Once more

We'll take one more crack at the deal - despite the fact that the word on the street is that the "closed doors" will open some time this week and we'll be told what our "leaders" have decided on how to finance their playpens.

Last Sunday's editorial repeats the same tired old claim that the whole state owes downtown Indianapolis a living.  This while knowing that the Capital Improvement Board (CIB) is already siphoning off millions of dollars of what should be state revenues.

The editorial says, in part, "The General Assembly must not abandon Marion County...."  We've commented on that relationship in earlier posts. 

And, "With the state's blessing, the city is now building a convention center...."  (If a teenage son borrows dad's car and hits a tree, was that done presumably with "dad's blessing?")  We would venture to say, again, that downtown proponents are intentionally mixing the benefits of convention business with sport subsidy.  There is little or no connection.

The closing paragraph says, "Indiana simply isn't rich enough to tell hundreds of thousands of visitors...that Hoosiers don't need their patronage."  Realistically. we would delete everything after the word "enough" and add "to subsidize billionaire owned businesses with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars."

Another column in the same issue of the paper was an extensive interview with former mayor Hudnut "...about tough issues facing cities such as Indianapolis."  (We'll admit our bias up front in that we believe Hudnut's ideas about "world class" cities are the basis of much of our problem.)

In a somewhat free-flowing discussion of these municipal problems, Hudnut has this to say.  "That's part of the paradox in America right now: People want the services, but they don't want to pay for them."  Unfortunately the author of the column offered no comment on this thought.  Nor did a fairly intense scan of the column reveal the words "basketball," "football," "sports," or "stadium." 

We don't see how Hudnut could be much more in error.  Most people do not object to paying for adequate, reasonably efficient municipal services.  What most people do object to is the expenditure of hundreds of millions of tax dollars on a wide variety of subsidies and giveaways mis-labeled "economic development," a good many of which tend to reduce municipal revenues, and then being told the city cannot afford more police and fire presence, badly needed improvement in the sewer system, street maintenance, etc., etc..

But, just wait a few days.  Our "leaders" will throw open those closed doors and we'll be told, once again, what we owe.  And, probably, how lucky we are and how happy we ought to be that they're looking after our welfare with such great solicitude.

 

 

Comments

[John Howard]

And if it comes in the form of a politician holding the Simons' hands high in the air while gleefully exclaiming, 'We have a deal!' I will surely vomit on the spot.