Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9jw1ju wrote

Boston has 346k students, Philly has 342k students. Almost every college institution in America has privatized security. Ergo, all of these students are covered by privatized security.

edit-- mind you, this privatized security isn't EXCLUSIVELY for students but staff and others are covered as well

1

cmc t1_j9jx649 wrote

Ummm which Boston university has 346k students? Philly? Or are you counting every single student in the city, each in different institutions with different privatized security companies?

Anyway that's not my overall point- I don't personally (again- my opinion) believe that CITY SERVICES should be privatized. My opinion. Universities being used as a comparison point was as I said before- apples and oranges. We can keep going down this rabbit hole but as I said before, we're comparing a private institution with a city. And my actual overall point is there's a lot of corruption in JC government and money isn't being properly allocated, and it's (AGAIN MY OPINION) that this should be fixed rather than hired out. You're welcome to disagree. Cheers.

1

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9k00w7 wrote

> Or are you counting every single student in the city, each in different institutions with different privatized security companies?

You objectively think that every single institution within one city limit all have different privatized security companies? Dude, come on..... at least try to be objective in this conversation.

>Universities being used as a comparison point was as I said before- apples and oranges

Okay, thanks for your opinion. IXP, the private company in discovery for this solution, also does work with college campuses

So weird how the same private security company provides the same, or similar solution, to different entities but because it doesn't fit your narrative you like to just gloss over it entirely.

>believe that CITY SERVICES should be privatized. My opinion.

Okay, and I agree in the case when city services are being handled effectively. But we can both agree that it is objectively not being handled effectively right now, and I would encourage you to do any semblance of research of what the lift would be (money, time, & personnel) to build and/or revitalize an in-house solution as compared to contracting it out.

The solution needs to happen NOW. Not in 3-4 years by the time they can get an in-house solution running effectively.

If JC had the wherewithal they could contract this out to IXP, spend those years gathering insights and then concurrently build their in-house solution.

>there's a lot of corruption in JC government and money isn't being properly allocated

This can be true AND it be true that JC doesn't have the wherewithal to handle this internally. This has been an ongoing problem for decades. This isn't going to be handled in-house overnight effectively, for the same reason you list.

But an accredited private organization that has independent case studies of its efficacy can and has worked in the past. Hard stop.

1

cmc t1_j9k0a5z wrote

A lot of the firm statements you're presenting as facts are your opinion. So I will just state that on my side, I am agreeing to disagree. You can continue to rant but we're going to keep our own perspectives at the end of the day so save yourself the time. Cheers.

1

Informal_Bat_722 t1_j9k0e7x wrote

Nice, another comment where you don't provide a substantive argument while also mischaracterizing my comments as "opinion" even though everything I've asserted is easily provable.

Enjoy your bubble.

1