Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisis
Tough to argue that point. For similar major issues in the past, there have generally been well-organized oppositions.
|
I am all for public consultation, but there are many reasons why allowing the people to decide on arenas or freeways or other large public projects is problematic.
First, voter turnout in 2020 was 27%. It's generally true that turnout is strongest among older, retired voters. So if you ask a bunch of people who own their home and aren't likely to attend a Taylor Swift concert if they want a bunch of public money spent on an arena, they are likely to think "I won't use it but it's my tax money being spent; to hell with it!"
Second, the organization against projects is often much more fierce than organization for them. One obvious reason is because the mayor doesn't have time to spend all day on community Facebook pages lobbying for the project, but Barb down the street who is retired does. Another reason is because negativity is more attractive than positivity - just look at how social media algorithms have been tweaked to generate the strongest reactions which typically involves showing users something that makes them angry.
Third, most of the voting public does not have the expertise or interest to become fully informed about large projects. Just look at the library project. Many people online complain about how much they're going to have to pay for the new library "when I don't even read books!", when the library levy is actually only being increased by about $5 per year for the average homeowner which is hardly a significant cost. The arena will fall victim to the same half-baked critiques, whether about the funding model, a lack of parking, positive externalities (or a lack thereof), or even a lack of need ("just renovate the old barn").
So while I think the public should have input on design, location, amenities, etc., I do not think the public should make the final call on this project.