The Chicago Tribune alerts us to this horrifying possible consequence of global warming:
Global warming presents a potentially dire future for Winnetka, warns a Park District report.
“This would obviously mean the end of outdoor (ice) skating in Winnetka,” the report says.
Evidently, ice skating “is a part of the fabric of this community”. To avoid tearing it, the park district report suggests “a refrigerated outdoor skating rink to provide consistent ice for close to three months”.
At what cost?
… an ice mat could either be purchased for $450,000, in addition to infrastructure expenses, or rented for $75,000 per year, plus infrastructure costs
Evidently, a 2008 survey of Winnetka residents showed few support getting a refrigerated outdoor skating rink. Reading the story, I wondered if their lack of support for refigeration arose from:
- not believing in global warming.
- thinking outdoor skating is not really that important to the town’s social fabric. Maybe Winnetka residents think if it gets warm out,kids can just play soccer, basketball, football, do gymnastics, take up outdoor roller skating or surf the web?
- not wanting to pay for the high cost of maintaining the fabric of their community.
- figuring residents whose kids want to skate when it’s not cold out can drive to Willmette and use their ice rink.
- assuming they get their electricity from a fossil plant, thinking the carbon footprint of a refrigerated rink would make this one of the sillier proposed adaptions to global warming conceived by a planning commission.
- other.
With that, I’d like to solicit your opinions on how Winnetka should respond to the possibility that outdoor winter ice-skating is endangered by global warming. If you are from Winnetka– or just know someone who lives in Winnetka, feel free to explain why residents might be opposed to the idea of spending nearly 1/2 million dollars to supply refrigerated outdoor ice skating to residents. If you know similar stories about global warming representing a threat to the social fabric of a community — by virtue of something as horrifying as putting and end to outdoor ice skating — I’d like to read those too.
Update: For those unfamiliar with Winnetka, I’ve provided this link to The Wealthiest Towns in America.
Sounds like a “big noise” to me.
Alcuin–just for you:
The Gene Krupa version on youtube is pretty good, too.
Stretching things a bit, we could bring up the neighbouring town and give a listen to Skokiaan.
I find it rather puzzling that wealthy cities, or their park districts, or any other local government body wants to provide a population, that well could afford these facilities without government, these kinds of facilities or subsidies for them. In my Park District the district provides a golf course with a large restaurant, recently built by the district, a horse riding facility and a separate facility for horse jumping.
Now my city has a larger range of household incomes than Winnetka, IL and I always wonder what lower income families, who would not use these facilities to any extent, feel about subsidizing their wealthier neighbors, who can afford to and do use them.
By the way I read the same article and was puzzled to not see any estimates of climate change and how it would affect an outdoor skating facility. I would suggest that the story was put forth by a park district looking to drum up support for another activity that they have no business being in.
Perhaps their thinking is that by providing amenities that are attractive to wealthy people, they will indeed attract wealthy people, and thereby improve the tax base.
Alcuin, there you go. Take that bit of rationalization to a Park District and we will have them building polo fields – and in Berwyn and Cicero, IL. Kind of field of dreams: Build it and they will come.
Lucia,
I was half way into “Big-Noise” when I saw you’d beat me to it. I would have thought you were way too young to have been aware of it.
There isn’t much sense of proportion up there in the northern suburbs. One such nearby suburb is too small to have its own library. There is a wonderful one in the adjacent town – recently rehoused in very nice new building. The hit for sharing this facility would be about $450 per household. Voted down.
My comment was intended to be descriptive, rather than normative. An alternative would be to follow policies that attract poor people, which may be of less benefit to the tax base. Perhaps the point is that the wealthy always will find a way to enjoy the fruits of their labours. They could accomplish this as well by means of private enterprise as well, but by doing so through the local government they may avoid some regulatory and taxation hassles.
alcuin– I had to google Skokiaan.
j ferguson– I love big band stuff.
alcuin — I think the three big wealthy people attracting feature are:
1) Lake Michigan
2) Other wealthy people.
3) Shortish drive to Chicago.
But yes, Winnetka being full of wealthy people is more likely to do extravagant things. In this case it appears the Park District is proposing something residents are not yet embracing. My impression of people in Winnetka is that while they do want amenities, they also aren’t interested in just wasting money. It’s quite possible the residents aren’t supporting the refrigerated ice rink for a combination of reasons (2) & (4).
It seems to me that not having outdoor ice skating isn’t the horrible sort of catastrophe worth spending huge amounts of money on refrigerated ice. Other sports can substitute to maintain the social fabric.
You had to google Skokiaan? I think your are just trying to protect your youthful image. Alas, mine is beyond redemption.
Lisle has a golf course; golfers pay fees. It has been the park district’s intention for it to be a revenue generator. I don’t know if they have succeeded. As a tax payer, I don’t particularly want to subsidize golf. It strikes me that relatively affluent people play golf; if they can afford clubs, their fees should be sufficient to cover the operating expenses of the course.
We also have a water park. I think that might just break even. It’s pretty much a kid attraction. Even though I don’t use it myself, I would support taxes and keeping fees be pretty low to make sure the vast majority of kids can join.
It seems to me that, unlike polo, outdoor ice skating is not something that appeals only to the wealthy. Perhaps what you see in Winnetka is similar to what happened in Georgetown when the DC Metro was being designed. Georgetown residents, wanting to keep out the riffraff, successfully campaigned against having a station located there. Not having any Georgetown acquaintances, I don’t know if that is regretted or celebrated at this later date.
Lucia,
If I have done my math right, the average winter temperatures in Chicago are:
December: 27.5F
January: 22F
February: 27F
Seems like ice must be pretty common, and it’s probably a bit colder in Winnetka… less UHI.
.
I am not sure what they are worried about though, since most people in Chicago seem to like when they get a break from the wintertime cold. Heck, some Chicagoans even take a trip to Florida (I have actually talked with them!) or some other warm place to get a break from the cold. I did ice skate when I was growing up in Massachusetts, but I think that was because something better (like baseball) wasn’t an option in winter; it wasn’t a deep love of skating. Kids still do skate there, but most seem to prefer computer games and Facebook.
A happy memory is that of returning to campus, quite drunk, from an off-campus New Years Eve party and finding a beautiful sheet of ice that the hockey team had prepared for a game the next day. Unable to resist, I got my skates a spent an hour or two making my inept figure eights and little jumps. The next day it was a mystery to the hockey fans how the ice had become scratched.
Heck, some from Winnetka probably take trips to Florida, others to Mexico, others to various Caribbean islands and the snow and cold loves might pick Denver or some other ski area.
The only reason I can imagine someone might want to install outdoor refrigeration to create a rink is if they have some sort of romantic notion about everyone in town skating on Christmas day every year without fail, even when Christmas day is uncharacteristically warm. I have visions of the whole town of Winnetka wearing skates and wearing short sleeved shirts and Santa hats while skating on their outdoor refrigerated rink.
