Cities shouldn't subsidize leisure

May 11, 2009
[Regarding Bruce Hetrick's April 27 column] "Redefining community in virtual and political reality," the implied idea is that the surrounding counties benefit from such Indianapolis amenities mentioned: Indiana Repertory Theatre, the Indianapolis Museum of Art, etc. and the unmentioned Indiana Pacers and Indianapolis Colts.

The key phrase in the entire article is "healthy communities." To hold Carmel up as a healthy community is to turn a blind eye to the mountain of debt run up by that city's mayor. Healthy communities provide the fundamental necessities in a balanced way that does not put undue burden on those who live in that "time and space."

If the tax base of Carmel will not support the Arts District now under construction, should Mayor [Jim] Brainard be able to seek funds from the surrounding communities, say Indianapolis? Should anyone be obligated to pay for something or someone where we have no voice? How would I vote Jim Brainard out of office if I disagree with his spending habits?

If I attend a Colts game or go to the Museum of Art, I buy a ticket. It is time that we let the patrons pay. And when we become that patron, let us pay what it is worth and quit asking other people to pay for your and my quality of life. If the value is there we will pay the price; if it is not, we will not. That is a market solution.

Mike Hutson
Source: XMLAr00901.xml
Comments powered by Disqus