What if the casinos chipped in so we were only the hook for a third of the investment?
Why would they? What is the benefit to them?
Also, this would be a public good. Besides myself, I could think of countless people that I know personally that would enjoy the use of such an establishment. Public goods don't necessarily have to profit to "work," or to be "deemed a success." Were jobs created? Did people frequent the city, which then has ancillary benefits? Did local housing markets experience a slight uptick in value? Were insurance jobs kept? I could go on and on.
Well, if it would be a “public good“ I guess that would make it all right… But wait doesn’t that nonsensical argument mean that government should spend unlimited money for anything that is vaguely perceived To convey some non-quantifiable public benefit. That seems like a really bad governing principle.
Take a look at the “benefits“ that you’ve listed they are vague, imaginary and unquantifiable. Imagining a benefit is different than there being a benefit. Our jobs going to be created? Well, how many of them, how long will they last, what will they pay, will they actually benefit taxpayers are they going to be jobs for people who aren’t part of the tax base? I particularly liked the wheel local housing markets experience a “slight” uptick... [chuckle] even you don’t seem particularly convinced by that. “Were insurance jobs kept?” is even more tenuous. The thing is these types of things, well not exactly these but similar economic benefits, can be quantified in studied. The reason that none of the advocates for the project have, or will, is because they are imaginary. Taxpayer dollars are in monopoly money which you just throw at vague ideas. The decision to move forward with the project has an impact on local residents.
Public goods can be expenses. They can't be thought of as private investment, in the private market
This is absolutely wrong. Any investment of public funds needs to be analyzed and quantified as thoroughly as you would a private investment. To feel to do that would be a fundamental breach of the duties of the governing body.
And again, if the casinos could go thirds with the state, it would benefit all
Again, why would they? And again, would it actually benefit all?
As a taxpayer, these are the things I actually want my money to go towards.
I understand that, but I think that you haven’t really thought it through. What expenses of the city of Hartford, or the state of Connecticut are you willing to forgo so we can afford this? Snow plowing? Policing? Environmental regulation? Or perhaps you believe we should keep all those things but instead should just tax people more? In a state that is struggling as much economically as Connecticut, does that seem like a good idea? What things with the Connecticut taxpayers have to forgo individually to be able to afford the additional taxes? If they could not, would they just leave?
