No, we're not talking about the construction companies who win contracts (in often rather scrupulous ways) from the city to build roads and bridges. Now the privatization scheme is beginning to include the finaciers of public infrastructure. Instead of the city paying for a construction project, a separate investor would ponie up the cash, but would also gain the return on the investment -- generally through tolls.

As this NYTimes article describes, many cities are trying to substitute the contract process that often lines the pockets of public officials with one that consistently lines the pockets of Wall Street executives. The jist is that these financiers are generally more seasoned with investments, and have to answer solely to the stockholders, whose only interests relate to their success in the ongoing game of capitalism.

The Critical Badger highlights the article as a potential solution to Madison's current fiscal woes. This might be true, but just like the old system, the new one is contingent on several factors:

First, the contract worked out between the city and the financier must be one that restricts the company from profit schemes that would ultimately cost taxpayers more than a simple tax increase. The company, under pressure to maximize profits, will not hesitate to levy heavy tolls if the city does not prohibit it from doing so.

Second, the competency of the city is just as important in contracting a financier as it is when contracting a construction firm. Picking a firm with a proven track record in infrastructure investments, whether foreign or domestic, would be important, considering that such investments are relatively new (the Times describes them as beginning only in the 90's). T

So far the results are mixed. However, as the Times writes, the only solid conclusion we can draw is that U.S. infrastructure is drastically underfunded. The American Society of Civil Engineers recommends $1.6 trillion in infrastructure investment over the next five years, and from what I've read, we are performing pitifully below that expectation.

Although I was one of the many unlucky juniors to be denied tickets, by a stroke of luck I made it to 15 minutes of today's opener against Akron. I did have a ticket entitling me to spend the whole game, however, the Madison police department and the sun teamed up to deliver my quickest exit from a badger football game.

I'd be interested to know since when the MPD has had exclusive rights to the top row in the student section. I'm sure it's always been that way since I've been here, but I can't imagine things were the same if you go back two or three decades. Nevertheless, if you want the police to have any kind of effectiveness at the games (and I know many of you don't) they have to have access to an entire row so they can run from one section to another unhindered. So it's not so much the cops I'm upset with -- it's the athletic department. If I have a ticket shouldn't I be entitled to a seat -- not the area right behind people standing on benches.

It's official, John McCain has picked Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be his running mate.

Palin, 44, is only in her second year as governor but is tremendously popular in Alaska. She has an 80 percent approval rating and enjoys the image of a true Alaskan -- she's the mother of four, eats mooseburgers, and loves drilling.

Need to take care of Herald mugshots so more later.

Ok, our vote didn't matter, but it's still sad that the Minnesota delegates got to grandstand about having the highest voter turnout in the nation and we didn't get some time to brag about cows, brats, and beer. The Wisconsin delegation could have even set the record straight about who has the most lakes in this country.

But no, because of our unfortunate position at the end of the alphabet, we were forced to watch our opportunity for momentary relevance dashed by the New York delegation, who ended the roll call vote by acclamation, officially ending Hillary Clinton's nomination bid.

Representative Steve Nass and his associates may have raised the bar to a new level of hypocrisy. Decrying undue influence by Governor Jim Doyle on the chancellor selection process, Nass hatchet man Mike Mikalsen attacked the committee's decision as being "Jim Doyle's appointment." The accusation isn't a terrible one. The governor appointed the five regents that sat on the search committee, and a spokesman acknowledged that Doyle passed on recommendations to the committee after the search had been narrowed down to four candidates. It's actually hard to see how Doyle wouldn't have a degree of influence. Appointing the committee members and then telling them how you would like them to vote is a practical guarantee that you will leave your mark on the process. The hypocrisy factor comes from the fact that the criticisms are coming from Nass' office. This is the very same Nass who, as chair of the University and Colleges Committee, regularly slams the university for even thinking of offering its faculty domestic partnership benefits. The same Nass who circulated a National Review column characterizing Martin as incapable of leading due to her liberal arts background. Huh. According to Nass, the job of state legislators is not only to opine on any aspect of university governance that irks them, but to attack any other officials who do the same - even if those other officials may, from time to time, make recommendations of some limited value. If Nass would cease making unnecessary attacks on every aspect of the university's governance, maybe his criticism of Doyle would have more validity. Maybe.

Outgoing Chancellor John D. Wiley writes a scathing criticism of Wisconsin's political system, with particular venom directed at the Wisconsin Manufacturer's Committee (WMC), the group perhaps best known for its notoriously low-brow attack ads (video here) against former Wisconsing Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler. Wiley takes aim at WMC's anti-tax rhetoric, citing the correlation between per-capita tax revenues and per-capita income. Most irritating to Wisconsinites might be his assertion that "Minnesota, our demographic twin, is knocking our socks off economically." WMC released a response to Wiley's piece, calling several of the chancellor's assertions false. Frankly, I found the response unconvincing, and more focused on semantics than facts. You all should really read the article, it's a comprehensive and well written account of Wisconsin politics from a man who had to remain apolitical for many years because of his position.

