Re: Office depot, skating rink, & other things...

[curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM]

I appreciate Mr. Schutz's insight into both the Palouse Mall 
decision-making process and the history of the Moscow skating 
rinks--which substantiates Mayme Trumble's prior comment that two 
probably failed where one succeeded.

However, the comment about the parks and recreational facilities 
seems to me to beg the question that was posed by Lois Melina about 
public funding of recreational facilities and activities.   What is 
the justification for the city/county being involved in creating 
"parks and open spaces" but no other recreational facilities?       
Don't we as a community get to choose whether we want a park or a 
skating rink or a swimming pool or soccer fields, or tennis courts, 
or. . .?  I thought that within the bounds of the Constitution that 
WE make the government--that we decide whether to struggle with 
sub-standard school buildings, roads, and bridges--or to fund the 
maintenance and replacement thereof;  that we decide how many police 
and sheriff officers we want to maintain our security; where we want 
industry, agriculture, businesses, and residences within our 
community.  And, in fact, we have traditionally decided, as Lois 
Melina pointed out, to have recreational sports leagues for children, 
ballfields for adults, swimming pools, and parks.  I'm not sure that 
simply saying recreation isn't the business of government answers the 
question historically or legally.  If it was simply Mr. Schutz's 
personal answer, I respect it as how he "votes" on those issues, 
however differently i might vote.  
As an earlier writer pointed out, there is perhaps a governmental 
economics issue in this discussion.  If it's true that the 
availability of recreational activities reduces crime (and, thereby, 
the  law enforcement and prison costs of the government, to say 
nothing of the social costs), isn't that another legitimate basis 
upon which community members might support spending for recreational 
activities?  
That said, I also support Mr. Schutz's idea that a group of 
interested community members can create recreational facilities--for 
profit or not. In some ways such private interests have advantages 
over government-sponsored activities.  To name just one, private 
interests are not subject to the bidding process, but can negotiate 
openly for the best price available for the building of a facility, 
supplies, maintenance, etc.
Thanks to all the writers to date on this topic.  It is timely, 
significant to our community, and thought-provoking.

Mike Curley