deal were not favorable to the city and the city would have been much better served with a shorter more lucrative deal with more oversight and transparency.

No response provided

I don’t believe that the city has taken on enough responsibility and ownership over our city
services, so privatization is among the last options I would consider. Keeping control over the pay
and residency requirements of those that run our city services, is enough for me to reject
privatization in almost all instances

Previous privatization measures have been a huge flop. I would rather lavage current assets and
borrower vs selling them if needed.

Susan Sadlowski Garza IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

candidate's responce

I oppose the privatization of city assets and services. I am a sponsor and have been
working to pass the Privatization and Accountability Ordinance for several years now. I
support efforts to establish stronger oversight of any proposed privatization deal that
include independent impact studies and public hearings to ensure that any deals do not
come at the expense of service quality for city residents.

I am against the privatization of tax payer owned public assets.

None, a public service should never be privatized.

I am not in favor of privatizing city services that will remove employees from their jobs. If there were to be privatization I would need to see that they are both cost-effective and they will not diminish the quality of service that that department currently provides.

Stephen Niketopoulos IVI-IPO 2015 Chicago City Council

First and foremost, there needs to be transparency. We need Alderman Sawyers
ordinance in place first before privatizing anything else. There needs to be time to
review the agreements and investigate them for potential conflicts of interest.

Privatization of any city services must first be accompanied by a a clear and defined set of oversight criteria that guarantees that the services are performed more efficiently and more effectively. If this criteria cannot be met, then the service should not be privatized.
Additionally, in certain instances where it is not in the public interest to have the service or asset permanently privatized, I would evaluate the option of private consultancy with the outcome to build the necessary skill set/operation within city government.

No response provided

While there are some instances where privatization makes sense, but where there is a
reduction in city revenues in the long term and lower wage jobs for city residents, we need to
examine other avenues to enhance revenues to build the economy

I frown upon the privatization of city services. I believe that leasing long-term public assets for short-term economic benefit is a misguided and failed policy by prior administrations.

No response Provided

I do not support privatizing any more of the city’s services or assets at this time.
In fact, I favor the revisiting of several hurried privatization transactions on both legal and
benefit grounds.

There are none I would privatize. We have learned how to better manage our
resources. It can be done.