Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "It Seems Limbo Is The Answer":
I never thought to be arguing in favour
of the Jazz Gang. But if we charge them for the use of that park, we can't we
simply charge the Center for their use of the Church Street building? What is
fit for one should apply to the other. More so in the case of the Center as they
have to bring in the Museum. Can't have a 2-tier system of rules. Last time I
checked, Council set the rules. Make them equable
We do not charge for use of the park We charge for use of the bandstand.
Despite that they do not pay to use the park andtherefore have no jurisdiction over the park, , we allow them to erect a chain link fence and keep people out who own the park , unless they pay a fee to enter their own park .
We allow the bandstand fee payers to rent space to vendors in the park. Spac they themselve have not paid for.
We have given them money as well on the pretext local business benefits from the activity.
When the phrase "arms length authority" is employed, the above is an example of "political interference" envisioned. that makes a business like operation unachievable.
For the politician ,it is a down-payment on future support in the inevitable election.
Council adopts a policy that users will pay a fee for costs of facility operation.
In so doing,, the community is assured everyone is being treated fairly. Most people don't have time to pay attention. The assurance is nothing more than should be expected . So they accept it. Most would never think of asking to be exempted from fees, simply on the understanding of fairness. .
But there are some who have no compunction. For example, a fund-raising organisation for a hospital or a charity. They might raise upwards of a hundred thousand dollarsand yet they believe, in the personal triumph of a big figure, it justifies a request for waiver of a couple of hundred dollar user fee. .
And because they don't. recognise the anomally, politicians choose to see it either. Or if they do they don't have the intestinal fortitude to say no.
They fear being accused of being unsympathetic to the cause. In fact, they will go as far as to say the good works of charity is "what it's all about".
In the last term, people were encouraged to come to Council with outrageous demands.
Like a couple who wanted newly installed baseball lights removed because they could see the poles from their dining room window when the leaves were off the trees.
We were prepared to do it too. A.s an alternative, we were willing to plant mature evergreens to obscure the view of the poles in the winter.
The property was for sale. It had been re-designated to a higher value land use than the single family residential it occupied.
I don't believe the trees were planted after all but we wereready to do it.
It was a climate of irrational entitlement with the underlying benefit always to the politicians.
No matter how shallow or feeble, they could always find a righteous reason for a ridiculous decision and take their chances the general population were not paying attention.
That was a miscalculaton.
But they did their best to change that as well.