A different perspective, the Twins/Ballpark Debate And the rookie poster wades in....
Having reviewed the postings on the Twins/Ballparks for Billionaires debate, I was disappointed by the tenor of the postings in opposition to the Twins/ballpark. I found many of the postings self-righteous, moralizing, and elitist. (Dear Wizard of The Forum, a.k.a. our list manager, Mr. Brauer��Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!� please note I refer to the tone of the writing NOT the writers themselves). The �Vociferous Opponents of Ballparks and other entertainment they don�t appreciate therefore it is unnecessary for everyone else� or VOBs, tend to over-inflate the debate. Those who might advocate some level of public support for stadiums are not by extension advocating the snatching of medicines from the elderly, food from the mouths of babes, and shelter from the otherwise homeless. For far too long, this has been an accepted tactic of VOBs. Funding of stadiums vs. funding to relieve social ills is not an either/or proposition. If it were, the last 5 years would have witnessed an enormous public investment in housing, etc. as stadiums were NOT funded. Let�s try ratcheting down the rhetoric just a tad, shall we? I have always been leery of funding stadiums publicly. Like many VOBs, I am uncomfortable with subsidizing billionaires. But maybe as part of the civic discussion, we could set that notion aside for a moment and view the stadium debate from another perspective. Why not consider these structures as part of the civic fabric? Why not classify them in the same way we classify roads, bridges, and civic buildings such as auditoriums, libraries, etc.? At one time in our history, ballparks and stadiums were viewed much that way. These were public edifices and were supported and built by public dollars. I �ll grant that the economics and scale of the investment have changed radically since Memorial Stadium at the U of MN was built (god bless Jules Perlt on an autumn afternoon) or Met Stadium was constructed in the late 1950�s. However, is it really so inconceivable that we might view an investment in stadia as an investment in the public infrastructure and/or the civic fabric? I love that Minneapolis is building a great new library. The library is an investment by the public for the public. Is it so outlandish to consider the possibility we might choose to make an investment in stadiums for similar reasons? It is true that stadium investments will primarily benefit a certain portion of the population and as such, I would advocate that the investment burden should be primarily shouldered by those beneficiaries. But do we not make a multitude of public investments in things that do not benefit everyone proportionally already? I do not attend the theater but I do not begrudge the investment in the Guthrie or the Shubert. I do not use thousands of miles of roads and multitudes of bridges in this city and state, yet I do not begrudge the investment in this civic infrastructure merely because it does not benefit me directly per se. I imagine there are many things that my tax dollars go towards that I may not support, but I accept that the shared public investment of our city and state provides many benefits to many people whether I agree with the investment or not. Aren�t billionaires and millionaires already benefiting from public infrastructure and investment? (and I am not referring to corporate welfare). Do businesses that generate millions in wealth not make use of our roads and bridges (and-gasp!�libraries)? In other words, we simply cannot evade the fact that public investments can and will benefit the rich also. So why not consider what an investment in stadiums could do for us (i.e., the great unwashed) and not just what it does for the billionaires? One last point (honest)... I think there is something very important about sports that many people who do not like sports or appreciate its impact, miss. The love of a team and the gathering of fans in celebration of sports is one of the few things in our society today that crosses the racial boundaries we have erected. I do not want to overstate this point and I am not claiming sport as a cure-all for our racial divisions. But how many other events in our society bring together so many thousands of people of such diversity? I was a first-hand witness to the post-World Series celebrations in 1987 and 1991. I saw grown men and women; strangers; black and white and Latino and gay and straight; hugging, shouting, crying, and dancing in the streets together because THEIR team had won. For a few moments, the differences in skin color, politics, etc., melted away in shared joy. Is there not some civic value in this? Is there not some value in our children seeing us celebrate things we share rather than things that divide us? Sadly, there are very few things in our society with the power to do that. I for one am willing to consider that preserving such a thing might indeed have value, if only for those few precious moments. Mark J. Moller Downtown/North Loop Ward 5, Precinct 893 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
