I suppose I could fret a little over the idea of Sioux Falls creeping a couple miles closer to the fair shores of Lake Herman (so far we've avoided the transformation of our lake into a Sioux Falls exurb, but I'm keeping watch). But this evening I find more interesting two key sentences about this new development:
- "The Convention and Visitor's Bureau predicts the $180 million dollar project will pay for itself over time...."
- "...the project is privately funded by Redstone Development."
I like the FAQ for the proposed gym.
ReplyDeleteI like how it's all about the gym, and athletics. Guh.
I wonder if some sort of multi-purpose performing arts complex would be something that could generate revenue on its own. Sure it could host MHS theater and musical performances.
But it could be rented out for other activities. That could actually bring in revenue.
How does a gym bring in money? Is there a scenario where they could rent it?
And if the argument is a gym brings in visitors, keep in mind they generate sales tax. And this would be funded by property tax. So who's that benefit?
Charge more property tax to generate more sales tax -- indeed, something is unbalanced in that equation. Property tax comes out of the pockets of homeowners and farmers; sales tax goes into the city and state coffers; sales revenue goes into the pockets of a handful of businesses (restaurants, gas stations, and our three meager motels) serving the visitor industry. Note too that those businesses generally pay their workers lower than average wages, so we could argue that a disproportionate amount of any extra revenue generated will go to a disproportionately small clique of business owners who will trickle very little extra money down to their near-minimum-wage employees. I'm not hearing the economic boom here.
ReplyDeleteIf you do the figures on this $5.8M gym, over the course of the 25 year bonds, the actual cost of the gym is over twice that much. And this is wise use of taxpayer dollars? By the time it's paid off, they will be screaming that it's too old and outdated and they will want another one. As long as it's not coming out of the promoter's pockets (one of them actually will pay $0 toward it), what do they care? I'll be paying for it but won't get one cent or benefit back on my "investment" for the next 25 years if this boondoggle is passed.
ReplyDeleteI urge those who are against this gym to come to the meeting tomorrow night where the promoters will once again try to convince everyone how much it's needed. Let them know that it's not all that popular with many people. Tomorrow night at 7:00 in the middle school lunchroom.
ReplyDelete