I'm not against the idea of sending then, but I really don't like this guy's arguments. What other organizations 'got' in the past has nothing to do with whether we should give the Symphony this $200k. The question has nothing to do with 'fairness,' and there is no reason we have to treat the ballet, the theater, and the symphony equally, anyway.
I think they have benefit concerts in the works, but that won't pay for the trip to Carnegie alone. Our orchestra has been selected with four others from North America to perform there. Think of the publicity for our city and the small businesses who will benefit when people come from out of town hear them. So long as the money comes from the arts budget, I think this is legit.
Is there any tangible benefit to the Carnegie Hall trip? Yeah, it's an honor for the symphony and its performers. But I don't see how the (very scant) publicity they'll get in NYC helps the symphony or the city long-term.
On the other hand, if the symphony were to say "We respectfully decline to attend. Given the economic distress in Portland, the $200k we need from the city to make this trip could be better used by the Oregon Food Bank..." well, that would be huge publicity, practically guaranteeing another front-page NY Times article, which all this (raising awareness and elevating the stature of the symphony) is presumably about.
"But there's no end to all of the great things we should be spending money on."
Indeed, and that's precisely the problem. If we had a bottomless bank account it would be great to pay our teachers better than McDonald's managers, improve Trimet, buy cops who don't suck, build a 12 (bike) lane CRC (that's also 'pretty'), fund the hell out of the arts, put a "green" roof on every building, and, for Matt, devise an enormously costly and unrealistic 'solution' to the homeless/mentally disabled problem.
Just because something is a good cause doesn't mean it should be indiscriminately funded by the public. ...especially when it is abundantly clear that *we.can.not.afford.it.*
Perhaps, if we were in fat times and had saved well, we could go along with a 'prestige' project such as this, but we overspent (and undersaved) in the good times and now, in the hard times, we're doing even worse.
Our bank account is empty, not bottomless and we need to make hard decisions. The notion of "fiscal responsibility" shouldn't be the sole property of the crazy fucking teabaggers. We need to learn that we'll never be able to fund ALL the things that we want to (not to mention the fact that the government is not always the best mechanism for doing such things). We need to make hard decisions: schools? roads? bike paths? lower taxes? higher taxes? health care? sending a few musicians on a costly trip that Portlanders will never see? Crap, that's about the easiest spending cut we'll have the privilege to make right now.
I'd love to support something like that, really I would. And when I'm no longer underemployed (if ever) I'll be sure to pony up some money to help make it possible. But my tax dollars? When the city has such dangerous budget gaps? It would be totally unacceptable for the city to lay out that money in an economic climate such as this. Lauderdale's point that "no end to all of the great things we should be spending money on," is just the sort of thinking that has gotten us into this predicament. There are more good causes than there is money and we've got to exercise some of that "fiscal responsibility" that we, as a nation, keep ignoring.
Pipers need to be paid eventually, and I'm not talking about the symphony kind.
OK, reality check: Anybody know how big the city of Portland's total annual budget is? It's $2.75 BILLION this year. (Even when the economy sucks, cities this size do not simply come grinding to a halt.) And anybody know how small a portion of that $2.75 billion $200,000 is? It's 0.007 percent. That is, 7 one-thousandths of 1 percent. In other words, pocket change.
So, for comparison purposes, say you make $50,000 a year. You know how much money 0.007 percent of that would be? $3.50. Or, to make the comparison one a Portlander would understand: Less than the cost of a medium vanilla latte at Stumptown.
If you were worth that $50k a year, and a good friend came up to you and said, "Hey, buddy, I really need $3.50. It's important. It'll make a world of difference to me," -- well, sure, you could say to him, "Over my dead body. Times are tough. I'm a little short this year. Ask me in a couple of years. Maybe I'll be able to help you out then." You'd be a jerk, but yes, if you really didn't want to help you could say that.
Or you could say: "My friend is important. I'll give him the help that's so important to him. Even if my own wallet is in the worst shape it's been in in years, I can certainly scrounge up a measly $3.50 by cutting something else. I mean, how hard can it be ? It's only $3.50. Nobody's that cheap, right?"
