I hope that these ideas are given serious consideration. I am concerned that in Ann Arbor there is a mind-set that believes anything benefiting the private sector is, by definition, to be avoided even if it would also solve a city problem and achieve a worthwhile goal.

With an appropriate facility it should be possible to have a self-sustaining senior center; that has worked in other communities. Increasing participation is some of the activites at the center shows that it can work in Ann Arbor too.

Without knowing any details, that does not sound like a solution to the maintenance of the current senior center activities, and it would result in a tax loss to the city (assuming that a similar development might be built without a TIF arrangement).

The objective of the Senior Center Task Force is to determine if the Senior Center can be “operated in a fiscally responsible manner” which I believe means that it must be virtually self-sustaining. That requires a center that is attractive for facility rental, as well as growing the number of fee based activities at the center. A new center could be sited and designed to achieve these goals. With this in mind, shouldn’t the city reconsider the Bleznak proposal to meet the needs of the city, the seniors, and the investment group?

I hope that if the city takes the money from the Senior Center, it also takes your recommendation to hire another police officer because, believe me, we’re going to need one. Maybe you don’t remember the days in Ann Arbor BEFORE there was a Senior Center, but I sure do. Seniors carousing in Burns Park till late at night drinking beer and banging on garbage cans, hanging out in gangs at Packard and Stadium, intimidating law-abiding citizens on the bus. It wasn’t until the Senior Center opened that we got a little peace and quiet around here. I say subsidize small interests or we’re going to have big problems again.

It is not necessary for us as individuals to participate in every one of the projects or programs we fund as a city. There is some give and take. You perhaps get benefit from one program, I another. If it works right everyone thinks that the trade-offs are equitable.

That works as long as the programs and projects are pools of interest broad enough to embrace both you and I. The narrower the benefit, the less likely is the give and take between elements of our common society to be seen as equitable.

I am not a collectivist as you are. But I am also not ignorant of the value of groups. In fact, I’ve built a business analyzing teams and other forms of groups for some of the biggest firms in the world. All I am arguing for is a different balance, but still a balance.

Rather than dismissing the “small stuff” as minor in the City budget context, I’d suggest focusing on it. I would recommend that you clear the decks as much as you can. Everything is “fair game”–seniors, sports, arts,etc.

City government will spend as many hours talking and negotiating on a $50,000 project as on a $50,000,000 one. Emotional tension can become as great for a $10,000 item as for a $5,000,000 item. Get rid of the small stuff will give everyone more room to find that elusive balance.

Vivienne I could go on. However, let me conclude by saying that I respect you and your governmental colleagues–even the ones I disagree with. There are no easy solutions to this equation. Given the economics at the end of the day something is going to get cut and people are going to get hurt. The only question is “which people.” I don’t envy your job.

It could be argued that we are each “subsidizing” any service or activity in which we do not individually participate. I’m certainly feeling the weight of that city hall on my shoulders. So is the good of the broader community defined as the number served in each case? I have never had children but keep on voting for those dern school millages. I’ll never know most of those kids. Why am I subsidizing them? Let their parents pay for their education if they think they need one. And what about all those sports? I don’t even like most sports. Why am I paying for maintenance of those baseball diamonds? How many baseball players are there in Ann Arbor? How do their numbers stack up against the seniors and what is the dollar value of “subsidy” that each one of them is getting?

Come to think of it, most of the seniors probably don’t play baseball. Could they request to have their taxes pay for the senior center instead of baseball?

Of course all that is nonsense, but that is what comes of treating government as a user-fee-run operation. OK, I freely admit it. I’m a communitarian. I think that we need individually and as a group to support the needs of all segments of our society. We will have to make some decisions that are unpleasant sometimes but I question whether cutting small amounts that go to services so that large amounts can go for big projects and fountains are the right ones. I’ve noticed that when people talk about “tough decisions”, they mean, “I’ll make one for you.”

Maybe you put your finger on the problem with your statement “Since when did the city justify anything by its price tag?” Its not the only criterion, but it sure should be one of them. The economic times suggest that this posture should get more emphasis.

By the way, Luanne, I don’t mind you contributing your personal funds to the maintenance of the center. In fact, I’d applaud the gesture.

My point is that in a world of scarcity, you’ve got to make choices. Yours is apparently to sacrifice broader interests for those benefiting a few. It is a legitimate position, just one I don’t share.