Talk:Sandy Springs, Georgia/Archives/2016

History

I'm going to remove the news article from the history section. It is more topical than historical. The entry notes national attention, however I count twenty national and international stories on Sandy Springs the City has highlighted on their website since 2012: http://sandyspringsga.gov/government/city-history-and-culture/sandy-springs-in-the-media - Not to mention the viral Reason TV video about the city from 2011. Moderators, let me know your thoughts if you disagree. comment added by Jasonbongreen (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've also removed this after the same user added it for the third time. WHile it's got a bit of news attention it is still a minor and trivial matter in terms of the subject of this article. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys! In the interest of transparency, the following is my discussion so far with h_lina_k. Jasonbongreen (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to include that Sandy Springs is part of the Atlanta metropolitan area. While this may seem obvious to people that are from the area, for someone visiting the page who is not from Georgia, it may be unclear. I don't feel that I need to add a source, as this metropolitan relationship is well understood by people who live in Atlanta/Sandy Springs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F900:CA00:29B8:41E1:E0E2:FD2D (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Jasonbongreen Re: news item on Sandy Springs page under History - I think if we include that item under history, based on the rationale that Sandy Springs received national attention, then we also need to include the 20+ other times the city received national attention. If we do that, then the history section will be cluttered and hide what I would consider to be actual historical information. What are your thoughts on this?

H lina k I think that is important given the focus that the history section has towards the privatization of its city services. Had this not been such a focus of the history I would be inclined to agree with you, but this is an result of the history in the article. I can rewrite it though to fit it in with that outline better.h_lina_k (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Jasonbongreen The Sandy Springs municipal court is operated the same way as any other municipal court in the U.S. City's rarely employ full time prosecutors or judges. So I'm still struggling to see how this has anything to do with Sandy Spring's privatization model of government? I think you may be confused as to how the court operates. There is no third-party company running the court. It is operated by the city and falls under the operating authority of a city employee, the same as any other municipal court in America. The only privatization is that the administrative staff are provided by a contractor, rather than being directly hired and paid by the city. If you are suggesting that the Judge’s decision in this news story is somehow indicative of privatization of City services, then that seems like a projection of your personal opinion of privatization. So if the story has nothing to do with privatization, I challenge your decision to include this story based on the rationale that it is somehow the result of privatization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbongreen (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

H lina k It doesn't have anything to due with the court system. In a typical municipality the hours of work would be set by the city itself because it would run the trash system. However, in a privatized scheme the city loses that control, and in order to retain that control is using the court system as a way to manage their private contractors hours of work performing city functions.

Jasonbongreen Using private waste haulers is not anything unique to Sandy Springs or its model of government. In the South, it is fairly typical for cities to use private wastes haulers. I can't think of a city in the Atlanta metro area that maintains a fleet of trucks and employees to handle waste hauling. All cities regulate noise through noise ordinances, whether it's construction work or trash collection. Again, I really don't see how it relates to Sandy Spring's history or model of government mentioned in the history. The key thing here is that you are classifying waste hauling as a "city function". I'm British, so I understand if you live in a region where that is a function that cities (or in the case of Britain, counties) provide, this could be confusing to you. But waste removal is the considered responsibility of homeowner in Georgia. Here's a list of residential waste haulers operating in the North-Metro area: http://www.sandyspringsga.gov/residents/resident-guide/your-home/garbage-recycling/residential-service-providers. So you see, the Sandy Springs hasn't "lost control" of anything. But I understand why you would be confused in this area. Based on this conversation, I'm going to go ahead and remove the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbongreen (talk • contribs) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

H lina k A. you haven't cited a wikipedia policy that clarifies that this does not come to a level that does not constitute history and B. the issue at hand is that the city has criminalized functions of their private contractors which relates to the whole proud to be privatizing history espoused in the article. h_lina_k (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

---

While there is no mention of privatization in the History section, this is mentioned in the Government section under Services. h_lina_k mentions a "proud to be privatizing history" in his last comment, and I can see how the mention of privatization in the Government section is written in a slightly promotional way. It was probably written by a city employee when the city was founded, or someone pro-privatization. I'll rework that section to ensure the information is factual and not promotional. I would say though that h_lina_k appears to have an anti-privatization agenda which he seems to be trying to forward, and wikipedia isn't the right forum for promoting either pro-privatization or anti-privatization agendas. Jasonbongreen (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it clear. I do not care about whether the city has services that are private or public. What I do think is that this particular news story is an interesting and important result of said privatization, which is still a large focus of the article, though more factual, which is why the news story itself is more than just trivial. I would be happy to rewrite the sentence a bit to incorporate it into the article better though but when I asked Jasonbongreen about how he would like to see this there was no response.h_lina_k (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It might be interesting to you, and you might consider it important to the subject of privatization, but this Wikipedia page is about Sandy Springs, and specifically, the history of Sandy Springs, not privatization. I'm not sure how you could re-write the entry without having to include the other dozens of other times Sandy Springs has gained national attention for privatization and other reasons. I still maintain, that all these news articles would clutter the actual information about the city. Frankly, I'm baffled why you would even reference a gossip tabloid like the Daily Mail in the first place? Could you possibly find a more appropriate place on the web to promote stories you find interesting and important to privatization? Jasonbongreen (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)