It probably was inevitable. It is certainly not surprising that the Sunday morning paper would - on 2013 Super Bowl day - devote nearly four full pages, in addition to the sports section, to past and future games. With, of course, the expected adulation of the results of hosting said event, past and future.
With the headline "Indy’s BIG game hunter," two of those pages are devoted to the work of those who are already making plans to re-inflict NFL arrogance, the municipal cost and downtown congestion on the city as soon as possible.
The second headline reads, "Super Bowl legacy energizes others." This article discusses the "legacy" involved with developments on the near east side of the city as a result of last year’s game.
It is this proposal that has intrigued us for quite some time. We are naturally pleased that an area of the city has been changed so beneficially in the past year. Public officials certainly are to be congratulated on their role in what has taken place.
But we have a question. Why did it take a football game to initiate such activity? Why there? We wonder whether the project would have ever been thought of had it not been that there was originally a proposal to build a huge practice facility for a visiting team on the Tech High School campus - which would have brought thousands of visitors to the area. (Can't let those folks see Indy au naturel!)
We have no idea, off hand, how many dollars have been invested in the specific area, nor how many of those dollars were supplied by taxpayers.
We can’t help wondering how much good would have been done there, and in many other areas of the city (and how long ago), if we had spent $1+ billion dollars on the same type projects instead of a basketball court, a football field and the hosting of the game.
Instead, the "neighborhood" made up of the immediate downtown area has received hundreds of millions of dollars of tax subsidy while transportation from other areas into the downtown, and crosstown, has been allowed to deteriorate almost to the point of disappearance.
Is it fair to speculate on what the city might now be if the public funds used to build four - and raze two - sports palaces since 1974 had been used for development of, and public transportation facilities between, neighborhoods?
Is it fair to ask what attraction a sales pitch for the city might have had when touting the fact that we have used public funds for the benefit of all citizens? That we have liveable neighborhoods connected by viable public transportation?
Wouldn’t there have been some advantage in attracting businesses, and their employees, with an ad campaign selling city leaders as being aware of the need for, and their willingness to provide adequate financial support of, public safety, public parks, public libraries and public schools?
We believe there is something basically wrong with a culture where "leadership" thinks it more important to provide a fancy dessert rather than a solid entree to its paying "diners."
And it is painful to see that system so easily sold by constant public repetition of the idea that a dessert really is the permanent base of a healthful diet.
When will taxpayers start to choke on this regimen?