I skated outdoors on a lake when I was a kid. It was freakin’ cold out. We’d all skate around and then go into the warming house and sit in front of the fire place to warm up. It’s supposed to be cold out when you skate.
SteveF, I am currently too lazy to look, but I would guess that Winnetka’s winter temperatures are moderated by its proximity to Lake Michigan. Chicago’s official temperatures have been recorded at O’Hare airport for many years now and it has less lake effect.
In middle class neighborhoods, I see people flooding their backyards to be used for ice skating in the winter. My son in MN did this last winter. I’ll have to ask him if he thinks it might attract higher income families to his town. Actually his town has residents from middle to very high income, but certainly if a public facility could contribute to higher taxes and cause the lower income riff raff to leave town and be replaced by wealthy people contributing more to the tax base, then certainly it presents fertile ground for a park district rationalization. Of course, when most public bodies want to spend money, they are never tied to a single argument, but better to whatever they can sell – and emergencies always help.
Also, when wealthy towns spend big in good times (and some even in bad) I certainly hope they would not even consider going to state and federal sources if they run into financial troubles. In IL, the state is going broke so it probably could not bail out a town that over spent. Our local school board and city council have recently had a financial reality check from the economic down turn. Instead of congratulating each other for their fine works, they have on occasion actually questioned each others’ plans and certainly are not above pointing fingers to how we got into this mess.
“heck, some Chicagoans even take a trip to Florida”.
I hear at least one – for Valentine’s Day. ;>)
“I have visions of the whole town of Winnetka wearing skates and wearing short sleeved shirts and Santa hats while skating on their outdoor refrigerated rink.”
Lucia, I think you hit on something that the Park District can sell. How about the district doing Norman Rockwell type photos, or better an artist’s personalized rendition of skaters for sale to the skaters with the suggestion of it being used for next year’s Christmas cards. It has a certain exclusiveness that really appeals to me and certainly might even more with the Winnetka crowd.
Disclaimer: I have known a number of people from Winnetka and none were snobs, but rather were ordinary down-to-earth people.
When I was a kid, Libertyville did this to have extra rinks for hockey. Mostly we skated on the lake and kids hockey was mostly on the lake. But extra space was obtained by flooding some flat fields.
Like anywhere you find both. But, notwithstanding the high incomes, most adults I know from Winnetka are perfectly normal down-to-earth types. Sometimes, it’s teens who are snobs– in the way teens can be about nearly anything anywhere.
I suspect the town will generally decide against this refrigerated skating rink idea– but you never know!
Here is what I would do. I would make a public statement, challenging global warming hoaxers to make a prediction. I would say, I predict that the ice rinks will never melt. I would demand that any hoaxer dumb enough to challenge me bet a lump sum of 1,000 dollars and I would give them 10-1 odds. Thus, in 2012, if the ice rinks melted, he would get 10,000 and we would listen to his idea. However, if the rinks are fine and do melt, I win. Then, with each successive year, the hoaxer must pust pay double the amount. I still give 10-1 odds but the hoaxer’s stupid tax must rise, because the stupider you are, the more you should have to pay.
I get the feeling that some of my comments may have been taken as critical. I apologise and will now return to lurking.
How about waiting until there is an actual problem before spending money to fix it?
alcuin,
I’ve enjoyed your comments. I hope you don’t go back to lurking!
I learnt to skate on some outdoor tennis courts in Minneapolis (’75). I noticed:
1. The winter was long and cold
2. The number of weeks of good skating was quite few.
Every time the temp got up to freezing, gluggy spots would appear.
I don’t know what refrigeration would cost or whether it’s worth it. But it might have benefits even without AGW.
Nick–
Neighboring to Winnetka Willmette seems to cope by having *indoor* skating rinks. I imagine the benefit of indoor rinks is you can use them year round. Not having the sun beating down on the ice has just got to be a benefit.
I think that if AGW was not happening, then the irony of the huge carbon footprint associated with refrigeration would vanish. So I wouldn’t find the proposal quite as hilarious.
Mind you, if Winnetka is getting its power from Braywood or Byron Nuclear plants downstate, maybe they can claim refrigeration is not a CO2 generator. But that would be a bit thin because let’s face it: if they suck the power from the nuclear plant then others have to get their power from coal or gas. So, not refrigerating the ice and telling the kids to play soccer, basket ball or learn to use roller skates, is, overall, the lower CO2 generating solution.
I come from a place where the only way people can ice skate is indoors. I can’t imagine having to skate inside is some great loss. But people will always find ways to entertain themselves. I imagine that the people of Europe miss their old frost fairs, but they found new past times for winters milder than the Little Ice Age.
In short, anyone worried about AGW ruining their ice skating, cry me a river. 😉
Thanks for the videos. I’m starting to like the music from that era, and even earlier. It’s too bad the recording technology was not up to today’s standard, but it’s enjoyable anyway.
I fished a hose out the basement window and built a hockey rink in the backyard in michigan. should have turned my go kart into a zamboni. no pads hockey. my shins are still like washboards full of dents.
Yay! Roy’s number’s are in! I was exactly right! How do I collect my Quatloos?
Nick,
I, too, started skating in Minneapolis, but in the late ’40s. We skated on lakes of which there are many there, Lake Harriet comes to mind. The warming houses were coal fired, and except for the coal for the warming houses, the only cost might have been clearing the snow. I don’t remember thaws being a problem, but that was a long time ago.
As an aside, one of the amazing features of an indoor rink is the heating pipe network required under the ice to prevent the ground from freezing.
I live in Wilmette, 3 miles south of Winnetka. Dozens of families here use ice rinks they create in their own front or back yards during the months of Dec-Feb. (There are regular complaints from neighbors who find hockey pucks in their yards all winter.) Zoning by community varies so this option may or may not be available to Winnetka residents.
Northfield is a community that is near or abuts Winnetka. They offer an outdoor skating rink at Clarkson Park during the months of Dec-Feb. I regularly see kids and families there during the winter.
Wilmette has a year round indoor skating rink that regularly offers free skate time periods that Winnetka residents could utilize. (My sons often attend Friday Night skates there during the school year.) But why travel all that way? Winnetka already has their own year round indoor ice arena.
There are no vacant lots in Winnetka. A 50×150 plot of land has a value of about $600,000. The typical house that would be built on that lot would sell for a minimum of $1.5 million. There is also no open land” in the community that is not already part of a well groomed park that is not amenable to flooding to make an ice rink.
I’d suggest that the “lack of fabric” to enjoy outdoor skating in Winnetka is more a result of the lack of willingness to flood a small portion of the existing 246 acres of Park land rather than a result of global warming shortening the skating season.
In Maine, the kids flock to the roller skating rink by at least 10 to 1 over the ice skating rink
Nick Stokes is the only person I am aware of who will arise to defend seemingly any idea, as long as it can be associated with the belief in Global Warming in some way. -Andrew
“I get the feeling that some of my comments may have been taken as critical. I apologise and will now return to lurking.”
