Poll: Do You Support St. Louis Selling Bonds To Fund Park Improvements?
St. Louis will be selling bonds to fund improvements to the city’s park system. From STLtoday.com on Friday:
St. Louis aldermen today overwhelmingly approved a plan to issue $64 million in bonds for city parks, with about $30 million to be spent on improvements at Forest Park.
What’s not to like about better parks?
Comptroller Darlene Green isn’t happy about the city taking on more debt:
On Thursday, Green was outvoted when two related bills authorizing the funding plan passed the city’s three-person Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which also includes Mayor Francis Slay and Aldermanic President Lewis Reed. Aldermen today approved the bills by wide margins. (article)
So St. Louis will take on more debt. In a November 30th letter to the Board of Aldermen, Comptroller Green explained her concerns about paying off the debt.
This seems like a perfect subject for a weekly poll question: Do you support St. Louis selling bonds to fund park improvements? The poll is in the right sidebar, results will be posted Wednesday December 14th.
– Steve Patterson
I support taking on more debt to improve parks. Â Parks are central to urban development and attracting new business and residents as well promoting tourism in the case of Forest Park.
I support taking on more debt to improve parks. Parks are central to urban development and attracting new business and residents as well promoting tourism in the case of Forest Park.
I support funding parks maintenance and improvements. I do NOT support allocating 47% to one park (Forest Park), especially when it already has a dedicated funding stream, while most other parks do not.
I support funding parks maintenance and improvements. I do NOT support allocating 47% to one park (Forest Park), especially when it already has a dedicated funding stream, while most other parks do not.
I kinda find it ironic that the city is going forward with this while Dooley in the county is ready to shut down parks. However, this bond issue is not really straight forward as it seems and JZ71 brings up one of the issues that didn’t get enough discussion for one thing. In other words, this was really pushed through quickly and had a lot to do with people more concerned about Forest Park then anything else.
I’m also curios on who are the donors who are supposedly lined up to give Forest Park Forever $25 million if not mistaken. My understanding is that was a big part of the push.Â
I kinda find it ironic that the city is going forward with this while Dooley in the county is ready to shut down parks. However, this bond issue is not really straight forward as it seems and JZ71 brings up one of the issues that didn’t get enough discussion for one thing. In other words, this was really pushed through quickly and had a lot to do with people more concerned about Forest Park then anything else.
I’m also curios on who are the donors who are supposedly lined up to give Forest Park Forever $25 million if not mistaken. My understanding is that was a big part of the push.
As long as it only affects the City of STL that is fine by me. I have no problem with the County getting rid of some of the parks.
And really, Forest Park is the only “park” that matters nowadays so they might as well just allocate most of the funds towards it anyways, at least it won’t go down the drain.
If not, just put the money towards the parks that can actually be viable or else the city will end up doing what Dooley is having no choice but to do.
And I know its so liberal to say “save the parks” but honestly, right now my pocketbook would rather be more conservative in these economic hard times. Can’t afford to be liberal.
As long as it only affects the City of STL that is fine by me. I have no problem with the County getting rid of some of the parks.
And really, Forest Park is the only “park” that matters nowadays so they might as well just allocate most of the funds towards it anyways, at least it won’t go down the drain.
If not, just put the money towards the parks that can actually be viable or else the city will end up doing what Dooley is having no choice but to do.
And I know its so liberal to say “save the parks” but honestly, right now my pocketbook would rather be more conservative in these economic hard times. Can’t afford to be liberal.
Please clarify: “And really, Forest Park is the only “park” that matters nowadays”
Forest Park may be the largest park in the system, but there are approximately 100 other ones in the city, as well. Are you saying that they’re irrelevent? That they shouldn’t be maintained and/or improved?! Or, are you one of those libertarian, “it’s all about me” types, who thinks that only what you use and touch is important?
Personally, I’m a big(ger) believer in the importance of neighborhood parks. Along with grocery stores, churches and schools, they’re what actually define a community.
I believe in only maintaining the highly used parks. No use in maintaining a park that is barely used. That is wasteful spending.
If other parks want the kind of money Forest Park has, then they need to find ways to generate revenue.
And I am not a libertarian. My problem with trying to keep parks alive is when I start reading articles stating that they want to take money from the health fund (in the county) to save the 23 county parks.
Pretty parks for rich people to drive by is not as important as the health of the poor. If I have to choose where to best allocate money, you best better believe I am putting health and other issues along those lines before some silly stupid park.
