letter to the editor--never published

["Neil Palmer" <pooch@moscow.com>]

This was intended to be a letter to the editor of the Daily News. It
is from a family friend from Toledo, Ohio who recently visited. Since
it has not appeared in the Daily News in the last nine days, I thought
I would simply post it for the Vision 2020 list.

Evelyn Palmer

----------
> From: mike ferner <mferner@utoledo.edu>
> To: editor1@moscow.com
> Subject: Moscow visit
> Date: Sunday, June 06, 1999 6:45 PM
> 
Roger Kendall, Managing Editor
Moscow Daily News
Moscow, ID

Dear Mr. Kendall,

A couple of weeks ago, I visited some friends in your city and had the
opportunity to discuss local political issues.  Reflecting on those
discussions prompted the following op ed piece.  I am submitting it for
your consideration for an upcoming issue of the Daily News.

By way of bio information, I served two terms as an independent member
of Toledo City Council from 1989-1993, and ran for mayor as an
independent in 1993.  Currently I work as Communications Director for
the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO, a union representing
migrant farmworkers in Ohio, Michigan, NC, and Florida.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.  Thank you
very much for  your time and consideration.

Mike Ferner
419-243-3456 (work)
729-7273 (home)

                        ************************

     On a recent, lovely visit to Moscow, I had the good fortune to take
in many local sights, and  also talk with residents about some of the
issues facing Moscow's citizenry.
     One issue that caught my attention was the question of planning for
the new municipal pool,  and how much corporate sponsorship to allow.
     If you think that questions about whether to allow corporate logos
on umbrellas or a water slide are mundane and trite, I urge you to think
again.  This very question is sweeping the nation's municipalities and
school districts like a wildfire.  And I believe it is not an
overstatement to say that the long-term consequences for our democracy
are every bit as serious.
     For three of the four years I was in local government in Toledo,
our economy, tied closely to the auto industry, experienced a serious
recession.  Day after day we agonized over budget cuts to significant
programs for our citizens.  We scrambled for funds from any source
imaginable.
     It was during this period that we discovered what we thought was an
ingenious source of revenue--not huge, but large enough to save some key
programs from the ax.
     Corporations, like the grocery chain that controlled most of
Toledo's food stores, banks, and manufacturing firms, offered to sponsor
a host of programs in city parks that had previously been strictly
publicly funded.  With only a vague sense of unease, I agreed with my
colleagues who enthusiastically endorsed this great new idea.  Corporate
banners began appearing at many city park events.
     About this same time I noticed the school district embarking on
similar ventures.  At one downtown parade, I saw a high school band
marching behind a banner proclaiming it was "brought to you by
Kroger's."  School buildings began sprouting signs thanking companies
for "adopting us," by providing funding for items not otherwise possible
with tight school budgets.

 It was not until after I left office and took time to seriously reflect
on this new trend that I began to realize that what I had witnessed and
participated in was much more than "entrepreneurial, win-win,
public-private-partnerships."  It was much more than simply a question
of whether corporate signage was in good or bad taste.  It really did
strike to the heart of our democracy at the most fundamental
level--local government.  Here's what I mean.
     With just two tax abatement votes, local government in Toledo
lifted over $100 million in tax liability from Owens-Corning Corp. and
Daimler-Chrysler Corp., and placed it squarely on the backs of local
citizens and small businesses.  In addition to the abatements, local
government gave these companies nearly another $100 million in outright
public "gifts" in the form of infrastructure improvements and cash
grants.  State and federal treasuries were similarly raided.  With the
public purse pauperized, the rest becomes predictable:

   * School officials help soft drink companies win brand loyalty and
     future market share among young consumers with "sole supplier"
     contracts that promise some added revenues for textbooks.
   * Our public officials told citizens that parks will get improvements
     only when "private partners" are secured--partners that will not
     invest in unseen infrastructure, but only in ball diamonds and
     swimming pools that can be named after them.
   * The same corporations that receive millions in subsidies make
     tax-deductible contributions to school levy campaigns, so the
     patriotic suckers still on the tax rolls can keep public
     institutions afloat.
   * With what remains of our democracy, we elect our city councils and
     school boards.  But none of us voted for the corporate officials
     who increasingly have more to say about allocating resources within
     our public institutions.

         What do we teach our children and ourselves by all this?  Be
careful.  Don't rock the boat.  If you're a public official, be careful
not to ask "anti-business" questions.  Be quiet.  Get in line.
Government incompetent.  Corporations good. Thank the new monarch for
small favors.
     What a far cry from when populist forces in every state in the
union kept corporations on a very short leash; when "we the people"
understood ourselves to be sovereign over all the institutions we
created--including corporations.  How quickly we went from this status
to simply being consumers and taxpayers with so little control over our
lives and our own institutions.
     Surely this change has been presented to us as "progress," and of
course no one wants to be judged as standing in the way.  But how do we
measure progress?  How have we strayed so far from being self-governing
people?
     For all these reasons, I believe that your debate about corporate
sponsorship of public facilities is more than a question of good taste
or attractive design.  It is about very fundamental values to
self-governing people.  Public facilities should be just
that--public--and not another venue for corporate advertising to
continue its omnipresent assault on our culture and our institutions.
                                   ###