Background: I live in a very small town in Illinois. Let's get this detail taken care of first, it's a long hard drive to get to Chicago. The town is organized as a "city" and that's how I will refer to it going forward. Also, the trash company I will be referring to operates out of a neighboring county.

The city government subcontracts with the trash company who provides curbside weekly pickup with provided containers. The charge for this "service" is on an entity's/resident's water bill. The line item is 17.50/month. Additionally, the city requested the trash service provide 8 large dumpsters on city owned property, and offered to allow county residents deposit their trash in these extra dumpsters for 17.50/month.

Unfortunately the dumpsters where placed in a highly visible location on city property amongst downtown businesses and residences. There is no access card system set up and no fence. It is unsightly, incredibly messy, invites animals, and generally abused. There is no way to prove the abuse, since there are no access cards however it must be assumed, since, you know, human nature....

City Council meetings have been spicy! fiery! The most exciting thing around! The City Clerk (elected, non-partisan position) is adamant that the dumpsters stay where they are. He also claims that the dumpsters "make" the city 50,000/year. However, after 3 fun meetings, it's up to 65,000.

Make? Bad choice of words?

Is it governments job to "make" - which I understand as generating a profit, money?

There is no question the city should be covering administrative costs, to include, direct and indirect costs that the city accrues. But he is now claiming this money covers his salary, the water clerk/treasurers salary, and a maintenance persons salary. ( Don't do the math, it's pretty ovbious, Do all three of them get food stamps you ask....?)

Let's get into the meat of this issue. Government's job is to set up and maintain basic services to keep society functioning in a healthy, safe, pleasant, even beautiful environmnet. The better educated, the more opportunities, the happier, calmer, little societal unrest, capitolism is profitably conducted when the greater good has been provided for first. But, is it the governments responsibility to create income (revenue-expenses=income) for itself.

What next, a toilet paper company? Can government subcontract out with kimberly clark and put it on your water bill and deliver toilet paper on a weekly basis. Isn't that socialism or something? I don't know, the City Clerk doesn't seem to be using the right language or telling us the full details or something. Any ideas?