Alcuin, I certainly enjoyed your comments and did not take them as being critical, but rather as ironic. My responses stem from my uncontrollable urge to criticize government bodies at all levels.
Andrew_KY–
My impression was that Nick was simply observing that even without AGW, outdoor ice skating on rinks would be more predictable if the rink was refrigerated. This would at least hypothetically be a benefit to people who really want to skate outdoors. This is true enough.
Nick Stokes:
That’s my take on it too. If you want to do outdoor jaunts in cold weather, that’s a separate thing, you can bundle up well enough not to freeze your arse off. It’s hard to be covered up enough in -35C temperatures and still be able to skate though. Sort of takes the point out of it.
If you read the link to the NWMC (made up of 42 rather well-to-do northeastern suburbs to which Winnetka belongs) you get the distinct feeling that these municipalities are feeling the economic pinch right along with all the others in the area. Probably not a good time to be considering a $450,000 expense. I would suggest, however, that our local Park District, in contrast to other government bodies, appears oblivious to the economic down turn and that attitude may be one common to park districts.
An aside is the note we get with our real estate tax bills which initially noted that real estate taxes were not going down (actually they went up) with the decrease in home values because the calculation required a three year averaging of values. When even the 3 year average would require a reduction in taxes (all else being equal) the note changed to something like: we have to fund existing programs and in order to do this we raise the multiplier used to meet those requirements. In other words, for you dreamers out there that thought the real estate tax would decrease with home values, please dream on.
The taxing body does provide “discounts” for seniors in general and more for seniors with lower incomes, but these amount to only a few hundred dollars out of tax bills in the neighborhood of $10,000.
“As a member of the Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC), Winnetka partners with 42 other north and northwest suburban municipalities to ensure that our voices are heard by legislators in Springfield.
The legislative initiatives of the NWMC continue to be responsive to the uncertain economic climate and the financial burdens on local taxpayers. To see the NWMC’s 2011 Legislative Program, click here.
The Village encourages residents to support these efforts by contacting their elected representatives in Springfield. To see the contact information forWinnekta’s State Senator and State Representatives, click here.”
http://villageofwinnetka.org/pdf/documents/NWMC%20Legislative%20Program.pdf
Is Winnetka community leadership saying it has had recently (last 10 years or so) winters that did not support outdoor rinks? That is; have they observations of a problem with the outdoor rink?
If not then their perception of the need for an indoor ice rink seems to be linked to an IPCC centered projection of global warming.
Is the Winnetka leadership in the BBC/MET situation of several years ago? The BBC/MET several years were back telling the British public that their children will grow up without experience of snow and ice? I remember then Nature (not the magazine) went ahead to show its lack of support of the BBC/MET statement by having usually cold/snowy/icy winters for several years now.
My recommendation to the good people of Winnetka is to forget the GW question. The decision for an indoor ice rink should be considered solely on its economic merits as compared to its community self-esteem.
John
Kenneth
I am ambivalent leaning to ‘con’ giving middle and higher income seniors discounts on their property tax bills particularly if they are living in largish homes. (Possible criteria for ‘largish’: More than 1 bedroom per resident, more than 1400 ft^2 (that was the average house size in 1970– so it’s hardly undersized.), more than 15,000 sq lot (with possible exceptions in truly rural location), worth more than the median value within whatever taxing jurisdiction is considering giving the tax break.
In many cases, these middle and higher income seniors should strongly consider downsizing to cut expenses like mowing, vaccuuming, heating, taxes etc. If they have enough money to continue living in property more suited for a family of 4, that’s fine. But I don’t see why other tax payers should subsidize this. We expect young people just starting out to make choices like living in a smaller condo, apartment or home, getting room-mates, etc. In many cases, 50 and 60 year olds (like me) would make more rational housing choices if, as a group, we weren’t expecting a tax break when we turned 70 etc.
Yay! Lucia understood my comment! The little things DO mean a lot. 😉 -Andrew
Lucia,
As 68 year olds, we couldn’t agree with you more. If you had any idea what all of the “senior” rackets are you’d have a fit. No means-testing for any of them. Ride bus all over eastern long island for $1 – free in a lot of places. Get your knees, hips, eyes replaced for very small amount – true, the medicare premium is more for higher income, but if your income doesn’t show, then there is no exposure to paying a bigger share if you are able.
You can go farther with this line of thought. For example, why should the price of natural gas delivered from the source within Texas be higher than delivered in Minnesota? Why should Texans subsidize folks living in houses that they likely couldn’t afford to heat if they payed what the Texans pay? (this all assumes that this situation hasn’t changed from when I last looked at it in detail).
Maybe our current political/economic turmoil will fix some of this.
We have an advantage medicare plan which limits our annual exposure to about $4k each but caps everything above that. I understand that the Government is losing on this plan. No reason why it should, we’d happily pay more, but they don’t ask for it.
I don’t like feeling like a mooch, but the system surely is setup to let us off the real hook.
Homestead exemptions are another issue, the kind where the percentage of real estate tax increase is limited. This means the newcomers pay for the hold outs. Is that reasonable?
I also agree that tax breaks and subsidies for seniors are unfair. But please remember that politicians are interested in getting their tax revenues with the least amount of political fall-out possible and that really has nothing to do with being fair, but rather how to get those revenues for all the good they want to do.. Seniors vote in much greater percentages than other age groups and politicians, of course, are aware of this fact.
Democrats have been generally against means testing for Medicare and SS benefits which would appear to go against their claim to be taking from the wealthy and giving to those less fortunate. Besides such a change showing that these programs are not working as designed and promised, I think they see it as political fall-out from seniors. I have talked to an acquaintance of one of my sons who is a school teacher and he tells me he has pointed out to his students that they have larger numbers than older people but they let older people get benefits at their expense because they do not vote in such high percentages. I ask him if he told these students then that they need to obtain benefits as a group based on the fact that they have larger numbers or that maybe seeing the seniors getting more than their share they might be more likely to see limitations of a democratic process where a majority of voters can dominate a minority of voters. He said no, he merely told them to go out and vote.
The strategy to give real estate tax discounts to seniors is rather easy to see through and that is to keep seniors on the tax role and not have them move to a tax safe haven. Seniors provide no revenue outlays for school systems, which take most of the real estate revenues in my taxing district, but pay into the system. If all the seniors moved out then a greater tax burden goes back onto those with children in school. My point was that they carry out this strategy by giving token discounts in hopes that the gesture will keep the seniors in place. I am well aware that some of these seniors had in the past sent their kids to these schools and were subsidized by the seniors of that period of time. Taxes are never going to “fair”.
The voice of reason from the Great White North (East?)
I live in Burlington Ontario 43 19′ N vs 41 51′ N for Winnetka Park (too close to call North in my opinion). My town has a population of 170K and we have one official outdoor ice surface and it’s refrigerated…and we’re Canadian!!! All other ice surfaces are indoors and refrigerated. When we have a really cold winter the kids and adult kids skate on frozen ponds, marshes, creeks, rivers and back yard rinks. I don’t think it’s too much to provide one municipally funded outdoor rink that families can enjoy during winter.
