Reader comments
Is pleasure proper use of taxes?

As a Sandy resident I want to say what a massive difference there is between a for-profit sports franchise asking for corporate welfare, and a not-for-profit theater organization asking for a place to rehearse and perform. I support with taxes and contributions the latter, and utterly despise any handout for affluent team owners, and I love sports.

Bike lanes on the West Side of Salt Lake City would be a much better use of taxpayer funds than building another theater. I thought Ralph was going to be Mr. Green but now he wants to spend more money on a theater than he's spent on making the city more green.

I would never assume that my needs and wants apply to everyone. In my opinion then, I believe that Municipalities, Counties, and States long ago past the point of meeting our needs and have placed far too many tax dollars in things that truly are wants. Things such as golf courses, theaters, rec-centers, aviaries, zoo's, and etc. all of which would fall under my category of wants.

My feeling is simple; if people truly want these things they will support them on their own dollar. Thru both user fees and philanthropic donations. If they cannot be sustained thru these funding sources then not enough of the people truly want them to make them viable. The trouble starts when we could either have lower taxes or have more availble for the things now truly need like infrastructure, cops and so on. The fact that I was at the concert last night in the form of a tax dollar makes my stomach ill. But I�m glad Lee enjoyed the show.

West Valley started this "publicly funded entertainment" first with the E Center, Hale Centre Theater, and Usana Ampthitheater. I believe the city is now one of the most taxed along the Wasatch Front. Sandy is now down the same road and can't turnaround. Time will tell if Sandy did the right thing...sadly, a future administration will deal with the financial bonds being auctioned off in 2008...

Today's paper already has an article of another tax increase in West Valley...12%.

But, I don't mind going to the venues in WVC that are subsidized by the citizens and I won't mind going to Sandy or Salt Lake for venues subsidized by their citizens. I live in none of the mentioned cities and my taxes are lower and my quality of life higher.

Why is the theatre non-profit?

Shouldn't they be capable making a profit?

Should the government ( the people ) be responsible for providing buildings and places for all so-called non-profit entertainment? ( the people still have to pay more on top for it to even see it! )

Your posting, when translated into clear English, is: "I want government to subsidize the things I find worthy of subsidization, but that other stuff should be able to take care of itself." I don't say that in an attempt to sound mean, but we should all be willing to look very closely at our attitudes towards government funding of any kind of project. It is natural to assume that government should fund our favorite projects, and not fund other people's favorite projects, but because everyone has a different list, and because governing requires compromise, we end up having everyone's list funded.

So, before anyone complains about taxpayer dollars going to fund certain types of projects, they should be able to clearly identify why it is valid to use government to force subsidization of some things and not others. There are times when it is valid, but the profit vs. not-for-profit distinction just seems a little shallow to be a good explanation.

The subsidy for such projects did not begin in West Valley City. It started with structures like the Salt Palace, Abravanel Hall, Captiol Theater, Delta Center, Franklin Quest ball field etc. In each of these venues millions, not thousands of tax dollars, have been spent to subsidize the patrons of these structures. Is this wrong? Would Salt Lake City have any vitality without these facilities? Also, and as much as the soccer stadium gets "kicked around" for using tax dollars, those dollars are primarily paid by tourists (the same as the Salt Palace, Abravenel Hall, Capitol Theater etc. The challenge for the soccer stadium is the geographic location which challenges the notion that every major arts or sports venue should be clustered in one location. That aside, I believe the quality of life for all residents has been enhanced by these facilities.

"Quality of life" enhancement also seems to be a pretty shallow explanation for why the facilities you cite should be funded by taxpayer dollars, and not other projects. More to the point, it is a stretch to say that ALL residents have had their quality of life enhanced. That can't possibly be true. Some certainly have, but should everyone be forced to subsidize the quality of life enhancement for some smaller portion of society? I am still waiting for a good reason why some things are okay to fund with taxpayer dollars, and others are not.