Aunt B. says:Behaving out-of-touch with regular people is not a good way to market a controversial concept.So, who composes this editorial voice [at the City Paper], exactly, do you know?
I have no doubt that the convention center is going to happen. I just think it's hilarious that, at a moment in the city when kids can't get school books until they're almost a month into classes, when parts of downtown had to be shut down all last week to deal with our hundred year old infrastructure, when we face an enormous budget shortfall, when people who work for the city are losing their jobs, the paper says, basically, "Well, if we have no bread, let us eat cake."
Posted On: Monday, Jan. 18 2010 @ 3:32PM_______________________________[Anonymous Booster Troll] says:Aunt B,
Tax revenue that will go to pay for the MCC cannot be used for a single purpose that you list.
First, state law designates ... [blah, blah, blah; you know the eye-glazing jargon or you can go read it yourself if you are into such rationalization; blebbeh, blah, blah] ... a tactic that the MCC opponents have shown no shame in using. [so, bleh!]
Posted On: Monday, Jan. 18 2010 @ 3:41PM________________________________Aunt B. says:Kevin, yes, I know that and you know that. But imagine, for a moment, how that's going to play out to struggling voters.
"Why did you vote to spend my tax money on a convention center when my kid didn't have school books for a month and my husband got laid off?"
"Well, ma'am, it's very complex. Money for the convention center could only go to the convention center..."
"Why?"
"It's a state law."
"Really? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of."
I mean, please, most voters are not going to want to hear that crap.
I'm not opposed to the center. I'm not for it. I thought it was a done deal the minute they decided on it unless Gaylord could come up with something big enough to derail it, which they obviously have not.
But for proponents to act like people who haven't been paying attention to the intricacies of this whole thing are going to be okay with this is just a little hilarious.
It's fine with me. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another.
But I'm a little baffled and amused that the pro-convention center people having considered how this is going to play out public-relations wise.
I hope for y'all's sake that there are a lot of jobs created very quickly.
Posted On: Monday, Jan. 18 2010 @ 4:01PM
Monday, January 18, 2010
The world, or at least the local tubes, would be something much less without an Aunt B
The following is a must-read exchange from the comment board at the Nashville Scene website:
Labels:
Convention Center,
Media,
Nashville,
Taxes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of all the proponent's arguments this is the silliest. Is there some kind of constitutional mandate passed down from the founding fathers?
ReplyDelete* Provide for the common defense
* Promote the general welfare
* Use tourism taxes only for convention centers
No, this law exists because MCC supporters convinced state representatives to pass a law that benefits their project alone.
They could as easily have written the law to require Metro to use the HOT to buy Titans jerseys for every citizen. If only the sports apparel lobby had the same clout as the tourism lobby, we'd all be wearing Titans blue today. I really shouldn't say anything, I'm sure there's someone working on it right now. (I'm a large by the way.)