Kenneth,
The reaction I typically run into on means-testing for benefits is that “we paid the with-holding all those years so we should get the benefits we paid for.”
There’s a lot of talk about 50% of the “taxable” population not paying any income tax. My guess would be that seniors are a big part of that 50%.
They have a wealth tax in France. Its something like 1/2% of amount over 1.5 million euros. I don’t think real estate counts toward the amount. It might be limited to intangibles like the tax they used to have in Florida. If we had something like that it might substitute for means testing. i guess the thing I’m trying to get at here is that it is possible to be in very good shape here in the US and yet not pay much tax. Especially if you aren’t into possessions.
I’m talking about folks like me kicking in a little more, not those guys blowing smoke with the private jets.
SteveE,
Hum… Maybe the families who enjoy the outside skating rink could (dare I say it?) actually pay for that enjoyment via usage fees equal to the total cost; that way the benefits and the costs would be more “fairly” distributed, which is to say, the people who benefit pay. The great thing about having someone else pay for what you want is that it makes everything so very inexpensive… at least for you. It would be great for me if my city would buy and operate a few existing plush private golf courses with taxpayer money and then let me play on them for a small fraction of what they cost to purchase and maintain. But I recognize that would be also be grossly unfair to the majority of tax payers who do not play golf.
So yes, it is indeed too much to ask the public to fund private activities, sports, and hobbies.
I’ve never seen snow in my life, yet my community isn’t collapsing. Perhaps it’s because we have a profitable, privately owned indoor ice skating rink in town.
They have a wealth tax in France. Its something like 1/2% of amount over 1.5 million euros. I don’t think real estate counts toward the amount.
.
It’s 0.55 % between 800 000 and 1 300 000 € . Then it increases up to a maximum of 1.8 % . Everything counts . Your used car must be declared , your chairs , your books , the necklace of your wife , your cat . Everything .
It is a stupid tax and for seniors it is beyond stupid .
Clearly , like somebody mentioned above , wealthy seniors have one very important advantage .
They can move .
So wealthy French seniors just move to Switzerland (or Belgium) where similar anti-economical taxes don’t exist .
The net result for the state is then horribly negative – not only it looses ALL taxes but most importantly it looses the money these people spend and invest and which contributes significantly to the local economy .
.
There are even more optimal schemes for wealthy seniors (I know many who did it in the last years) . They move to Argentina or Marocco . The pension which they get paid in € has a 3-5 times bigger purchasing power in these countries . Besides they pay less taxes . And many countries compete , of course , to acquire them as residents because they are a powerful economical ressource .
.
So the right wing parties in France want to abolish this property tax . But as it has been established by the socialists , it became a symbol and (obviously !) a large majority supports it in polls .
There was a joke in Russia : “Why is it better to tax little the poor than much the rich ? Because when all the rich are gone , only the poor stay anyway .”
Deal with it if it ever materializes.
Adapting now, decades before the problem, only means out of date equipment if the problem materializes and a nice sale for the ice rink sales or rental vendor, along with a wastage of public money.
The interesting thing to note is the highly emotional tone of the description of the problem.
New York deals with it
Wannetka is not the only city making this sort of decision.
http://www.rockefellercenter.com/tour-and-explore/the-ice-skating-rink/
Houston deals with it
http://www.discoverygreen.com/ice/
Even Phoenix deals with it:
http://www.downtownphoenix.com/blog/tag/ice-skating/
The question is why do people invoke so much fear in dealing with AGW?
TomVonk,
Based on my travel, I would guess the purchasing power of a Euro in Argentina for basic consumables is probably closer to 2 times what it is in Europe. Of course, that is still a huge advantage. Local market prices from some things (like real estate/land, household help, and professional services) may be 4 or more times higher in Europe than in Argentina, especially outside of Buenos Aires.
.
The economic disincentive of a “wealth tax” depends a bit on how the remainder of the tax code is structured. If return on investments (say, corporate dividends paid to shareholders) is taxed as normal income, then a wealth tax really is a strong motive to move elsewhere. If return on investment receives special tax treatment (lower rates, or even no tax), then a wealth tax (if the rate doesn’t get too high!) might not push a wealthy investor to move. A wealthy person who holds mostly non-productive assets (like a large villa in the south of France) would probably be tempted to go somewhere else, and some certainly do. Another major consideration is the level of inheritance taxes. Death has a 100% tax rate and is uniformly enforced, but people still care if death transfers money to their desired recipients or to the government. With taxes, the devil is always in the details.
Tom,
I don’t like or agree with a fairly high portion of what the US government does with the money. I’m hopeful in the next few years that some of the nonsensical and unnecessarily intrusive programs will be cut way back.
At the same time, the tax code has been especially good to some of us (since retirement) in a way that I find a bit uncomfortable. In the US, we seem to be living in a sort of pluralistic something-for-everyone government service economy – golf for some, skating for others, and no user fees or if they are there, below cost.
If someone can figure out how to cut all this stuff in half, it might leave money for the few programs we can’t really do any other way.
I don’t need nor want a large villa anywhere.
btw. Are you confident your figures on COL in Argentina are up to date? I ask because friends are moving to Uruguay after rejecting Argentina due to their perception (which might have been erroneous) of it’s rising costs.
SteveF (Comment #80020)
It would be lovely if we could all pick and choose what our tax dollars are used to fund but we do not and nor should we. I have chosen to send my children to private school and gladly pay the tuition fees, yet I am still required to pay the public education portion of my municipal taxes. Is this fair? Probably not, but it is necessary to provide a high level, broad based education system which, in the end, society benefits from
In the case of our outdoor ice rink, it is a multi-use facility that is the central attraction of a public space. In the summer it is a fountain and reflecting pool where a number of individuals sail toy boats. Should we be charging these people too! Should people pay to look at the fountain? It would be an ugly world if everything were measured in such utilitarian ways.
John Whitman just a point of clarification, Winnetka already has a year round indoor skating rink.
Ed–I think the confusion stems from me. I’d googled for indoor ice rinks, found one in Wilmette but not in Winnetka. So, I figured they didn’t have one.
I don’t mind subsidized user fees for some things– I do for others.
So, for example, I support children’s education being subsidized. This is not to say I like the public education system as it stands– but I support poor kids or even kids whose parents are not poor but would choose to spend money on other things having their educations paid for or heavily subsidized.
I’m for some level of parks with free access being paid for; in some sense, that’s a subsidy. We have a private arboreteum nearby. You pay for admission. In some sense, that is a by-fee park. It’s splendid by the way.
But my town also has parks, and everyone can walk in them and some have jungle jims and various attractions for kids. One has a nifty cartoon like play-in fountain. We have a heavily used band pavillion. We have other public no fee or low fee things– the library is mostly no-fee with some fees for special things. (I think you can check out ‘art’, that’s got a small fee. I think dvd’s had a fee. I don’t know how they handle that now.)