Explain how parks “generate revenue”. Through private donations? Rentals? Dedicated taxes? User fees? Any revenues Forest Park generates fall far short of covering expenses.
“Pretty parks for rich people to drive by” and play in are called country clubs. Urban parks are for the non-rich, and yes, even the poor. They’re used for multiple purposes, everything from youth soccer and baseball to public swimming pools, basketball and tennis courts to trails, picnic shelters and, yes, green space and picnics. Not everyone has yards, and many sports require dedicated facilities.
The biggest, most pervasive health challenge facing people of all ages and economic strata these days is obesity. Parks and public recreation programs are two highly effective ways of addressing this major public health problem. Exercise is something that “silly stupid park”s offer, at affordable rates, and is something worthy of public support – it’s always better to prevent health issues than to treat them!
As for the “health of the poor” and “other issues along those lines”, what are you trying to say? That we need universal health care? That we’re not spending enough on Medicaid and public health clinics? That our schools aren’t producing contributing members of society? That teen pregnancy isn’t an issue, that it doesn’t contribute the cycle of poverty? Throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at a problem is not always the best way of solving it!
“Throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at a problem is not always the best way of solving it!”
That is exactly the point to be made about the parks!
And my reason for supporting health over stupid parks is that 1) yes I do support universal healthcare and 2) There are many health needs of the poor that they can’t afford to have such as going to the dentist or having a surgery.
Health is more important than a park. The fact that you would rather save a park over the health of the poor is disturbing. Your priorities are very out of line with humanity.
It’s hard to understand how someone who advocates
universal health care (“supporting health”) sees green recreational
space in urban areas as superfluous and undeserving of tax dollars.
Because parks are not as important as the health of someone. I am not against keeping parks alive but to do it in economic hard times is a rather selfish thing to ask. To say you want to take from the health fund to keep parks around is a rather sadistic thing to want.
I also support universal health care, but it’s not all or nothing. St. Louis County faces a budget challenge because their voters chose not to raise their taxes. Finite resources means hard choices. It doesn’t matter if you’re the government or a poor individual. And yes, being poor sucks, but it also means not being able to get everything you may want or need. The real solution is to become less poor, like the middle class does, by working harder, getting better jobs and actually being able to cover, or have covered by your employer, your own healthcare costs!
And the real question remains whether or not government should be an infinte resource, the “last line of defense”, for ever-increasing medical costs? We already have public health clinics, Medicare and Medicaid. We already subsidize indigent care through higher hospital and doctor fees and through higher insurance rates. I’m old enough to remember polio and the first heart transplant. Eradicating polio was relatively inexpensive (vaccine) compared to the cost of a heart or kidney transplant. Just because a treatment is available, should everyone be entitled to receive it, even if they have no ability to pay for it? Or, are we willing to see our taxes go up 5-10% every year to match the current 10%+ annual increases in healthcare costs?
You may say my “priorities are very out of line with humanity”. I say that my priorities are very much humane. We simply can’t continue to increase funding for a dysfunctional healthcare model at the expense of any and every other governmental service. Healthcare for the poor may be your number one (and probably only) priority, it’s certainly not mine. I want my government to balance its delivery of services, and not to concentrate on serving only one segment of the population. And, for better or worse, many of the health challenges the poor face are self-induced, from smoking, obesity,a poor diet and a lack of exercise. Those can be changed, but that doesn’t take government, that takes personal initiative . . .
As long as people are uninsured, I would rather “waste” money on healthcare than to waste it on a bunch of parks that will go underused.
You accused me of being libertarian, but your views about punishing the poor and not helping the poor are far more libertarian than my views on parks, public transportation and roads.
If you have to take from the health fund to fund parks, then those parks NEED to be closed. They’ve taken more than enough in the past from the health fund.
There is no such thing as wasting money on healthcare if it means someone isn’t paying a $30,000 bill.
You claim that people need to work hard. Guess what? In order for a middle class to exist there has to be a poor class. There has to be people who do the jobs you would never do. My mom works fast food and she works harder than any middle class person that I’ve ever met.
Also, simplifying the conditions of the poor as smoking and obesity is a great way for people like yourself to absolve yourself of any responsibility. The reality for the poor is far wose than you’d ever admit because then you’d realize that it is better to put money towards healthcare than pointless parks.
But the fact is, you’d rather fund parks and defund healthcare. You clearly don’t care for the humans around you and that is a shame. You can keep making up excuses to feel better about how you want to treat the poor but that just makes you the problem. I feel sorry for you and hope that one day you will get a heart and want to help the poor rather than waste money on some useless park. But I get the feeling that will never happen.
