Comments on: City permits system unplugged because of unpaid bills

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:39:02 +0000

“officials are now just becoming aware” of having to pay Accela’s bill?

So if I ignore my electric bill for months on end, and only decide to do something about it when the power gets turned off, the electric company is being mean and I can use my “surprise” at losing my lights as an excuse?

Contracts don’t just go one way. The city has responsibilities, and if they fail to fulfill them, the contractor has rights. Does anyone seriously think Accela did this lightly, or that they hadn’t been sending bill after bill to the city? The stories about the city not paying its bills to contractors big and small are legion – this one was just more high profile.

Also, how do you think Accela’s employees get paid? Don’t they have as much right to gainful employment as citizens in New Orleans do to file a permit (which they were able to to on a temporary basis anyway)?

By: Alexander Ricotta

Alexander Ricotta — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:46:08 +0000

I am disgusted that the city would even do business with a company like this. What kind of partnership is this? We have been ravaged by mother nature and the recovery has been long are hard. Are these the the type of partners we have chosen to help us rebuild. I understand that money is due, I dont believe no one would contest that, apparently or for lack of admitting to it…..officials are now just becoming aware. Im sure funds will magically appear and this issue will be resolved. Well why couldnt that have happened without the citizens being the ones that have to suffer. Shame on you Accela, I would not support anyone who would support these types of parnerships. The citizens should have come first.

By: Migou

Migou — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:47:40 +0000

Aside from the obvious blame on the city for the failure to pay its bills, there are other foreseeable situations in which the city might want to have copies of the records (change of vendors, extended power outages, bankruptcy of provider). So the city should have made provisions to at least download the data and have copies on its own servers. The company is in the right; the city is in the wrong; and the citizens are getting the shaft. More rotten tomatoes for the Nagin Administration for screwing us twice on this one.

By: jeffrey

jeffrey — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:16:05 +0000

Glad to know everybody agrees that citizens come third in the pecking order here.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:01:51 +0000

Actually, Accela’s got some pretty powerful software that’s used all over the country, and they’ve allowed the city to go months without paying their bills. Why are they assholes? What exactly is their recourse other than what they did?

By: Superdeformed

Superdeformed — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:26:41 +0000

Both sides are assholes, but what else can the contractor do?

Guess we might as well take a collective vacation until May.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:19:24 +0000

Indeed. jeffrey is way off base – how are contractors supposed to stay in business without their bills getting paid? They’re not charities.

Also, permits are public records, so I’m not sure what the problem is that Mark is trying to refer to. Would he rather everything be kept on paper in file cabinets in a basement? There aren’t many municipalities left that haven’t computerized their permitting systems.

By: Dan Rogers

Dan Rogers — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:11:20 +0000

Jeffrey’s comment is completely unrealistic. All vendors must have the right to withhold their products or services if any entity — including a government — doesn’t attempt to make payments. And all organizations — including governments — have a responsibility to pay their bills. If private companies had no recourse with governments, then no one would want to sell to governments. And you can be sure that shady governments like Nagin’s would flout their bills all the time. I know because I’ve worked for companies that sell to government. No company likes to conduct business this way. It’s not good for anyone, and I’m sure that vendor would have preferred to get paid and avoid all of this hassle.

By: jeffrey

jeffrey — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:44:37 +0000

What Folse said. What, exactly, gives any vendor/contractor/creditor the right to hold public services hostage under any circumstance? Surely the city’s negligence is an issue here, but the arrogance on the part of the contractor is every bit as serious.

By: Mark Folse

Mark Folse — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:11:58 +0000

I have no sympathy for Nagin’s unpaid bills, but I have a huge problem with software that allows a vendor unfettered back door access which might store any of my personal data.