On the other hand, heavily subsidized ice skating when it isn’t cold enough for ice to form naturally? I wouldn’t be for that. In my opinion, it is too costly relative to other nice things we can do.
There are other things that are borderline.
Lucia,
Don’t you think that each of these activities has its constituency? My early memories are that most museums were free when we were kids in the 50s. Museum of Science and Industry appears to be free one day a week but charges every other day. Doubtless kids’ tours don’t pay.
Does Morton’s have a free day, or free to childrens’ groups?
We travel a lot and find that most museums and historical sites here and in europe typically charge fees often exceeding US$15.
Before Henry 8 shut them down, the monasteries in England seemed to provide a level of social support which included feeding the indigent, making land available to farmers below market, etc. The break-up of the system stopped this and there was no immediate substitute apparently causing a lot of distress at the time. The bigger landowners seemed to like the results. There were murmurings of the monasteries having been dens of sloth – sort of thing you hear to day about some of our social programs.
It is instructive to see what happens when a social support system is shut down in very brief period without any follow-on mechanism.
It may be that reducing the amount of money available for these sorts of things will cause each program to be evaluated for the universality of the benefit and maybe the ones that are very costly relative to their “public value” will be curtailed.
Village of Glenview bought Chesterfield Country Club (golf course) sometime in the 50s. For a very low fee, i was able to spend the summer I was 14 discovering that i would never be any good at it.
j ferguson–
Yes. Each has i’s constituency. If a huge number of people in my town wanted to pay for a refrigerated outdoor skating rink, I wouldn’t be out campaigning against it. I’m not the only one who pays taxes– so tax payers do get to have a say in the tax rates etc.
I’m just saying I would not vote for this and prior to the vote, I’d make my opinion known.
I like the museum having 1 free day a week. If I’m paying, I know to stay away that day. If I’m poor, or I’m sort of tentative, I go that day. I happened on the art institute on a free day, and went in. I’ve gone on one for pay day when they advertised a show I liked. But usually they don’t have shows that attract me. But I know their for free days sometimes create art lovers who visit on for pay days. Plus, there are people who get subscriptions– and some of them like the notion of the for free days.
So, I think in the case of museums, the for free days may actually ultimately make them money.
Oddly, though I am against giving tax breaks for seniors living in large homes, I am for subsidizing a fair number of things for kids. I think having a fair number of activities for kids tends to reduce juvenile delinquencies, does foster some social fabric by permitting kids with more modest incomes to play with kids with somewhat higher incomes etc. You can’t equalize everything– but community soccer, baseball, basket ball and non-equipment intensive sports is almost always useful.
Golf can get iffy because, relative to soccer, the equipment needs are too expensive poor families, the game requires fairly extensive grounds that need to be maintained etc. So, the fees end up out of reach for poorer kids (or just kids whose parents don’t think they should spend money on things for kids to do.)
With respect to Winnetka: I think the story is funny owing to the stated reason for the rink. As Nick noted: maybe it’s got benefits apart from AGW. I honestly doubt AGW has much to do with the W. park district’s looking into the rink, but for some reason, they want to link this to AGW.
I think some observers make taxes more “civil” than they are in reality. A politician, who has ideas for the use of taxpayers’ money that he thinks are better than that for which he thinks the taxpayer will use it and has no compunctions about the limits of the taxing powers of the state is not really interested in the fairness of taxes but rather in raising the most revenues. After all he will rationalize the revenues largess by promising to redistribute that wealth fairly amongst the population.
I think politicians of the strip I described above have won the day when we hear arguments for taxes based on what we as individuals think is a good or fair cause, but fail to mention that there must be a limit to what we take from others for our good causes. I think the prevailing intelligentsia of the world judges that the state takings for good causes has no limit and the only arguments have to do with the rationalizations for these takings.
Kenneth
Agreed.
To some extent, how pro or con I am on borderline stuff is affected by how much other borderline stuff has been approved.
As I noted: I am inclined toward having some subsidized stuff for kids to do. But my support for taxes subsidizing a new sport (say LaCrosse) would be affected by how many susidized sports we currently have relative to your community size. If our modest sized community already has baseball, basketball, swimming, tennis, football, gymnastics, field hockey, kids summer theater, kids choir (with trips to Europe), kids band etc. and all are generously subsidized, I’m unlikely to be persuaded we should pay for LaCrosse too. On the other hand, if we has nothing, taxpayers decided to subsidize 1 sport and it happened that the community was crazy about LaCrosse was the most popular, I’d say go for it.
On the politicians: They sometimes also lie about how funds will be spent. All taxes are promoted as to be used for something popular, but the bill might not require it. That money gets used for something else, and then a new tax for the popular thing is proposed. This can often be a reason to not support a tax for something you might otherwise be willing to support through taxes.
SteveE,
Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.
.
Certainly some functions are better handled via public activity/funding, and publicly funded education, by broad consensus in many countries, is clearly among these, as are police, national defense, etc. Certainly some things (how many children you choose to have, whether or not you go to church, who you sleep with, where you are allowed to live, etc.) are by broad consensus (at least in most countries!) not appropriate for government to be involved with.
.
The political issue is the scope of what government should be involved with and not involved with; or more exactly, differentiating between appropriate and inappropriate government activities in light of the reality that public activities and expenditures automatically reduce private assets and private options. Different POV’s on this is why we have elections… at least in Canada and the USA.
Beauty, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.
Yeah. And stupidity too. My impression is a private group paid for this:
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-07/148127320-30164233.jpg
I like the scene in the movie. I can’t imagine why someone thought a ginormous walk-under statue was a good idea.
Lucia,
Yikes! That is an intimidating woman. 😉
Privately funded or not, how they got permission for that in a public area I do not know.
At least it isn;t as bad as exploding children to rid the world of people who are not politically correct.
The fans of the thing say all sorts of things about how wonderful the scene in the movie was– capturing the exhuberance of living, yada, yada.
The scene in the movie was wonderful.
But the view in the movie is not from the vantage point of someone standing under the grate looking up her skirt.
I think there are reasons that many tall statues are of men riding horses, sitting in chairs and not standing straddled legged where you can walk under and the reasons are not purely structural.
Lucia,
Is that statue permanent or temporary?
It would appear that the Trib’s editors did a little bit of a number on the WPD. Quoting the author if the article reporter John P. Huston
I am disappointed too. I apologize for the delay in my response, I wanted to find out what happened. My original report was edited, and the first few paragraphs rewritten, but were never posted on the TribLocal site. I can assure you that the piece made specifically clear that the board’s action was to do grading for less than $30,000, but also mentioned the ice mat information from the report. I tried to make it clear that there was not even a recommendation to go forward with the ice mat idea.