And for the record, public health clinics are underfunded and have more people than the ability to give to those people (especially in a timely manner). Not everyone can qualify for Medicaid.
So your simplistic view of the health system is very wrong, and very disturbing.
I just can’t believe someone can seriously say in the same breath that a poor person doesn’t deserve a transplant because they are poor but that we should waste our money on parks that are underfunded.
I can’t believe anyone can be that sadistic and evil.
I’ll repeat, we simply cannot continue to increase funding for a dysfunctional healthcare model at the expense of any and every other governmental service, and that includes parks. (It’s absolutely criminal that the octomom in California continues to receive government services.) Universal healthcare would go a long way to fixing the funding side of the equation, but as you can see in every other country that has socialized medicine, healthcare has been, is and will continue to be rationed, to match available resources. There is simply no way we can do everything for everybody. Life is a fatal disease. We’re all going to die from something. But in the meantime, I, and many other people, obviously, do see a real need to fund parks IN ADDITION to funding indigent healthcare. And no, it’s not about how hard you or your mom works – most of us do work hard – it’s how and how much that you’re compensated. Life isn’t fair, but there are always opportunities.
And I’ll repeat, we cannot keep wasting money on things the majority do not use like parks while defunding essential programs such as healthcare.
People with money are not the only people on this earth and its about time you guys realize that.
Life isn’t fair and as a result, underused parks need to be defunded rather than defund other, far more useful programs that actually give humans a fighting chance in life.
You seem to be confusing “things the majority do not use” with “useful programs”. The majority of us do not use the public health system, we rely on private insurance. Using your logic, the Health Dept., like the Parks Dept., then becomes “stupid” and “silly”, yet in no way do I think that either one should be defunded, there just needs to be some balance in how our limited resources are allocated. The funding for parks is not increasing by 10%+ annually, like the cost of healthcare. It all boils down to finite money and finite tax dollars. Any program that is expanding faster than the rate of inflation will EITHER require more money / higher taxes OR every other government service will need to be reduced and eventually eliminated.
In your world, it appears that local subdivision streets and free indigent healthcare are priorities, while freeways, rural roads and parks are silly, stupid and expendable. What else meets that criteria? Public schools? The state university system? Fire protection? Jails and prisons? The court system? The building and planning departments? Amtrak? NASA? The Agriculture Department? The EPA? The EEOC? Homeland Security? Our military? Do any of these really serve a “useful” purpose (like Public Health apparently does) and which deserve to continue to be funded? Which of these do the majority of us come in direct, regular contact with? And which of these “keep wasting money on things [that] the majority [of us] do not use” and should either be eliminated / privatized and/or be funded solely through user fees?
No matter what delusions you choose to believe it. It doesn’t change the reality that parks are not as important as healthcare. You may not care for your fellow human beings and get off on seeing the poor suffer, but thankfully I don’t. Healthcare will always be more important than parks. I hope that you do get to learn it the hard way too why that is.
>>I hope that you do get to learn it the hard way<<
Jeez, now who's being "evil and sadistic"?
Its the only way to discipline evil people by making them suffer the very things they inflict on others. So yeah, I hope he does suffer.
All good points, JZ. Likewise, hundreds of millions of us will never use the fire department, so by that logic should we cut it?
Actually its already happening as some counties and cities charge for their use.
The 23 parks Dooley wants to stop funding are not the only parks. Get off your butt and go to a different one that will still be funded. Problem solved.
Healthcare wins out over useless underused parks. Anyone that can’t see it that way needs to get their priorities fixed or needs to experience what it is like not being able to pay a hospital bill just so you can keep working and not have to leech on the system.
you never did respond to these points by JZ:
“The funding for parks is not increasing by 10%+ annually, like the cost
of healthcare. It all boils down to finite money and finite tax
dollars. Any program that is expanding faster than the rate of
inflation will EITHER require more money / higher taxes OR every other
government service will need to be reduced and eventually eliminated.”
“In your world, it appears that local subdivision streets and free
indigent healthcare are priorities, while freeways, rural roads and
parks are silly, stupid and expendable. What else meets that criteria?
Public schools? The state university system? Fire protection? Jails
and prisons? The court system? The building and planning departments?
Amtrak? NASA? The Agriculture Department? The EPA? The EEOC?
