Deconstructing PPP

Public Private Partnerships (PPP or P3), are advocated as a way to fund desired government infrastructure projects in cities, with the financial help of private sector investors. This concept was created as a strategy for implementing sustainable development, wherein the government entity rewards the private business with tax-payer derived funds and/or amenities (tax breaks, incentives, the waiver of regulations, free tracts of land, or exclusive rights to future development), in return for
the business funding a portion of the project.

Most of today’s citizens view ‘infrastructure’ as the building and upkeep of roads and bridges, and shared community spaces such as parks and swimming pools. This is not the ‘infrastructure’ that the sustainable development planners have in mind. The decisions driving the infrastructure they seek are all based on economics and become controlled by the private business investors engaged in the project. Sustainable development infrastructure is designed as building blocks, the framework, for which cities become nothing more than work centers for the people that live within these so-called ‘human settlements.’

Through this arrangement of PPP, the cities ultimately lose their sovereignty to the investors who will control decisions of the operations within the city, and citizens lose their right to decide their future as they become a simple cog-in the-wheel, living in ‘workforce housing’ and working in the private sector industry.

In Le Sueur County, MN, the subject of “workforce housing” entered into conversations with the building of a 54-unit ‘workforce housing’ project in New Prague. New Prague City officials asked the Le Sueur County Commissioners for a 15-year tax abatement on the project, which was thankfully denied by the county, but granted by the City of New Prague and the New Prague School District. This is an example of Public Private Partnership in which the government entity (the city of New Prague, MN) chose the contractor to implement the housing project, then worked to provide the contractor favorable tax breaks, at a cost or disadvantage to the public. The tax levy and school district funding will be an additional burden upon the taxpayers as they will foot the bill for the lost tax revenues. Keep in mind that it was tax generated monies that were provided as an incentive to draw the business into the community in the first place. The citizen taxpayer is forced to provide the funding, yet is never given a vote as to how the money is spent.

The MHFA Workforce Housing Project Uses Tax Generated Money. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) provides grants and incentives for use in
‘workforce housing’ projects. These projects cater to residents who are of low income status and who will work in the created business industries of the PPP.

The following information is copied directly from the MHFA website. Note the biased DEI criteria for receiving benefits from this tax-funded state agency.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

“We are committed to racial diversity, equity and inclusion in all of our work, from our hiring practices to our investments in new homes.

Minnesota Housing acknowledges that its offices are located on Dakota land. We recognize that local, state and federal housing policies have disadvantaged Indigenous people, Black Minnesotans and households of color for decades.

We listen to and incorporate the words of those who have faced housing instability and homelessness. We are expanding our work with developers of color and we strive to close the homeownership gap between white households and households of color. Minnesota Housing supports staff members with continuing
education to better serve Minnesota as antiracist public servants.”

As taxpayers, we are being forced to fund hand-outs to people according to their financial status and ‘race’ alone. This a blatant example of “redistribution of wealth,” which as defined by Wikipedia states:

“Redistribution of income and wealth is the transfer of income and wealth (including physical property) from some individuals to others through a social mechanism such as taxation, welfare, public services, land reform, monetary policies, confiscation ….”

Whether those on local boards of city councils and county governments truly understand the injustice and social impact of what they are being swayed into voting for or not, is questionable. The reality however, is that these unwarranted practices which are pushed for by NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations), according to the dictates of Global Governance Planners, are unjustly stripping the financial stability and property rights of citizens that have worked for what they have, in order to level the ‘social’ living standards of all, regardless of merit. This is nothing short of socialism and is most definitely a main focus of our concern and attention to taxation and Comprehensive Land Use Plans.

What happens when the ‘workforce housing’ is built, and there are not enough low income, racially disadvantaged people found in the city to reside in the housing? Forced migration to comply with the newly created compliance rules of ‘workforce housing?’ Catering to people of low income and racial minority status is the norm these days whenever tax generated public funds and grants are involved. It is also the norm to use public funds and tax generated grants to fund most every government project. For the working class that pays their own way, it is a lose-lose situation. And that is the goal of Global Governance. Eliminate the middle class.

“ The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and Inflation.”

~ Vladimir Lenin ~