Apparently, the Tribune took an interest, and cut the piece down for space (unbeknownst to me – both that it was running and that it was being edited) and cut references to everything but the ice mat information. I will discuss with my editors.
http://www.winpark.org/news-details.aspx?e=659
If you look at the 2008 survey http://www.winnetkacaucus.org/surveypast_platforms
the impression I got was that residents rejected the idea because of costs. The orginal question was would they spend 750K on a new rink.
Looking at the districts financials I say they are in very good shape. I might be wrong but they have about 3.3 mill in long term debt with 9.5 million in cash reserves. The whole district along with the residents seem very cost conscious.
http://www.winpark.org/park-board-information/financials.aspx
Again I might be reading the July 28 packet wrong but it looks like the Golf Course and the other facilities are profitable. They also seem to want to redevelop the park where one of the refrigerated rinks would go and lease it to a private group to manage the concessions, skating and pay for some of the costs.
http://www.winpark.org/park-board-information/meetings.aspx
The MM statue is whimsical and temporary. I could not image that imagery in a cold Chicago winter.
I think it’s temporary. I hope it’s temporary…
I’d have to surf to find the date, but I think it’s going to be here until 2013. Marilyn is going to look awfully weird covered with snow.
Jeff
Thanks for the information.
They are similar to my district in that. Our park district likes to keep a good balance sheet.
Jeff Norris not far into the link you gave on the Winnetka financials (for 2010) we have the following statement:
“During the past 10 years, operating expenses have increased more rapidly than tax revenues.”
Kenneth
You are absolutely right as a partial result of Property Tax Limitation Act” better known as the “Tax Cap” law revenues have been down. I think if you kept looking you will also see that the administrators are very aware of this and mention actions to correct expenditures.
In the July 28th packet alone they report expense have been cut by 438k below budget YTD.
Saved 152k in salaries partially by reducing part timers 45k also have tighter inventory controls on supplies and merchandise.
Wow they are actually running the district almost like a business making sure expenses don’t exceed revenue. Another interesting item is that by law they could bond close to 57 mil but until this month when I think they authorized 5 mil they have not issued any since 2002. No wonder they have a 9 mil cash reserve and are not asking for a Tax increase.
SteveF
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but from your last response you suggest that certain things should be publicly funded and certain things shouldn’t. I think we are both in agreement around this point. Then you suggest that publicly funded activities reduce private assets. While at face value this would be true, it seems that you are suggesting that government has no role in the funding and management of parks and recreation activities and expenditures despite several hundred years of precedent in this area. I can only imagine what our urban and open landscapes would look like if this were not the case. Perhaps a few more Marilyn’s and a few less neighbourhood playgrounds? 😉
SteveE,
What I am suggesting is that the more narrow the interest being supported (open air refrigerated ice rinks, for example, or subsidized golf courses), the more closely public funding should be scrutinized. Functions that enjoy a very broad consensus (like the funding of police and public schools) is never going to be an issue with most people (although the exact level of funding is often a point of contention). Some parks and recreational facilities may fall in this category; it depends on their cost and scope. Functions which enjoy much less than broad public support are, IMO, at best dubious. For example, in my area the local government sometimes purchases private land (at astronomical tax cost!) to create “in perpetuity” natural areas…. but mainly to stop housing development permanently. This enjoys very much less than broad public support (close to 50/50), yet is regularly forced through by a bare minimum majority of local (progressive) representatives… when they happen to be in the majority. The tyranny of the majority is always a danger in any democracy.
SteveF–
I’m under the impression that when I was a kid, my town had a vote to raise funds to create childrens playgrounds sprinkled through the neighborhoods. The measure passed– just barely. There was sufficient flexibility in the measure that whoever was in charge bought land well outside the developed area– far from the kids. So, now “parks” existed, but all in areas that were not suited to ball parks, tennis courts etc. The choice of property was perfect to prevent low income housing from being built near the edge of town.
So, basically, to raise money the public was promised stuff of the sort SteveE thinks we should all like, but then the money was used for the things you describe– stopping housing development. In this instance, low income housing development.
I think this happened– but I was a kid so I can’t be absolutely sure.
Lucia,
Humm.. so it seems you turned out OK even without the local small parks. But I wonder about the kids who didn’t get to live in your town.
Some small parks existed. They were just supposedly going to buy lots more. Also, my parent’s house was on the edge of the flood plain which the town owned before this whole “buying up of land” business. The area behind my parents was eventually was turned into an honest to goodness park, but only after I was in grad school. There is now a back stop not far from my mother’s back yard.
We got permission to grow our vegetable garden on it. That lets us use our actual yard as yard!
Lucia,
Boa noite..
J.Ferguson
.
btw. Are you confident your figures on COL in Argentina are up to date? I ask because friends are moving to Uruguay after rejecting Argentina due to their perception (which might have been erroneous) of it’s rising costs.
Yes very . My daughter moved there from Europe and I am visiting often . However I was almost tempted to mention Uruguay too .
It is a much smaller country with less potential and no ressources but it seems to be managed (sofar) rather correctly . I would say the long term risk is bigger in Uruguay than Argentina .
The 3 countries I trust most in S.America from the economical point of view are , in that order : Argentina , Chile , Uruguay .
Brazil is a complex case . economically promising , politically threatening .
The most annoying thing in S.America is the lack of political maturity – they invented an original ideology of “populist autocracy” which has for consequence that the leaders are often prone to take stupid and unexpected decisions .
For instance for Kirchner one of the political priorities is “football for everybody” .
I am not joking . She’ll be probaly kicked out but only to be replaced by another populist autocrat .
Of course inflation is a chronical problem for local people but not for those who have income in € like the retired people. Right now it’s OK but it could worsen again .
.
I bought an appartment in Buenos Aires (Embassy Quarter Recoleta) and for an appartment of comparable surface and standing in France I’d pay 6 times as much or more (in €). Real estate and services are also not expensive .
Personnally I don’t exclude to move there once I am in retirement .
.
Last but not least , to connect to the topic.
There doesn’t seem to be sofar any climate change threat on Argentina , its social fabric or otherwise .
While the bioenergy is looked at (not for climatic reasons) , the Argentinians have clearly other priorities than to fight against the climate change by making dubious investments .
One finds it quite refreshing not to read in newspapers every 2 days that some climatic horor is much worse than previously thought 🙂
Here in the UK, temporary ice rinks are the current fad to provide during the winter months in many cities. Quite why, I do not know. It’s supposed to be fun for all the family, but that fun is usually horribly expensive and you only have a limited amount of time for this pleasure.
I used to skate on a frozen lake in my youth but, no doubt, because of the health and safety risks we aren’t allowed to do that anymore (plus the warmer winters we have had have meant little ice in our temperate climate).
I did take my kids skating once or twice but have a horrible memory of my son falling over right in front of me and I skated over his fingers. We retired gracefully, dripping blood over the ice.
Tom Vonk,
Thank you for your thoughts on Argentina. Without intending to slander Uruguay, i think it was chosen for its irrelevance. I would love to have a long discussion on choice of expatriate life in retirement, something we often consider but always reject, but maybe this is not the place.
