As the stock market dove and regained steam this week we couldn’t help think that these are precarious times indeed.
Since few push the notion of increasing taxes, spending is seen as the dragon needing to be slain. Voters are unwilling to fully support a council or government that is serious about getting the finances in order. Deciding what to cut or how to cut remains the mystery. Democratic halls around the world sing the same tune lamented around council chambers in this area: tell us what services to cut. Answers are not readily forthcoming.
As we have lamented many times in this column, through nobody’s particular fault, entitlement creep and continuously rising costs has brought us to this point. This phenomenon will only deepen as generations to follow pick up the pieces of too many years of gluttonous clamouring for more money from government.
In the meantime, we are concerned about the sacrifice of basic principles, as government seeks new revenue to mask the systemic problems of debt and overspending.
A prime example was an off-handed comment by Toronto Mayor Rob Ford that maybe schools should be accepting advertising in their gymnasiums as a way to generate revenue. Ah, revenue without increasing taxes – but at what cost?
Brand name soft drink retailers eased their way into cafeterias years ago. Free coolers or score board signs were a pretty ingenious method of promotion to an age group desirous of a product and an agency that did not want to buy a sign or pay for coolers. What next, though?
Arguably, there have been health impacts as a result of pushing those products for generations now. Some efforts are now underway to stave off the Twinkie lunch, fries and gravy or sugar laced drinks.
Of course, similar stunts have occurred in the past. Some municipalities have happily signed over naming rights to recreational venues for a fraction of the building cost. Think SkyDome; a venture costing in excess of $570-million dollars, ultimately sold decades later for about 4% of its original cost to Rogers. Those are examples of the kind of grandeur that fed some egos but cost us a pile of money.
As for advertising in schools, it provides another example of sacrifice for a free lunch. A bidding process will be needed, another set of rules and procedures will follow, fights will erupt over advertising themes, and then what? It’s hard to believe the game will end at the gym, as cafeterias, halls and entrance ways succumb to the temptation of free money.
For us, it is the start of a slippery slope. Should municipalities consider it, too – opting to sell space on park benches, bus stands, and other very public sites for a fee? A taxi driver in New York City filled us in on the game there, where ads play in the back seat of their cab and, as part of their licence, they pay for the machine to be in their car. It is dicey.
Oddly, there are advocates of this proposal who see little wrong with some free money. It’s the free market at work. Well, some free things carry a price.
We happened to do a fair bit of driving this summer and were galled at the number of billboards promoting a mini-holiday at slots venues. Without engaging in the merits or negatives of gambling, is it not just a little perverse to suggest or promote a holiday at a slots location? Here we have the provincial government promoting staring into a slot machine, maybe having a burger and fries in the lounge, while tax-paying owners and operators of restaurants and real tourist attractions suffered this summer with a still lagging economy.
It’s time to draw the line on some of these ventures before they get rolling.
Keeping public places as points of pride rather than billboard spaces certainly would be a start.