Homeland Security? Our military? Do any of these really serve a
“useful” purpose (like Public Health apparently does) and which deserve
to continue to be funded? Which of these do the majority of us come in
direct, regular contact with? And which of these “keep wasting money on
things [that] the majority [of us] do not use” and should either be
eliminated / privatized and/or be funded solely through user fees?”
other than to say:
“No matter what delusions you choose to believe it. It doesn’t change the reality that parks are not as important as healthcare.”
which sounds like an opinion to me. i’m not convinced.
What is the point in responding to someone who is ignorant enough to say that the poor don’t deserve healthcare? Sadistic people cannot be reasoned with.
The many thousands of people who regularly use the other city parks you are apparently not familiar with would strongly disagree.
But the millions who don’t use them would agree with me.
There are millions of people (including me) who don’t live in or even go to St. Charles
county, but without our tax revenue (appropriated for this purpose without our vote or
consent) to subsidize its roads and other
infrastructure, sprawl would not be undermining this region and many
others.
If you are going to espouse a dollar for dollar selective approach on
the use of your private, personal tax dollars, than you should agree
that St. Charles County’s growth is an outrage, since millions who
don’t live there have paid to subsidize its metastasis. Had its
development been left to some simplistic fantasy of risk-reward
entrepreneurial capitalism, it would not exist as we know it.
Awesome, couldn’t have said it better.
Please clarify:Â “And really, Forest Park is the only “park” that matters nowadays”
Forest Park may be the largest park in the system, but there are approximately 100 other ones in the city, as well. Are you saying that they’re irrelevent? That they shouldn’t be maintained and/or improved?! Or, are you one of those libertarian, “it’s all about me” types, who thinks that only what you use and touch is important?
Personally, I’m a big(ger) believer in the importance of neighborhood parks. Along with grocery stores, churches and schools, they’re what actually define a community.
The many thousands of people who regularly use the other city parks you are apparently not familiar with would strongly disagree.Â
I believe in only maintaining the highly used parks. No use in maintaining a park that is barely used. That is wasteful spending.
If other parks want the kind of money Forest Park has, then they need to find ways to generate revenue.
And I am not a libertarian. My problem with trying to keep parks alive is when I start reading articles stating that they want to take money from the health fund (in the county) to save the 23 county parks.
Pretty parks for rich people to drive by is not as important as the health of the poor. If I have to choose where to best allocate money, you best better believe I am putting health and other issues along those lines before some silly stupid park.
But the millions who don’t use them would agree with me.
There are millions of people (including me) who don’t live in or even go to St. Charles
county, but without our tax revenue (appropriated for this purpose without our vote or
consent) to subsidize its roads and other
infrastructure, sprawl would not be undermining this region and many
others.
If you are going to espouse a dollar for dollar selective approach on
the use of your private, personal tax dollars, than you should agree
that St. Charles County’s growth is an outrage, since millions who
don’t live there have paid to subsidize its metastasis. Had its
development been left to some simplistic fantasy of risk-reward
entrepreneurial capitalism, it would not exist as we know it. Â
Explain how parks “generate revenue”. Through private donations? Rentals? Dedicated taxes? User fees? Any revenues Forest Park generates fall far short of covering expenses.
“Pretty parks for rich people to drive by” and play in are called country clubs. Urban parks are for the non-rich, and yes, even the poor. They’re used for multiple purposes, everything from youth soccer and baseball to public swimming pools, basketball and tennis courts to trails, picnic shelters and, yes, green space and picnics. Not everyone has yards, and many sports require dedicated facilities.Â
The biggest, most pervasive health challenge facing people of all ages and economic strata these days is obesity. Parks and public recreation programs are two highly effective ways of addressing this major public health problem. Exercise is something that “silly stupid park”s offer, at affordable rates, and is something worthy of public support - it’s always better to prevent health issues than to treat them!
As for the “health of the poor” and “other issues along those lines”, what are you trying to say? That we need universal health care? That we’re not spending enough on Medicaid and public health clinics? That our schools aren’t producing contributing members of society? That teen pregnancy isn’t an issue, that it doesn’t contribute the cycle of poverty? Throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at a problem is not always the best way of solving it!
“Throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at a problem is not always the best way of solving it!”
That is exactly the point to be made about the parks!
And my reason for supporting health over stupid parks is that 1) yes I do support universal healthcare and 2) There are many health needs of the poor that they can’t afford to have such as going to the dentist or having a surgery.
Health is more important than a park. The fact that you would rather save a park over the health of the poor is disturbing. Your priorities are very out of line with humanity.
“Throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at a problem is not always the best way of solving it!”
