From the Letter to the Editor:
People spend money where they go. While teaching I ate in restaurants, bought gas and did shopping because it was convenient to where I was. If I had been in Savage, I’d have spent that money here.
There is a need for art education and artist opportunities in our community. The costs for supporting such a program are relatively low, particularly when compared to projects that require new facilities built from scratch. The building already exists, the private business that the art council will replace in that space is similar in content, and the overall risk is low.
Unlike a sports facility, which has limited uses other than sports if the project fails, putting an arts center in the Hamilton Building does not make the space unsuitable for other uses if the center fails. The investment in our community and in our downtown is relatively low and could be of great benefit to those businesses, many of them small and locally owned, which are struggling because of road construction and a weakened economy.
What the author states is true. Some people do indeed spend money in areas where they visit for any variety of reasons. It’s that sort of logic which drives politicians to make poor decisions like the one made by the Savage City in approving the dome, however, using the logic to support a nice-to-have doesn’t really make all that much sense when you’re trying to rally the troops against a different nice-to-have regardless of the cost difference between the two.
What do you think about this particular ploy used in the Letter to the Editor? Does it make the author look ridiculous or do you think they have a very valid point? Is there a need to have art education and artist opportunities in Savage when those residents could simply drive across the river to nearby Bloomington which already offers classes mentioned in the same letter? Are art education classes more important than sports opportunities? Whatever you have to say about this one, go ahead and comment on below!