Bernarte municipalizes part of the waste collection and refuses to adjust political positions and dual roles in his administration
The "cost-saving" rhetoric promoted by the ruling party doesn't match the facts. Municipal personnel are used, more logistical resources are required, and nothing is done about the political spending that the municipality itself inflated for years. The decision is not technical, it is political; meanwhile, as so often, residents end up paying the price.
From the opposition, councilman Marco Puricelli warned that this is "a patch" to cover up a deeper problem. He claims that no essential options are being considered, that there is no willingness to modernize management and improvisation is done with other people's money.
The decision did not go unnoticed by the Surrbac union either, which warned about possible layoffs at the Ashira company and questioned the lack of dialogue. Although the municipality tries to appear in control, the union background further complicates the outlook.
Meanwhile, San Francisco residents watch as their leaders choose to expand the municipal State without a clear plan for savings or efficiency. Maintaining positions is prioritized over maintaining services. The easiest path is chosen: spending, not order.
In an inexplicable move, the mayor of San Francisco, Damián Bernarte, decided to municipalize part of the waste collection service. This places even more burden on public finances instead of solving the problem with austerity and order.
The measure, presented as a "cost-saving," actually hides a political decision: not to touch the structure of positions, advisors, and duplicated functions within the municipality. Instead of reducing political spending or modernizing the State, he chooses to add more responsibilities to the already limited local budget.
With municipal trucks and personnel, the State will now take over what a private company had been doing until now. However, far from representing an improvement, the decision raises doubts: does the municipality really have the capacity to take on more functions? Why not start by adjusting where the most is spent, which is in politics?
In San Francisco there is an uncomfortable reality: there are too many positions, functions are duplicated and salaries are paid that do not always correlate with efficiency. However, the local government's response to the challenge of maintaining services was the same as always: spend more, instead of organizing what is already in place.
