patrick.net

AD says

You mean they don't have their own acquisition and procurement regulations like the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) ?

They should go out for at least 3 competitive bids, etc.

If not awarded solely on lowest bidder or cost, then they should evaluate based on "best value" (i.e., 40% on cost, 25% on past performance, 35% of merit of proposal).

As far as "bribing and kickbacks" the FBI Public Integrity Unit should investigate that and anyone filing a complaint should bypass the local and California state authorities because of conflicts of interest, etc.

Of course, they do it, generally a checklist of criteria. Sales cycle is about a year and a half, most of it is the usual (getting naysayers onto your side), when the time comes for the evaluation and scoring, well you already know you'll win if you spoke with the right influencers. It's all bullshit man, it'll never be unbiased.

Patrick says

Sure, that's how Prop 13 was sold to the public, and it's a fine idea to protect POOR old people.

Florida has all types of discounts or breaks for property tax.

One is homestead exemption where you get $50,000 off the assessed value of your home.

For the panhandle of Florida this is worthwhile since the average assessed value of a housing unit is about $150,000.

And the average mil rate is 8 mils (i.e., property tax of $1600 annually for a $200,000 home) in Florida panhandle.

For Florida senior citizens who earn less than $37,000 a year, there is a major break off the taxes that usually yields about a 50% discount.

I believe Santa Clara County has a deal where old people can have the county put a lien on their house for the taxes owed. The lien isn't collected until the old person dies (or maybe it is when they move out of their house?). That seems like a great solution to keeping the old people in their homes. If their home didn't increase much in the last 40 years, then even without Prop 13 their taxes wouldn't be very much. If their home price zoomed, they wouldn't need the help of Prop 13 because they could just tap that $1,000,000 (or more!) free equity in their house. If they used their house as an ATM... then they made financial choices and shouldn't be subsidized by everyone else.