A recent Letter to the Editor appeared in the Savage Pacer which offered the opinion that taxpayer funded arts are more important than say a taxpayer funded sports dome.
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!
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
August 23rd, 2012 at 10:05 am
I don’t think art education classes are MORE important than sports opportunities, but they are equally important. It seems to me that when we look at things like sports centers, arts centers, whatever, they should be looked at regionally. Every suburb doesn’t need a large tennis facility, nor do they need a performance arts high school, or whatever the case may be. In my experience, most people in the suburbs do not rely on public transportation and are willing to cross city lines to get to entertainment, schools, shopping, etc. While it is true if someone is going to Savage to take an art class they may stop at McDonald’s or Panera or something on the way, but I don’t think the taxes from those small purchases would offset the cost of investment in new or renovated facilities.
BUT, just as I don’t like people from the suburbs telling Minneapolis/St. Paul what to do, I don’t feel comfortable criticizing what suburbs chose to do with their tax dollars. If the people feel there needs to be an art center in every suburb, so be it.
August 24th, 2012 at 2:47 pm
Both areas (arts and sports) deserve at least an equal opportunity at the tax feeding trough but after the Savage Arts Council repeatedly hits me up to become a member after they significantly raised their prices to enter the annual art show/contest — the only thing I was passionate about with them — I’d say that the sports dome deserves a very serious look as it would be a one-of-a-kind thing in the area if I’m not mistaken.
September 8th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
http://www.savagepacer.com/news/opinions/letters/letter-disappointed-by-city-council-s-decision/article_cd340b27-0e4f-5654-9a1a-f0e8d81e48b8.html
Yeah, comparing Savage to the UK. Awesome.
September 8th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Proof that even Churchill could make an idiotic statement.
September 9th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
It’s actually an apocryphal quote; there’s no evidence that he ever said it. It gets brought out every so often nonetheless.