Jeff Norris, I can only suggest, when you come down from your cheerleading of the Winnetka Park District, that you think harder on the these two facts in opposition.
“No wonder they have a 9 mil cash reserve and are not asking for a Tax increase.”
“During the past 10 years, operating expenses have increased more rapidly than tax revenues.â€
I would think that a private business attempting to make a profit would have to cut operating expenses below revenues. When you have 10 years of revenues not covering expenses a lot of private companies would be on the verge of bankruptcy. That 9 million dollar reserve must be decreasing if revenues are not meeting expenses over 10 years.
I would give the district credit for having a reserve as a lot of government bodies spend nearly all their funds in goods years and then declare an emergency during bad times.
Kenneth,
couldn’t operating costs increase faster than revenues and yet still be less than revenues?
j ferguson, if the revenues 10 years ago were significantly greater than expenses and the decrease/increase is based on percentages, you could be correct.
I quickly looked at the financials for years 2010 and 2009 and found that actual revenues in 2009 were 9.97 and expenses were 8.12, while in 2010 revenues were 11.06 and expenses were 10.48 – all in millions. Based on that report and to be fair, I would have to say running those surpluses in these financially troubled times is impressive.
Kenneth
I am kind of cheerleading and I will tell you why further down. The district’s business activities revenue (pay to play or use the facilities) are not paying for all their associated business expenses so if they where a for profit entity that would be very bad. But they also get tax revenue categorized in Government activities and that has more than made up for any deficit. Their cash balance it has been as high as 11 mil in 03/09; low as 8.1 in 12/10 and right now it is 9.8. They use this account to transfer in money to balance the business activities and pay for overall capital improvements.
Golf is the largest cost activity followed by tennis. Overall the golf courses and tennis centers lose money, around 5% of revenue. Ice arena and platform tennis make money about 10% of revenue. The avg net loss for all business activities over the last 7 years is 71k. Kenneth I am not saying that the district is an example of a good for profit business just an example of government living within its means and responding to changing events. I am really intrigued by the survey practice and how it was used to make decisions.
My cheerleading was caused by how transparent and easy it was to look at their board meetings and financials. Digging around the internet for comparisons of other districts including my own here in CA was practically impossible because most don’t post monthly or evenly yearly statements and all they post of board meetings is the stated agenda, no minutes, submittals or reports.
Lucia do they conduct yearly caucuses or surveys in your area?
Jeff-
I don’t know what the park district does. I do know that they are responsive to resident comments and I can get financial data if I want. But I don’t know that it’s on the internet.
Winnetka is clearly governed by people with some financial sense. I suspect the reason Winnetka makes it easy to find the financial data is that there are at least a few residents who ask for it. That’s a good thing.
Lucia
I was curious more if they did surveys or polling wrt to various budgeting or policy issues. Also wanted to know how well promoted they are to get resident feedback.
At your Mom’s they are conducting one on public transportation issues. I think it has only been up since monday and the close date is friday.
http://metrarail.com/metra/en/home/survey/2012_fare_and_servicesurvey.html
Jeff Norris-
I don’t know. I doubt if Lisle has hired anyone to set up online web surveys. That metra survey seems to be run by metrarail.com. So it’s not run by Libertyville. I don’t usually look for online surveys for Lisle… so … don’t know!
Lucia
It is linked on the main page of the Libertyville web site.
http://www.libertyville.com/
Just like the orginal article the City Council or the Meta in this case can use the poll to cosign their policies. An elected supervisor can say the people told us they want to spend more money on Mass Transit or less. Now if the survey is only open for a few days and no body but interested parties like Transit employees know about it might not be a fair representation. Only only 1,170 out of about 12,000 people responded to the Winnetka Survey question on the ice rink.
Remember how the Trib reporter put it.
He noted that a 2008 Winnetka Caucus survey polled members on the subject. It asked if residents would support a $700,000 to $750,000 “removable ice system” at Indian Hill Park. Of the 1,170 people who responded, 73 percent voted against it.
I was curious about the practice of surveys or caucuses, and the possible use or misuse of it. I thank you for your response and for your site.
Lucia
Park district survey for Lisle
http://lisleparkdistrict.org/Lisle%20Park%20District%20Survey%20Findings%20Report%20-%20September%202010.pdf
Also the City web site has the option but I could not find any history.
http://www.villageoflisle.org/home/survey.asp
SteveF says,
“For example, in my area the local government sometimes purchases private land (at astronomical tax cost!) to create “in perpetuity†natural areas…. but mainly to stop housing development permanently.”
Yet without this there would be no Central Park, no Boston Common, no great green space for all to enjoy. Albeit, Central Park was privately owned land, but kudos to generations of corrupt governments for preventing development; what would New York be without it?
I don’t think we’re as far apart as you may think. For the record, I’m not a tree hugger or green space advocate, but there are times when public policy requires us to look beyond today. I live in an area with a legislated greenbelt, I’m on the Niagara Escarpment, an artificially created world heritage bios…blah..blah…blah. There are also times when a common space needs to be more than undeveloped land and might need a fountain, a playground, a bandshell, etc.
We have far too much waterfront property around the great lakes that is a blight and has far outlived its economic promise. Closed steel plants, closed chemical plants, closed shipyards etc.
I think one thing our regional and municipal governments, in my area anyway, have managed well is new development. Zoning laws and effective density management have helped define the amount of greenspace, the number of new schools, the recreational facilities that are required to support and allow new growth at a standard. Now, I live in an area that has seen incredible development in my lifetime and we have known incredible economic prosperity in that time while other communities have not, but this development does not exclude older areas which may or may not meet the new standards.
I appreciate your views and I respect the need for fiscal responsibility. Believe it or not, I am considered right wing in Canada. I just believe that a straight up vote on all issues of development would see very few accomplishments and that the interests of todays individuals, families, groups, etc. can’t be decided by majority vote, but instead require a plurality of interests. Coming from a two party system, this may be more difficult for you to grasp, but most of the world is managed by plurality, certainly, we are here in Canada. Chances are you will fall within one these pluralities when decisions are made.
Please don’t lecture me on majorities. US and Canadian voter turnouts at all levels (Federal, State/Provincial, and especially Municipal) make a mockery of your 50/50 suggestion. Ask the family at the ice rink if the facility was worth the cost, ask the joggers, cyclists and walkers on city/town bike paths if it is an appropriate land use and I think you’ll have a more difficult time drawing lines.
SteveE,
I guess we will should all just vote for government officials we think will make good choices, and perhaps more importantly, not make bad ones.
SteveE
I’m not sure Central Park is an example of what SteveF is talking about. Your sentences seem to contain a number of implicit assumptions that may not be true.
