Honest question: Is it really accurate to characterize funding for a public utility or service as a bailout? Or are taxpayers just getting value for their tax money?
I would think a bailout would be when we're giving public money to a for-profit entity that massively mismanaged itself.
I mean there's a decent case that BART hasn't been managed very well. I'm a big supporter of public transit but I worry that there won't be enough oversight for this money.
Is it really accurate to characterize funding for a public utility or service as a bailout?
No, it's not. Consider: We don't refer to highway funding as "bailing out" the automobile industry, for instance; even though the automobile industry couldn't very well sell very many cars if there weren't highways to drive them on.
Discussion for all things Bay Area.