And even if that friend took the $3.50 and ran off to spend it on something you thought was a wasteful luxury -- say, his own latte at Stumptown -- would it really be that big a deal?
$200,000 for the symphony to appear at Carnegie Hall? City Hall probably spends more than that on donuts every year.
As a New Yorker who operates a Classical Arts website (go-artsamerica.com ) I would love to hear the Oregon Symphony someday - in Portland or even Salem, but not in Carnegie Hall if it requires taking much needed tax funds from vital Portland city services.
Besides the resident New York Philharmonic and the Orchestra of St. Luke's, New York City has over a dozen or so symphony orchestra visit every year - most of which have a much stronger name than the Oregon Symphony. Selling the performances will be difficult and will probably have to utilize various discount schemes available in New York including papering services (were members get to go for free.) The performances may get one review in the New York Times.
Even if this trip was being totally financed by private funds, I still would think that those funds could be put to better use in Oregon - but to use already meager public tax dollars is just wrong.
On the other hand, if the symphony were to say "We respectfully decline to attend. Given the economic distress in Portland, the $200k we need from the city to make this trip could be better used by the Oregon Food Bank..." well, that would be huge publicity, practically guaranteeing another front-page NY Times article, which all this (raising awareness and elevating the stature of the symphony) is presumably about.
Indeed, and that's precisely the problem. If we had a bottomless bank account it would be great to pay our teachers better than McDonald's managers, improve Trimet, buy cops who don't suck, build a 12 (bike) lane CRC (that's also 'pretty'), fund the hell out of the arts, put a "green" roof on every building, and, for Matt, devise an enormously costly and unrealistic 'solution' to the homeless/mentally disabled problem.
Just because something is a good cause doesn't mean it should be indiscriminately funded by the public. ...especially when it is abundantly clear that *we.can.not.afford.it.*
Perhaps, if we were in fat times and had saved well, we could go along with a 'prestige' project such as this, but we overspent (and undersaved) in the good times and now, in the hard times, we're doing even worse.
Our bank account is empty, not bottomless and we need to make hard decisions. The notion of "fiscal responsibility" shouldn't be the sole property of the crazy fucking teabaggers. We need to learn that we'll never be able to fund ALL the things that we want to (not to mention the fact that the government is not always the best mechanism for doing such things). We need to make hard decisions: schools? roads? bike paths? lower taxes? higher taxes? health care? sending a few musicians on a costly trip that Portlanders will never see? Crap, that's about the easiest spending cut we'll have the privilege to make right now.
Pipers need to be paid eventually, and I'm not talking about the symphony kind.
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…
Opps!
So, for comparison purposes, say you make $50,000 a year. You know how much money 0.007 percent of that would be? $3.50. Or, to make the comparison one a Portlander would understand: Less than the cost of a medium vanilla latte at Stumptown.
If you were worth that $50k a year, and a good friend came up to you and said, "Hey, buddy, I really need $3.50. It's important. It'll make a world of difference to me," -- well, sure, you could say to him, "Over my dead body. Times are tough. I'm a little short this year. Ask me in a couple of years. Maybe I'll be able to help you out then." You'd be a jerk, but yes, if you really didn't want to help you could say that.
Or you could say: "My friend is important. I'll give him the help that's so important to him. Even if my own wallet is in the worst shape it's been in in years, I can certainly scrounge up a measly $3.50 by cutting something else. I mean, how hard can it be ? It's only $3.50. Nobody's that cheap, right?"
And even if that friend took the $3.50 and ran off to spend it on something you thought was a wasteful luxury -- say, his own latte at Stumptown -- would it really be that big a deal?
$200,000 for the symphony to appear at Carnegie Hall? City Hall probably spends more than that on donuts every year.
Besides the resident New York Philharmonic and the Orchestra of St. Luke's, New York City has over a dozen or so symphony orchestra visit every year - most of which have a much stronger name than the Oregon Symphony. Selling the performances will be difficult and will probably have to utilize various discount schemes available in New York including papering services (were members get to go for free.) The performances may get one review in the New York Times.
Even if this trip was being totally financed by private funds, I still would think that those funds could be put to better use in Oregon - but to use already meager public tax dollars is just wrong.
Jeffrey Compton
Executive Editor
Arts America