First: Unlike the examples SteveF complained of, Central Park was not created by preventing development. It was created by seizing land from those who lived there and kicking them out. Some details are provided here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park
Also, therd is some evidence that, despite the amount of effort taken to turn it into a park, the park didn’t really function as a “park” for about at least a century:
Nothing wrong with sheep. They are good for wool and mutton. But I’m not entirely sure that the step of kicking people out of their homes, spending a lot of money to sculpt the land acquired and then using the land as a sheep pasture for nearly a century was the most inspired political act of all time.
I’m also wondering about the fears that people would eat the sheep. It doesn’t say who owned the sheep. If no one owned them, and they were ‘wild’ sheep, I don’t know why anyone would “fear” they would be eaten by hungry people. I think hungry people probably would eat them — but the result for Central Park would eventually be no sheep. The same result was achieved by moving the sheep out of the park!
Anyway: The fate of the park after the end of construction:
I visited Manhattan relatives in the mid-70s. Central Park was not attractive. You did not want to walk through at night. No way.
Even walking by there was some rustling in the bushes. People in various provocative outfits would suggest you could rustle in the bushes with them, if you catch my drift.
The park is now beautiful.
I don’t see many details on how funds are currently raised to run the park, but it seems much of the money may not be tax payer funded. The 2nd paragraph reads:
This at least suggests that at least 85% of the funds do not come from tax payers.
If similar to other non-profit organizations in the US (like many of our museums in Chicago), the organization likely has figured out how to charge user fees for certain activities in the park and/or persuade private donors to donate funds. This sort of arrangement tends to make those running the park be responsive to the preferences of people who will shell out some money for specific programs rather than just act as an excuse for politicians to raise taxes by promising “A” and then doing “B”. It also tends to reduce the extent to which parks, museums etc. can be used to provide patronage jobs and sustain political machines.
But of course, maybe I’m mistaken and Central Park is a purely or mostly tax payer supported entity. That said: Generally these apparently “open” area often do better when they are not purely tax payer funded.
“I just believe that a straight up vote on all issues of development would see very few accomplishments and that the interests of todays individuals, families, groups, etc. can’t be decided by majority vote, but instead require a plurality of interests. Coming from a two party system, this may be more difficult for you to grasp, but most of the world is managed by plurality, certainly, we are here in Canada. Chances are you will fall within one these pluralities when decisions are made.”
SteveE, thanks for that, as it reminds us all that we not only can have the tyranny of the majority but the tyranny of the plurality.
You appear to be making a point that interests bear on individuals and smaller groups. That would appear to be a call for private enterprise.
“Ask the family at the ice rink if the facility was worth the cost, ask the joggers, cyclists and walkers on city/town bike paths if it is an appropriate land use and I think you’ll have a more difficult time drawing lines.”
Huh, I did not know that asking those whose activities are subsidized by others is somehow revealing that the subsidy is legitimate.
I do, however, have a friend of the family who tells me that the horse jumping facility that is available by way of our park district is used by his family members and is an excellent facilty, but he says no way should the local government be subsidizing it.
Lucia, Kenneth,
New York’s Central Park not publicly managed? Subsidized jumping horses? One learns new things at The Blackboard all the time. 😉
.
One substantive point about publicly funded/subsidized activities: Those who support expansive public funding of many relatively narrow “common goods” ought to take note of the contrast with the well known concept of ‘the poverty of the commons’. Publicly funded benefits which go to narrowly defined groups do not generally lead to overuse/abuse like the true commons does, because of both the small number who benefit and because those who benefit become a ‘focused special interest’ that presses politicians to protect their interests. People usually recognize a free lunch when they see one.
.
As in much of what government does, there is an ongoing conflict between those who fund and those who benefit…. and that conflict is not going to disappear. For me, the tragedy is how the focused and energetic political efforts of a few beneficiaries so often persuades publicly elected officials to act contrary to a broader public interest. Therein lies the potential for endless growth of government and endless reduction in private options.
SteveF–
It seems to be public property, but the city farms out management. Sort of like national labs:)
Government ownership will limit what the managers can elect to do, so all choices aren’t going to be to maximize profits.
Just to keep the record straight the horse jumping facility and horse stables in my taxing district are part of the Forest Perserve and not the Park District. That would not change at all my judgement that these are operations in which local government should not be involved. I do have a habit of viewing local government operations as one package and probably because they all draw on my real estate tax, but I do not offer that as an excuse for my error here.
SteveF said
“I guess we will should all just vote for government officials we think will make good choices, and perhaps more importantly, not make bad ones.”
Amen brother!
I didn’t tell you the full story of our outdoor rink/fountain. The rink/fountain for aesthetic reasons was designed with rounded corners and a non-typical ice surface shape. Unfortunately, traditional ice cleaning equipment could not be used to clean the surface and they had to buy a custom zamboni at three times the cost to clean the ice and they still can’t clean the corners properly. Oh well, hoisted upon my own petard! 😉
Lucia,
As always you do your homework! However, I did reference in my comments that the fact that central park survived despite “generations of corrupt governments” (Tammany hall in particular) should be viewed as an urban miracle. Despite how the land was gathered and how it has been kept or left unkempt my municipal governments, it is truly remarkable that such prime real estate in one of the most actively developed urban centres in the world has been left undeveloped and theoretically available to all New Yorkers for so long. A truly utilitarian view of urban taxation and development would not have allowed this to happen. Yes, I’m aware that politics and political inertia have played their part…yet still…there’s Central Park.
Kenneth Fritsche,
You’re quite right we are as subject to the tyranny of the minority as we are to tyranny of the majority. My point was that seldom are we subject to a true 50%+ majority on any issue and that pluralities are much more common in democracies. When we’re talking about adding a feature like an outdoor ice rink, I believe that it’s possible to say it shouldn’t be done during difficult economic times. But when municipal budgets allow for civic improvements I think that nothing would ever get done if we expected a 50%+ vote of citizens (elected government officials is another story).
Dismissing my suggestion that you ask families who use the ice rink or the bike paths or the tennis courts etc. as somehow illegitimate seems to be somewhat disingenuous when you start channeling de Tocqueville. Unless of course you want to move to California and hold a plebiscite on all issues brought before government, in which case you will clearly see what I mean about a plurality of interests and prove de Tocqueville’s thesis.
I still believe that a reasonable plurality of interests can be met: some things will be developed that you agree with; some things will get developed that you disagree with. This can happen in a 51% majority and isn’t much different than a 40-some-odd-per-cent plurality. As an aside, I think it’s unlikely that a horse jumping facility would achieve a plurality of support at a local level, yet if the area were bidding on say the Olympics or Pan Am Games there might be some agreement reached that would at least allow for the creation of the facility.
I think SteveF is right in his quote above. You pays your money, you takes your chances. A poor paraphrase I know. 🙂
P.S. Sorry, for taking so long to respond, but I was enjoying an extended bike tour in the Niagara region with my family on one of those questionable bike paths that wouldn’t exist without local, regional and provincial tax support. I was struck by the number of americans we encountered along the way.
Cheers!
I hope you weren’t hurt too badly.