This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
As I continue to wait for a reply from the athletic supporters to my question about seeking private donations for the new gym to relieve the public debt burden, I pass along this Lincoln (NE) Journal Star story about a sixty-something Nebraska couple raising money for a new sports facility. Chuck and Sharon Moore of Fairbury, Nebraska (population 4262), have spent the last three years raising donations for a new 1500-seat football/track stadium for the local high school. So far they've raised over $500,000 from 500 donors. They need $1.5 million to complete the project. The article makes no mention of turning to the school district or the city or any other source of public dollars, nor does it sound like the Moores are worried that they have to hurry to finish the project:
Like her husband, Sharon Moore knows how to stick with something long term. She’s been a bus driver for Fairbury Public Schools for 32 years. She’s taken that same persistent, hard-working attitude into the stadium project, which she hopes will be completed for the 2008-09 school year.
“Someone asked me, ‘What if you only get $350,000?’ and I said that we’ll keeping working until we get it done,’’ she said. “It’s a slow process, but we’ll get there. Our goal is to have one of the most impressive football and track facilities in this area.’"
Maybe Madison's athletic supporters could take a lesson from the Moores. Instead of seeking instant gratification, playing marketing games by trying to capitalize on the buzz around our successful boys basketball team, and fostering a false sense of urgency, the gym backers could do the patient hard work of a long-term fundraising campaign. Such a project would avoid the hard feelings of an election battle and maybe even promote community spirit as people voluntarily join together in a cause they believe in.
(Maybe their first donor could be a Ralph Kappenman, 1974 MHS graduate, now living in Hutchinson, Kansas, who writes a letter to the editor in Thursday's MDL. Kappenman sends his congratulations for our initiative to build a new gym. "You certainly have my support. Go Bulldogs!" While he doesn't say so in his letter, I'm sure my fellow MHS alumnus will follow up his declaration of support with a pledge to send $120 a year every year for the next 25 years to help pay for the gym, just to match the contribution this resident taxpayer will be required to make if the ballot measure passes.)
Mrs. Times should talk to her family in Grand Island, NE (population 45,000). Granted, that's quite a bit bigger than Madison, or Fairbury, mentioned in the article.
ReplyDeleteBut even in a town of 45,000, voters rejected building a multipurpose Events Center (including arena). So they raised money from donors, sold seats, naming rights, etc. They even had a telethon, and talent shows. Plus they passed a motel tax, not a sales or property tax. Visitors help pay for it too.
A professional fundraiser was hired, and more money came in from corporate interests and local foundations, families, and grants.
The concept was hatched 25 years ago. They got serious about it ten years ago, and last fall the building opened.
Surely the Madison Pride people could hit up every foundation and corporation in the area? And look for every grant? Have they tried to find other tenants who could pay rent?
I don't get the sense all the possibilities have been exhausted. Let's think creatively. Asking voters to raise taxes shouldn't be the first step. If people take pride in Madison, ask them to write a check proving it.
Right on, Steve! There seem to be many examples of communities building a project like this through private fundraising. I remain puzzled as to why the backers of this project have started by asking the school district to fund such a non-essential project. I have not heard any discussion of private fundraising efforts, not even as a supplement to the dollars the bond issue will raise.
ReplyDeleteAs the regulars here know, I always prefer to step back and consider the philosophical principles around the issue rather than the issue itself. And on all this gym hooey, the question presented itself to me, "Is it ever fair for 51% of the citizens to force the other 49% to pay for something they don't want?" If 51% of the citizens want a gym, why don't they just split the cost among themselves? It seems unjust to force anyone to pay for something they don't want.
ReplyDeleteThis doesn't apply only to gyms, but also things like the public library, state park, and swimming pool. If I don't read, camp, or swim, why should I be required to pay for those institutions? The reading group should be able to sustain the library on their own donations.
Push the question far enough, though, and we have to consider the public funding of roads, prisons, and national defense... where I maintain that there are a certain core group of services that we need taxes (forced donations) to fund. (Even on roads I wonder if we can't raise the money needed solely through license plate/drivers' license rates and a gas tax.) Once we cut out of the gov's budget everything that isn't connected to a basic need (welfare, medicaid, medicare, ssn, NASA, mohair subsidies, libraries, state parks, gyms, etc.) we would have gobs of leftover income to donate to our favorite charities, hospitals, retirement plans, retirement homes, libraries, and basketball gyms. And, it would all be voluntary.
Forced dontations are almost always unfair... and should be used as sparingly as possible.
And while we're at it... we should abolish income and property taxes, and wrap it all up in a sales tax (with exemptions for basic needs: water, bread, fruits, veggies, diapers, clothes at Goodwill, etc.). Sales tax is the fairest tax and the easiest tax to report. Then the folks at H&R Block can get a job doing something productive for society... rather than having a manufactured career to help us transfer money to the government. Any tax code that requires us to seek professional advice just to make sure we are sending in the right amount of money, is an unfair tax code.
