Quote:
Originally Posted by Northcrossed
Fact number one is that NYC budgeted $16 million for "design and construction" and fact number two is you now say NYC spent $170 million. What appears to have happened (which I'm not saying is a fact, but is a reasonable hypothesis) is the State, Federal, and private contributions didn't meet expectations so the city made-up the difference. Perhaps the budget was $170 million total but they didn't get squat from other sources, or perhaps they got what they originally hoped to get from other sources but costs increased.
Government always low-balls the cost of projects to get the voters on board before reality sets-in. I think an above-ground Waller Creek project is worth doing, especially if it helps pay for the tunnel that will diminish the flooding threat downstream. But the reality is that they've already shortened the tunnel and scrapped a lot of the masonry and landscaping at the tunnel's intake and outlet to try to keep the budget down (but they only want you to remember the pretty project originally proposed). The city's TIF still wasn't enough funding, so they had to get Travis County on board to pay half (with the lure of splitting future casino taxes, I'd imagine). And there's lots of time left for it to become more expensive and less-pretty.
So you don't mistake my "tone and bias" here it is: It isn't government's job to fund "creative projects to spur creative jobs". Governments need to provide services (and reasonable parks and recreation facilities are a needed service) and keep their debt down so businesses will be willing to take a chance on investing their own resources there, knowing that sober, responsible people and institutions (eg: UT) have made the place what it is and likely will continue to be. Or you can champion an end result such as creativity without ever knowing how things get created in the first place; maybe you'll get lucky or maybe you'll fail. Austin is too important to risk on hope-driven schemes. California is a very creative place, but they've bankrupted themselves by only chasing end results while ignoring the economic climate, then over-reacting with propositions to destroy what they previously demanded. Businesses see the lack of stability and are leaving and taking jobs with them.
Oh, here's an idea! New York has a city income tax (and state, and federal), even on workers who commute from the hinterland...we should have one of those too! That'll pay for all kinds of creativity and attract lots of high-salary jobs...oh, no it won't...sorry...nevermind.
|
So are you against all subsidization of creativity by government? In any form? Architecture? Parkland? You do know education is also part of this. Museums? Where is the line? Because I have heard the argument that none of that should be done by the government. I am guessing since you singled out the "creative class" you were definitely against Villa Muse. Frankly though, I think it is very clear that Austin's focus on the "Creative Class" is what has allowed Austin to prosper, especially in this hard economic times. The creative class allows a city to develop a diverse economy. Sure this includes artists and musicians. But this also includes architects, web designers, advertisers, engineers that create new products, and many entreupenuers that start the small business that "Keep Austin Weird." After all, what is more creative then looking at a city, seeing a market that isn't served, and then creating a business to profit off it. And the government has long been essential in providing the environment that attracts these types of professionals and allows them to flourish. Whether it be good schools, parks that we can all enjoy, districts like 2nd Street, and other quality of life investments that makes this city great. Even the one institution you cited as a reason businesses come here undermines your argument. Isn't UT a large government institution? Yes, yes it is. And it is by far the best argument in why governments need to invest in the "creative class" to remain competitive. After all, where would Austin be without UT. And I know that UT is a state institution. But those same principles work at the city level too. It is those investments that attract so many UT students to stay here after their education is finished and become very productive members of the Austin community.
Oh, and it seems like you finished your post by insinuating that New York City doesn't attract high-salary jobs. I don't even think I need to address that one. That just seems silly. And the city income taxes only apply to city residents. And it is a huge injustice to the issues involved to simplify the problems in California to just a consequence of overspending by politicians. There are countless aspects to that issue that would need a whole another discussion all together.
Prev
Linear Mode