That is exactly the point to be made about the parks!
And my reason for supporting health over stupid parks is that 1) yes I do support universal healthcare and 2) There are many health needs of the poor that they can’t afford to have such as going to the dentist or having a surgery.
Health is more important than a park. The fact that you would rather save a park over the health of the poor is disturbing. Your priorities are very out of line with humanity.
It’s hard to understand how someone who advocates
universal health care (“supporting health”) sees green recreational
space in urban areas as superfluous and undeserving of tax dollars.
I also support universal health care, but it’s not all or nothing. St. Louis County faces a budget challenge because their voters chose not to raise their taxes. Finite resources means hard choices. It doesn’t matter if you’re the government or a poor individual. And yes, being poor sucks, but it also means not being able to get everything you may want or need. The real solution is to become less poor, like the middle class does, by working harder, getting better jobs and actually being able to cover, or have covered by your employer, your own healthcare costs!
And the real question remains whether or not government should be an infinte resource, the “last line of defense”, for ever-increasing medical costs? We already have public health clinics, Medicare and Medicaid. We already subsidize indigent care through higher hospital and doctor fees and through higher insurance rates. I’m old enough to remember polio and the first heart transplant. Eradicating polio was relatively inexpensive (vaccine) compared to the cost of a heart or kidney transplant. Just because a treatment is available, should everyone be entitled to receive it, even if they have no ability to pay for it? Or, are we willing to see our taxes go up 5-10% every year to match the current 10%+ annual increases in healthcare costs?
You may say my “priorities are very out of line with humanity”. I say that my priorities are very much humane. We simply can’t continue to increase funding for a dysfunctional healthcare model at the expense of any and every other governmental service. Healthcare for the poor may be your number one (and probably only) priority, it’s certainly not mine. I want my government to balance its delivery of services, and not to concentrate on serving only one segment of the population. And, for better or worse, many of the health challenges the poor face are self-induced, from smoking, obesity,a poor diet and a lack of exercise. Those can be changed, but that doesn’t take government, that takes personal initiative . . .
As long as people are uninsured, I would rather “waste” money on healthcare than to waste it on a bunch of parks that will go underused.
You accused me of being libertarian, but your views about punishing the poor and not helping the poor are far more libertarian than my views on parks, public transportation and roads.
If you have to take from the health fund to fund parks, then those parks NEED to be closed. They’ve taken more than enough in the past from the health fund.
There is no such thing as wasting money on healthcare if it means someone isn’t paying a $30,000 bill.
You claim that people need to work hard. Guess what? In order for a middle class to exist there has to be a poor class. There has to be people who do the jobs you would never do. My mom works fast food and she works harder than any middle class person that I’ve ever met.
Also, simplifying the conditions of the poor as smoking and obesity is a great way for people like yourself to absolve yourself of any responsibility. The reality for the poor is far wose than you’d ever admit because then you’d realize that it is better to put money towards healthcare than pointless parks.
But the fact is, you’d rather fund parks and defund healthcare. You clearly don’t care for the humans around you and that is a shame. You can keep making up excuses to feel better about how you want to treat the poor but that just makes you the problem. I feel sorry for you and hope that one day you will get a heart and want to help the poor rather than waste money on some useless park. But I get the feeling that will never happen.
Because parks are not as important as the health of someone. I am not against keeping parks alive but to do it in economic hard times is a rather selfish thing to ask. To say you want to take from the health fund to keep parks around is a rather sadistic thing to want.
And for the record, public health clinics are underfunded and have more people than the ability to give to those people (especially in a timely manner). Not everyone can qualify for Medicaid.
So your simplistic view of the health system is very wrong, and very disturbing.
I just can’t believe someone can seriously say in the same breath that a poor person doesn’t deserve a transplant because they are poor but that we should waste our money on parks that are underfunded.
I can’t believe anyone can be that sadistic and evil.
I’ll repeat, we simply cannot continue to increase funding for a dysfunctional healthcare model at the expense of any and every other governmental service, and that includes parks. (It’s absolutely criminal that the octomom in California continues to receive government services.) Universal healthcare would go a long way to fixing the funding side of the equation, but as you can see in every other country that has socialized medicine, healthcare has been, is and will continue to be rationed, to match available resources. There is simply no way we can do everything for everybody. Life is a fatal disease. We’re all going to die from something. But in the meantime, I, and many other people, obviously, do see a real need to fund parks IN ADDITION to funding indigent healthcare. And no, it’s not about how hard you or your mom works – most of us do work hard – it’s how and how much that you’re compensated. Life isn’t fair, but there are always opportunities.
