Last Chance To STOP The Event Center.

[Mike B.]

Pistol Pete,

The County has already decided to vote on a one-half percent (1/2%) sales tax, in April, to fund a new jail! Reguardless of wheather the WND tax is repealed or not. The new tax for the jail does have a sunset, unlike the WND!

[Army_of_One]

Is there enough support to pass the sales tax for the jail?

[Flying Dutchman]

With the right PR it would AOO.

[hoarsewhisperer]

Originally Posted by lurker

A Super Jail would have a better cost/benefit ratio than a Spatial Events Center. Dun-rite it could be marketed to the ICE guys. We got's the starter seeds. Throw some in, add some free-wholees and salsa. Folks will come from as far away as Mexico just to stay there.

tho your tongue was in your cheek lurker, there is a cerain amt. of truth in what you say. Changes with illegals coming very soon and we'll need the room to house them, and with this part of the state being the illegal mexican capital of the world, I see a need for "selling" that commodity to the entire state. Heck, we'll even throw in bi-lingual services for free

[TexKan]

Originally Posted by hoarsewhisperer

tho your tongue was in your cheek lurker, there is a cerain amt. of truth in what you say. Changes with illegals coming very soon and we'll need the room to house them, and with this part of the state being the illegal mexican capital of the world, I see a need for "selling" that commodity to the entire state. Heck, we'll even throw in bi-lingual services for free

It's long overdue - don't matter what ya need to tell them - capitol of the world????.......... there are plenty that believe that I'm sure but even Texas might have to stand in line for that title - right behind Arizona and California!

Wanted to give a look see at our new facility. The old jail they are planning on turning into a Federal Facility. So no building wasted. The feds I think are buying it.

Welcome to Galveston County

[lurker]

By nature my tongue hangs out and is an embarrassment to common and decent folks; but I'm serious. The SEC isn't a good economic development effort (now or in the future) because it can't be relied on to bring in a constant supply of new money.

Healthcare or incarceration is a growing business and is funded by (mostly) gubberment monies.....

Which is worth following.

[Mike B.]

luker,

I agree with you. As good as tourism can be, it can only take a community so far. It takes a business with local employees depositing and spending thier salaries in the community in which they live.

Healthcare is one of the fastest growing industries around. Sooner or later we will all need it.

A new jail is appealing to alot of people, even myself. But I have a hard time supporting yet another tax. It seems as if there is no end to Gov't. wanting my money. I will most likely vote no, on a sales tax increase. WND sales tax should go, and then I'd support a tax for the new jail. I've spoken to approx. 100 people and I keep hearing the same thing from the majority of them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't some time ago we had a vote for a sales tax to build a new jail? It must have failed.

[Detector]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't some time ago we had a vote for a sales tax to build a new jail? It must have failed.

True Mike, but didn't we also vote twice to build the SEC? As you can see voting in dodge really doesn't mean a whole lot.

I have no doubt we need a new jail, heck dodge is oozing with potential customers, but I think we are failing to capitalize on our greatest natural resource. Tourism is not going to cure all our problems but it can sure help.

I think we have a responsibility to preserve the legend for future generations.

We have all but wiped historic Dodge City off the map selling our sole to industry. Look what industry has done for us in return. I truly believe tourism is our only answer to getting out from under the hand of industry. And I truly believe the Why Not Dodge project, as a package, could kick start our withdraw from our packinghouse addiction. I also believe the powers that be know this as well and will fight it to the end.

[lurker]

As much as I'd like to agree with you, Detector, I'm stuck on tourism's being driven by the entertainment media but they don't seem to be very interested in Cowboys and Indians.

[lurker]

While reading the HutchNews' top editorial this morning I was awestruck with disbelief.... not because of what the editorial said, but by disbelief that the News 'might' have replaced their editor with an intelligent being.

Remember the unseen

By Sarah McIntosh

Special to The News

The Kansas legislative session is now in full swing. As policymakers debate the issues, they should strive to remember one thing, that which too often goes unseen.

Politics naturally lead to looking at the first consequence - the most obvious, upfront and easily identifiable result of any political action. This result is what the public typically hears about and what the politicians then use to garner future support from their constituents. But, both the public and the politicians also should consider what is unseen: all of the other consequences.

In 1848, French political economist Frederic Bastiat published a book that laid out some basic principles of public policy that we should all consider when making important political decisions. In his book, "Selected Essays on Political Economy," Bastiat tells the story of a broken window. Far from being distressed, onlookers say that such accidents help keep the economy thriving by spurring on spending that otherwise would have not taken place. "What would become of the glaziers if no one ever broke a window?"

The onlookers are thinking about what they see - a broken window in need of repair. So, when someone then spends money to fix the window, the glazier benefits.

That's true. Here's the problem, though: what is not seen has been ignored. Bastiat's point is that the money would have been spent on something else had someone not broken the window. Maybe the person would have bought a book or replaced his worn out shoes. We don't see those other options so we don't think about the trade-off. Plus, something has been destroyed (the window) and society has lost the value of the window. That is a definite consequence.

It's a simple concept but a tough lesson for us all to learn.

Here's the lesson for public policy: When the government spends money on a program, there is a trade-off. Either that money could have been spent on some other government program or it could have been spent by the person who earned the money. Yet, we tend to value government programs only by what we see as good coming from the program, not compared to what could have been.

What is unseen is what taxpayers do with money. For instance, they invest in Kansas businesses, they purchase goods and services, and they donate to causes that are important to them. Every time the government spends a dollar, that is a dollar that would have been used for something else.

Part of this lesson is to remember that good intentions can lead to bad results. When the government establishes or funds a program that it thinks will help people, it must be sure the decision does more good than harm. The only way to assess that honestly is to look both at the immediate consequences and the unseen results. And it is the public's job to hold politicians to that.

This concept applies to every issue and every law. One big area of concern before many states, including Kansas, is what to do about health care. But what happens when universal health care is established? Empirically, it leads to long waiting lists for procedures and a lack of doctors who will provide the services needed. Those are significant consequences to weigh.

Another perennial issue is public works. Wichita is building an arena. Proponents have claimed that this arena will lead to economic growth and more jobs. But those who have looked at the unseen point out that any economic growth actually will be a shift in economic activity from one area to another. People only have so much disposable income. If they decide to go to dinner downtown before attending an arena event, they are spending money that they probably would have spent eating somewhere else and on some other entertainment. That does not result in a net economic gain.

When people privately purchase services and make household decisions, they look at the costs and the trade-offs to them. It is also up to people to make sure that decisions made by the government are made understanding their consequences and trade-offs. It may be easier to sit back and let the government spend money, but we must remember it is our money and our futures, too. Kansans should demand the best value for those dollars.

Sarah McIntosh is director of outreach for the Kansas-based Flint Hills Center for Public Policy.

03/02/2007; 02:40:19 AM

Turns out I'd passed-over reading the "by" line until I got to the last line....

If you didn't read it, just know that Sarah says that someone's deciding to spend money in an Events Center instead of at the Movie Theater IS NOT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Congress deciding to take your money to spend on gubber-programs vs. letting you decide where to spend your money IS NOT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, either.

Oh, the News should continue to 'outsource' their editorial comment.