Re: letter to the editor--never published

[G M <herecomestheflood@yahoo.com>]

Wow.  Thanks for sharing this Evelyn.

And don't many of you agree that this piece does
indeed deserve to appear in the Daily News, perhaps as
a guest editorial?


Greg Meyer



--- Neil  Palmer <pooch@moscow.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com