And I’ll repeat, we cannot keep wasting money on things the majority do not use like parks while defunding essential programs such as healthcare.
People with money are not the only people on this earth and its about time you guys realize that.
Life isn’t fair and as a result, underused parks need to be defunded rather than defund other, far more useful programs that actually give humans a fighting chance in life.
The 23 parks Dooley wants to stop funding are not the only parks. Get off your butt and go to a different one that will still be funded. Problem solved.
Healthcare wins out over useless underused parks. Anyone that can’t see it that way needs to get their priorities fixed or needs to experience what it is like not being able to pay a hospital bill just so you can keep working and not have to leech on the system.
You seem to be confusing “things the majority do not use” with “useful programs”. The majority of us do not use the public health system, we rely on private insurance. Using your logic, the Health Dept., like the Parks Dept., then becomes “stupid” and “silly”, yet in no way do I think that either one should be defunded, there just needs to be some balance in how our limited resources are allocated. The funding for parks is not increasing by 10%+ annually, like the cost of healthcare. It all boils down to finite money and finite tax dollars. Any program that is expanding faster than the rate of inflation will EITHER require more money / higher taxes OR every other government service will need to be reduced and eventually eliminated.
In your world, it appears that local subdivision streets and free indigent healthcare are priorities, while freeways, rural roads and parks are silly, stupid and expendable. What else meets that criteria? Public schools? The state university system? Fire protection? Jails and prisons? The court system? The building and planning departments? Amtrak? NASA? The Agriculture Department? The EPA? The EEOC? Homeland Security? Our military?  Do any of these really serve a “useful” purpose (like Public Health apparently does) and which deserve to continue to be funded? Which of these do the majority of us come in direct, regular contact with? And which of these “keep wasting money on things [that] the majority [of us] do not use” and should either be eliminated / privatized and/or be funded solely through user fees?
I don’t really see pitting parks vs. health care as a valid comparison. Neighborhood parks provide playgrounds and ballfields that are heavily used by children and adults and which are free of charge. Parks that are within low-income neighborhoods and easy to walk or take MetroBus to, can be great places. Â Now, when the equipment is broken or vandalized, or they are used as a hub for drug-dealing, then they are not as appealing. Even so, have you ever seen how many (mostly low-income) kids and families go to Marquette Park swimming pool in the summertime? Â For that matter, St. Vincent Park water park in North County serves a largely low-income clientele, albeit one mostly with cars but it’s possible to walk there from a bus stop on the Rock Road. These are vital resources for the health of low-income communities. Â Opportunities for exercise and fun don’t just come at the YMCA, they also come at free public parks.
I don’t really see pitting parks vs. health care as a valid comparison. Neighborhood parks provide playgrounds and ballfields that are heavily used by children and adults and which are free of charge. Parks that are within low-income neighborhoods and easy to walk or take MetroBus to, can be great places. Now, when the equipment is broken or vandalized, or they are used as a hub for drug-dealing, then they are not as appealing. Even so, have you ever seen how many (mostly low-income) kids and families go to Marquette Park swimming pool in the summertime? For that matter, St. Vincent Park water park in North County serves a largely low-income clientele, albeit one mostly with cars but it’s possible to walk there from a bus stop on the Rock Road. These are vital resources for the health of low-income communities. Opportunities for exercise and fun don’t just come at the YMCA, they also come at free public parks.
No matter what delusions you choose to believe it. It doesn’t change the reality that parks are not as important as healthcare. You may not care for your fellow human beings and  get off on seeing the poor suffer, but thankfully I don’t. Healthcare will always be more important than parks. I hope that you do get to learn it the hard way too why that is.
Wow, I can use Julie’s arguments when I’m teaching my students about straw man arguments.
Wow, I can use Julie’s arguments when I’m teaching my students about straw man arguments.
And you make a great example of the dangers of liberals. I once used to be a liberal but this blog has made me see exactly why conservatives can’t stand liberals.
Most true conservatives I know simply disagree with so-called liberals. “Can’t stand” is not necessarily part of the equation among adults who disagree, however strongly. Like ad hominem attacks and wishing for suffering to befall those unswayed by argument, “can’t stand” becomes part of the package among the philosophically insolvent. It’s like the classic standard of “losing face”: the first one to yell loses the argument.