Here at Indie Coffee, with Jeffrey Okafo from Jin's Chicken and Fish and Kelly, his girlfriend and business associate. (I overheard them talking to another reporter and decided I'd better get the scoop as well). I had already read about the story via the Critical Badger. According to Jeff, the issue stems from a series of unfair actions against his business by several actors in the Madison community: The first is several Langdon frats, who apparently complained about the noise and traffic Jin's brought to the neighborhood at night, and forced Jin's to move to Francis St instead. The next are the parking utility officials who work at the Frances St parking ramp across from Jin's, and were annoyed enough by the supposed smell of Jin's to redesignate (Jeff is not sure how or if it was legal) Jin's normal parking spot to a "truck loading area only." Next comes the parking enforcement officer who, according to Jeff and Kelly, has taken a special interest in ticketing Jin's on Frances and has been unwilling to negotiate a solution with them. This problem climaxed with an alteraction between Jeff, the parking enforcement officer, and a police officer on May 25, 2008. According to Kelly: this officer has gone out of his way to harass Jeff in the past year. "Anytime this guy has the chance to do something to me, he does." This guy came in the middle of the night to impound my car (because of repeat traffic violations) and had already called police back up. Jeff: Why was this guy waiting until the day before Memorial Day to impound my car? I went to go talk to the police officer to complain about the parking enforcement officer. Meanwhile, the guy is yelling at me to get on the ground and put my hands behind my back. I didn't want to put my hands behind my back because I didn't want him to think I had a weapon, so I put my hands over my head. Then he tasers me. I felt the taser, it didn't take full effect, I grabbed the dart out of me. I'm standing 10-15 feet away from him, he says he's gonna call another officer. I say that's a good idea, and he interpreted that as a threat. He made it sound in the report like I was screaming in the middle of the street, which is completely untrue. He made all these false statements at the hearing. At the Vending Oversight Committee, they didn't even know how to run the meeting. They just took the statements from the police and the parking enforcement guy and acted as if a decision had already been made. I said, why would I make a statement before going to court. They made it sound like I was guilty from the get-go, all this nonsense about lack of respect for a officer. The only problem I have is this one guy. According to Kelly, the parking enforcement officer has not been discreet about his special desire to screw them. Kelly: The night after I got Jeff out of jail, the parking enforcement officer came back and started harassing us again. Jeff: I've been tasered and pepper-sprayed over this guy and he comes back as if I'm a threat to this guy. Kelly: He's very selective about his enforcement. I've seen him avoid giving other tickets. Jeff :The VOC changed the city ordinance to disallow any vending in a residential area (Langdon). Frances was a mutual understanding, where I would get foot traffic but not necessarily be in a residential area. It took about a year to rebuild the clientele, we were doing pretty well. We were on Frances, and we were parked in a truck loading zone. The parking utility people were complaining about the smell of our truck, talking about the smell of our food, that people are in the street. I say, these are the people coming from the bars, what do you want? They tell me I have to move to an area with a parking meter. I say this defeats the point of moving away from residential areas, because the metered area is the residential area. This parking enforcement guy is issuing me $30 tickets while I'm waiting in my car to park in the place where they want me We'd get there on an average day, and naturally we'd have to wait for a parking spot. We thought we'd be able to play the parking game, and if we got the $20 parking ticket, it would be better than to fight for parking later on. This parking enforcement officer at one point told me to put more money in the meter, and then brought the brochure over to us and told us we were "feeding the meter." Prime example: I saw a family get ticketed while they were moving their stuff into the car on moving day. If you saw this guy, you would say this guy is outta control. I actively try to avoid this guy. I try to reach mutual agreements with this guy, you can't reason with him. The trailer can't go on the sidewalk, so I don't know what to do about this. The other vendors are inconsistent, so they don't deal with this as much. According to Kelly, the police rejected additional requests by witnesses from the Red Shed bar who wanted to testify in Jeff's defense. As it stands, Jeff is charged with Resisting a Police Officer (Class A Misdemeanor), Disorderly Conduct (non-criminal municipal ordinance), and Operating a Motor Vehicle after Revocation (Misdemeanor traffic offense). Official documents here.

Just reading over Patrick's discussion with Brittany Wiegand over possible sponsorship of the Mifflin St Block Party next spring. Apparently the Majestic has floated the idea of working with ASM to sponsor the event, with ASM providing $100,000 and the Majestic providing bands and beer vendors.

Here's the thing: the street would be fenced off and only accessible to those 21 and older. According to Wiegand, the underagers would still be allowed on the sidewalks and front yards, just not on the street.

The only thing I can determine from this description is that of-age students would have access to cold, good beer while the underagers would probably still be drinking warm Keystone Light from backpacks.

Patrick and company make the argument that $100,000 of funding shouldn't go to an event that all students can't benefit from. Is this a tacit acknowledgement that the central benefit of Mifflin to students is inebriation? I hope so -- my experience at Mifflin would certainly lead me to agree with such a conclusion. That's not to say that it couldn't change, especially if better music is provided by the Majestic.

Patrick's argument against funding for an event that neglects over half of the UW undergraduate population is fair. The university has found ways to be inclusive while obeying drinking laws in the past. Take the the student union, the biggest beer distributor in the state, for instance. Although the union unfortunately restricts underage students from the privileges of the pitcher (quite aggressively at times), it nevertheless does not forbid any student from any area of the union.

It probably wouldn't be fair for me to comment further on what ASM funding would do to the event, we don't know enough yet. All I know is that this frenzy to regulate Mifflin is laughably overstated. The skyrocketing number in arrests is not due to increased rowdiness from students, but rather excessive enforcement by the police department and probably the mayor's office. Tough questions should be asked of Police Chief Noble Wray and Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, as well as of ASM and the Majestic.