A couple of points...
ReplyDeleteFor starters, a bond issue in South Dakota requires 60% approval to pass, not the 51% that David alludes to.
Secondly, I've seen smaller schools that have TWICE the gym space that Madison has. McCook Central, Lennox, Sioux Valley all have much larger facilities than Madison has and with the exception of Lennox, don't offer nearly all the activities MHS does. It kind of gives the idea of civic pride a black eye when we are forced to showcase the best of our students in a crackerbox.
I like the idea of fundraising. It would take a major chunk out of the bond resolution. BUT, my concern is that construction costs will continue to rise and if we continue to dink around with the financing of this we'll have one of two things happen...
1) Construction costs will rise so much it will be financially non-feasible to build the thing.
If you don't believe me, read any business publication. They'll tell you that construction costs continue to rise. In fact, my old high school was forced to hold off on a project because the cost of steel had risen so much, it would have broken the budget.
2) We'll be forced to build a lower-quality facility. Most people in town say, "If we're gonna build it, let's build it right." I've seen the plans and they look fairly plain-jane. And as for the comments about 8 locker rooms and a sauna an d Jacuzzi? I've seen the plans... and unless my counting is wrong, I see three locker rooms (for teams and officials). No Sauna and as for a jacuzzi? There might be a hydrotherapy tub, but it's basically a metal tub that fits one person and basically has an outboard motor at the end of it.
Anyway, that's my two cents on the deal. I see my comments have to be approved, so I'm hoping, in the name of being fair, balanced and hearing the other side, you'll do so.
Hi, Jackrabit1!
ReplyDeleteOn rising construction costs -- what about rising cost of living that might require us to raise teacher salaries? What about rising energy costs that will increase the operating budget? What about property tax assessments tat are going up at least 10% for my wife and me this year (that's without the bond issue... and I'm certainly not getting a 10% raise from anyone to help me cover that).Some of the gym boosters aren't even on the property tax rolls, while some of us living on teacher salaries budget down to that last hundred dollars. An increase of that size in our property tax -- this year, next year, whenever -- is a big deal, and not something we can take lightly. When even that hundred dollars is that important to our budget, we can't part with it without a more compelling case being made for educational necessity. A bigger gym doesn't increase educational opportunities.
Rising construction costs don't seem to have deterred the Moores in Fairbury from taking a patient approach to raising private dollars for their project. Sure, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. But if it's worth doing right, there's no need to rush it. And if it's so good for the local economy, then private donors ought to be pounding down the doors (or at least the P.O. box) of the gym boosters organization.
On showcasing "the best of our students": I suggest that the best of our students are the kids earning big scholarships for academic work, much of which takes place without any cheering crowds in sight. I've coached three debaters who went on to earn Briggs Scholarships to SDSU, and they didn't need 2000 spectators to do it.
On Lincoln HS: I recognize that the actual building plans are very different. I'll grant that our previous architects apparently didn't think about leaving room to expand the gym when they extended the middle school around the east side. A simple expansion may not be an option for Madison. But the main point, as made by Matthew Paulson in his Tuesday letter to the editor in the MDL, is that a high school with an enrollment of almost 1900 can make do with a gym that holds 2000 spectators. Madison's enrollment is 391, with no big jump in the foreseeable future. What's the difference between demand for seating for athletics at Lincoln and at Madison?
Ultimately, I'm not any more worried about trying to be like Lincoln than I am about trying to be like Lennox or Volga. Our primary concern as taxpayers and school district supporters should be to make sure we are spending our tax dollars to maximize educational opportunities for students.
On civic pride: If other small towns wish to express their civic pride by pouring millions of dollars into giant gyms, that's their problem. We can express our civic pride just as well (if not better) by funding more academic programs, paying our teachers something closer to what they deserve, or even saving our tax dollars for rainier days and building a sports facility entirely through proud private donations.
On comment approval -- there you are. See the comment moderation policy for full details. Welcome to the show!
"For starters, a bond issue in South Dakota requires 60% approval to pass, not the 51% that David alludes to."
ReplyDeleteThanks for the correction. However, that doesn't change my argument that it is inherently unfair for 60% of the population to force the other 40% to pay for something they do not want. Any community "luxury" item like a gym, a library, a swimming pool, or a state park should be supported by voluntary donations and/or tickets at the door.
Fundraising for gyms, swimming pools, etc. is a real good idea. I really wish the city of Sioux Falls would let the people who want an indoor pool to replace the Drake Springs pool, would do that. Instead they want to spend millions more for an indoor pool, and then in turn they are talking about cutting paratransit services.
ReplyDelete