Most true, traditional conservatives / Republicans I know want less government, not more, and they want government to stay out of their bedrooms and out of their healthcare choices. Julie is apparently one of those single-minded ideologues, who sees government as a total waste EXCEPT for that one issue that hits close to home / is critically important to her and her finances. With that laserlike focus, she / they simply can’t understand why everybody else doesn’t totally agree with their position. Logic doesn’t work, so we’re left either trying to explain reality or just watching the fireworks. And, for the record, I never was “ignorant enough to say that the poor don’t deserve healthcare”; I said that limited resources demand hard choices: “Any program that is expanding faster than the rate of inflation will EITHER require more money / higher taxes OR every other government service will need to be reduced and eventually eliminated.” And, “as you can see in every other country that has socialized medicine, healthcare has been, is and will continue to be rationed, to match available resources. There is simply no way we can do everything for everybody. Life is a fatal disease. We’re all going to die from something. But in the meantime, I, and many other people, obviously, do see a real need to fund parks IN ADDITION to funding indigent healthcare.”
Capitalism will destroy humanity if it continues unabated. The fact the discussion becomes an either/or funding of parks or health care indicates just how sick the system has become. Socialist countries have to ration healthcare, but in America it is not rationed, but denied.
I am for limited government, but there is a place for government also. The wealthy have earned their money, to a point, above that level it is the usual corruption and extraction (stealing) of money from companies and the public.
The main problem is capitalism (to the horror of the founding fathers) has become a method to purchase politicans, policy, laws and endless propaganda justifying their assault on America and its citizens. The result is public policy that is distorted to support corporate and insider interests instead of American ideals and democracy.
America is a very sick country, make no mistake about it.
Awesome, couldn’t have said it better.
All good points, JZ. Likewise, hundreds of millions of us will never use the fire department, so by that logic should we cut it?
>>I hope that you do get to learn it the hard way<<
Jeez, now who's being "evil and sadistic"?
you never did respond to these points by JZ:
“The funding for parks is not increasing by 10%+ annually, like the cost
of healthcare. It all boils down to finite money and finite tax
dollars. Any program that is expanding faster than the rate of
inflation will EITHER require more money / higher taxes OR every other
government service will need to be reduced and eventually eliminated.”
“In your world, it appears that local subdivision streets and free
indigent healthcare are priorities, while freeways, rural roads and
parks are silly, stupid and expendable. What else meets that criteria?Â
Public schools? The state university system? Fire protection? Jails
and prisons? The court system? The building and planning departments?Â
Amtrak? NASA? The Agriculture Department? The EPA? The EEOC?Â
Homeland Security? Our military?  Do any of these really serve a
“useful” purpose (like Public Health apparently does) and which deserve
to continue to be funded? Which of these do the majority of us come in
direct, regular contact with? And which of these “keep wasting money on
things [that] the majority [of us] do not use” and should either be
eliminated / privatized and/or be funded solely through user fees?”
other than to say:
“No matter what delusions you choose to believe it. It doesn’t change the reality that parks are not as important as healthcare.”
which sounds like an opinion to me. i’m not convinced.
In Julie’s defense, St. Charles County does have more than few parks that are silly, stupid and little used. Unfortunately, this post is / started out about parks in the CITY, not parks in St. Louis County or St. Charles County. Under modern planning guidelines, many postwar subdivisions were (and are) required to dedicate an acre or two to “park” use, and many receive(d) a kiddie playset, a flower bed, a few trees and maybe a picnic table. But since the residents had / have bought into the American Dream of a single family home on a large lot, most recreation tends to occur in the backyard or the driveway, and not in the obigatory subdivision “park”.
In contrast, many urban parks are a legacy of planning for denser, walkable communities. Instead of private backyards big enough for individual pools and basketball courts, many of us have smaller yards, if we have a yard at all, so the need for common open space becomes greater. Compound that with a different mindset, that it is / used to be OK to let your kid out of your eyesight as they get older, and the concept of walking or riding your bike to school or the neighborhood park becomes more plausible and accepted – see “free-range kids”.
Another difference in “modern” subdivision planning is how stormwater drainage is “managed”. Many “parks” outside the urban core serve as stormwater detention areas. Many become athletic fields, some remain “natural areas” and some get developed as trail systems. Both the Katy Trail and the Busch Wildlife are examples of great parks in St. Charles County, as is the athletic complex on Highway K, midway between I-64 and Mexico Road.
