$46,000,000 is a lot of money.
The last time I checked we were in economic hard times.
Just because the city can borrow $46,000,000 does not mean we should.
...what would we get for our $46,000,000?
Is this a facility that a few thousand wealthy citizens
use a dozen times a year...?
Do thousands of people come from out of town for the shows,
spend the night, spend big bucks for dinners, and the like?
From what I have seen, the crowd seems to be the local,
higher income residents.
Unless someone can produce verifiable hard figures (financials)
to show how this would profit the taxpayers,
I suggest that Greensboro should not borrow $46,000,000
(or more if we get the usually and customary overruns).
Matt Brown said there were better high school auditoriums.
Why not use them?
Our tax dollars have already paid for them.
...Didn't voters turn down 2 bonds in the past 5 years
for a new performing arts center?
...when is enough enough?
To keep bringing this up and shoving it down the voters faces
when we have already said "NO" is hard to stomach.
Just because we can borrow the money
doesn't mean we should borrow the money.
I hope voters continue to say no to the project
and i don't care if it is Downtown, or on Lee ST!!
...This is a good reminder for all citizens to vote
in city council and local races.
We want leaders of local government to create a pro business
and spur private sector jobs and development.
Taxes and Debt are not the answer for Greensboro!
First, pay our debt off,
then make private money build the arts center.
2 comments:
George:
Part 1
Personally enjoy the performing art and art in general. In the main, one can clearly argue that the “demand” for these items is of the marginal variety in a rural settings such as Greensboro. That the marginal demand does in fact morph into a strong and sustainable demand in large population centers such as NYC.
Regarding supply, supply of such items exceeds demand in rural areas. Its odd, but a large supply appears readily available in more rural settings. It may be that this supply is displaced supply from large population areas [a shadow supply as the individuals do other things to generate income although they are trained in the arts] and/or a displaced supply along with the attraction of marginal supply from more populated areas- if in fact performing arts are available in the rural setting.
Note: it can also be said that competitors such as movies, sports, and items as simple as cable and satellite TV are large competitors to the performing art in a more rural setting.
In large population centers art and performing arts, the supply thereof, comes into approximate equilibrium with demand. Private industry finds it profitable to allocate resources to performing arts. Conversely, the market price for performing arts, and art in general, is suboptimal in rural settings and hence private firms, being rational, do not find it of value to allocate resources to such endeavors.
Enter the rent seeker from both the over supply and under demanded sides of the equation within the rural setting. George, you are correct that the under demand is represented by a small group of individuals that act as a special interest for access to performing arts [arts in general]. This same special interest then finds an ally in over supply. That the individuals associated with the over supply have acquired the rent seeking proposition from the demand side. Stated alternatively, the special interest demanding the item rent seeks politicos, and over time, the over supply individuals have followed suit as they copy the demand side practices of rent seeking.
We end up with two highly organized groups representing a small fraction of the population wanting the taxpayer to provide a market for the demand and supply that simply is an unprofitable market. That is, the taxpayer dollar must be acquired to facilitate an artificial market.
Part 2 to follow.
Part 2.
Now let us put the above into its action phase. Both groups organize and run ads, hold rallies, and lobby city/county government for “arts funding”. Slogan -eering such as “art for art’s sake” that portray art as valuable and that in the long run “society” [that abstract being no one has ever met] through taxpayer “investment” will somehow, someway gain considerable returns.
Note: cost meaning taxpayer dollars is especially portrayed as “investment” in this type/kind rent seeking scenario.
Politico enablers see these two special interest groups as valuable constituency building exercise through the use of taxpayer dollars as the two group are totally dependent on the bestowing of taxpayer dollars by politicos as no private market exists for the special interests demand or supply. That is to say, the constituency is valuable as they are total dependent on politicos for funding.
Left out of the debate, as is generally true, is that benefiting a certain group then leaves the remainder of the greater group worse off. That is to say, the vast majority have no revealed preference for performing art or art yet are somehow required to supply performing art to a select few. What loss does the remaining greater group sustain and why should they sustain such a loss?
George, you are exactly correct. No debt should be taken on and especially with falling revenue. Politicos suffer from the phenomena of what goes up continues to go up [self reinforcing expectations of rising government revenue]. Sorry, that view is pixie dust. In fact, those demanding such items need to spend their own money and fly/drive to large population centers where art and performing arts flourish and are economically viable. Those on the supply side should move to large population centers to take advantage of a larger demand segment for their supply of talent. Stated alternatively, is not the $46 million merely subsidizing the driving/flying of the demand side to places such as NYC, Atlanta, etc. and merely writing cash vouchers to the supply side for not moving their talent to areas that demand their talent?
Post a Comment