|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
O(myholymotherof)G WMDs! The New York Times > Int... In Honor Of... ...nothing in particular, I've add... Car Woes II I shouldn't say "woes" because I actu... Oklahoma Senator Makes Ass of Himself ... an ongo... Goofy OBJECTIVE: Christian Ministries: "For the s... just a test There are some new setting popping up... Heretic Tulsa bishop reacts to heretic charge: "... Don't Servants Create Lunch? atlass.gif (GIF Imag... Classic Perle, Better Than Classic Coke? Richard ... File Under... Learned something new: Saturday. ... Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
5.18.2004
Taxfest? A recent Fox23 poll asked a question: "Would you be willing to pay more in taxes to fund Mayfest?" The majority (over 90%) of the participants in the poll responded "no". There seems to be at least possible interpretations of this poll result, besides the obvious "this poll is bunk!" response. One, most people don't care for Mayfest. They would be willing to pay extra taxes to support an event in Tulsa but they don't feel that Mayfest is worth forking over the few extra bucks. I can sympathize with this view. I made the effort to attend this years Mayfest and I didn't find too much that really made me glad that I did. But it was free to attend, so my attendance was by no means an endorsement. I went to see the Blue Dome Festival more than Mayfest, and the events provided a good excuse to visit downtown with my camera and take some pictures of the buildings and scenery. I purchased no meats on sticks or works of art. I did however stop by McNellies for a beer. Possible interpretation number two: Most people are unwilling to spend any extra money on taxes for anything even if it meant having the coolest, most kick ass festival event known to man. Taxes are bad and any event like Mayfest should be operated privately, supported by whatever people are willing to pay to attend, or what sponsors are willing to pay to be associated with it. I can see the merit in this viewpoint as well. We may all be thinking that "other people" like Mayfest and we just go because its free and something to do on a weekend. Why should we collectively pay for something that should be supported by private means? This past weekend I also attended the Renaissance Faire in Muskogee. I have a friend that is part of a show there so I went to see him do his act and to take even more pictures. From what I know, the Ren Faire does not operate with any public funds. You pay to get in and you pay "event prices" for food, drink, merchandise and other "special" events you want to participate in. You choose the level of financial investment you are willing to make and if gawking at women with pushed up boobs and hearing all manner of bad medieval accents is not your thing it doesn't cost you a penny to stay away. A publicly supported event would cost you money whether you choose to attend or not. These things look pretty simple then don't they? Let events pay for themselves, and if they can't survive then we are better off without them. Let the events that people are willing to support thrive and the rest can be forgotten. I can see though that there might be a good reason to use some public tax money to support certain events or projects. Too often we overlook the less than immediate effects of public investments. For instance, festivals like Mayfest are important tools to promote the "livability" of a city. While I doubt that many people would move to Tulsa just to attend Mayfest once a year they might see it as a factor in determining their choice of where to live. Having "places to go, things to see" might not be as important as job relocation or overall cost of living but it does contribute to the overall appeal of a city. Younger people especially see entertainment options as important considerations when choosing a city. "All work and no play..." While I agree that privately funded forms of entertainment are the most desirable from all points of view I also feel that cities and states can spur private development by providing infrastructure investments in the form of Arenas, beautification or transportation options. ------ On a (maybe not so) related note: Oklahoma is one of a handful of states that have put a ban on gay marriage on the ballot for a vote. I have to wonder why we are trying so hard to alienate a group of people that could be a benefit to our state? Ohioans for Growth and Equality, a lobbying group that opposed the measure, said the new law will harm the state's economy. When the name of the game is attracting people to your state, why would we want to sign at the border that says "gays not welcome"? Are we to assume that becoming a haven for intolerant people is a better way of selling ourselves? |
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