So, like many things in life, perception is reality. If most of the parks that you’ve experienced are poorly conceived, ill-designed and little used, then parks start to be viewed as silly and stupid. But if the parks you experience respond to defined needs, are well-designed, properly funded and well-managed, then parks are an important part of urban living, and are neither silly nor stupid. Forest Park definitely leads the pack in the city, responding to multiple demands, but our other parks also meet a range of needs, as well, and deserve to be funded, at similar levels.
In Julie’s defense, St. Charles County does have more than few parks that are silly, stupid and little used. Unfortunately, this post is / started out about parks in the CITY, not parks in St. Louis County or St. Charles County. Under modern planning guidelines, many postwar subdivisions were (and are) required to dedicate an acre or two to “park” use, and many receive(d) a kiddie playset, a flower bed, a few trees and maybe a picnic table. But since the residents had / have bought into the American Dream of a single family home on a large lot, most recreation tends to occur in the backyard or the driveway, and not in the obigatory subdivision “park”.
In contrast, many urban parks are a legacy of planning for denser, walkable communities. Instead of private backyards big enough for individual pools and basketball courts, many of us have smaller yards, if we have a yard at all, so the need for common open space becomes greater. Compound that with a different mindset, that it is / used to be OK to let your kid out of your eyesight as they get older, and the concept of walking or riding your bike to school or the neighborhood park becomes more plausible and accepted – see “free-range kids”.
Another difference in “modern” subdivision planning is how stormwater drainage is “managed”. Many “parks” outside the urban core serve as stormwater detention areas. Many become athletic fields, some remain “natural areas” and some get developed as trail systems. Both the Katy Trail and the Busch Wildlife are examples of great parks in St. Charles County, as is the athletic complex on Highway K, midway between I-64 and Mexico Road.
So, like many things in life, perception is reality. If most of the parks that you’ve experienced are poorly conceived, ill-designed and little used, then parks start to be viewed as silly and stupid. But if the parks you experience respond to defined needs, are well-designed, properly funded and well-managed, then parks are an important part of urban living, and are neither silly nor stupid. Forest Park definitely leads the pack in the city, responding to multiple demands, but our other parks also meet a range of needs, as well, and deserve to be funded, at similar levels.
Its the only way to discipline evil people by making them suffer the very things they inflict on others. So yeah, I hope he does suffer.
Actually its already happening as some counties and cities charge for their use.Â
What is the point in responding to someone who is ignorant enough to say that the poor don’t deserve healthcare? Sadistic people cannot be reasoned with.
And you make a great example of the dangers of liberals. I once used to be a liberal but this blog has made me see exactly why conservatives can’t stand liberals.Â
Most true conservatives I know simply disagree with so-called liberals. “Can’t stand” is not necessarily part of the equation among adults who disagree, however strongly. Like ad hominem attacks and wishing for suffering to befall those unswayed by argument, “can’t stand” becomes part of the package among the philosophically insolvent. It’s like the classic standard of “losing face”: the first one to yell loses the argument. Â
Most true, traditional conservatives / Republicans I know want less government, not more, and they want government to stay out of their bedrooms and out of their healthcare choices. Julie is apparently one of those single-minded ideologues, who sees government as a total waste EXCEPT for that one issue that hits close to home / is critically important to her and her finances. With that laserlike focus, she / they simply can’t understand why everybody else doesn’t totally agree with their position. Logic doesn’t work, so we’re left either trying to explain reality or just watching the fireworks. And, for the record, I never was “ignorant enough to say that the poor don’t deserve healthcare”; I said that limited resources demand hard choices: “Any program that is expanding faster than the rate of inflation will EITHER require more money / higher taxes OR every other government service will need to be reduced and eventually eliminated.” And, “as you can see in every other country that has socialized medicine, healthcare has been, is and will continue to be rationed, to match available resources. There is simply no way we can do everything for everybody. Life is a fatal disease. We’re all going to die from something. But in the meantime, I, and many other people, obviously, do see a real need to fund parks IN ADDITION to funding indigent healthcare.”
Capitalism will destroy humanity if it continues unabated. The fact the discussion becomes an either/or funding of parks or health care indicates just how sick the system has become. Socialist countries have to ration healthcare, but in America it is not rationed, but denied.
I am for limited government, but there is a place for government also. The wealthy have earned their money, to a point, above that level it is the usual corruption and extraction (stealing) of money from companies and the public.
The main problem is capitalism (to the horror of the founding fathers) has become a method to purchase politicans, policy, laws and endless propaganda justifying their assault on America and its citizens. The result is public policy that is distorted to support corporate and insider interests instead of American ideals and democracy.
America is a very sick country, make no mistake about it.