Il State Representative 58th District
Dear Representative Morgan:
A few years ago some well meaning member of the state senate decided to fix something that wasn't broke with a bill called SB136. At the time, I was the dedicate home educator of our family home school, and as the bill was primarily aimed at home education I rallied against it even writing several posts about it on my blog. At that time I thought I might be done with blogging about misguided bill proposals. But thanks to you, I get to go at it again.
While it may have seemed to you like a good idea to tie winning records into public funding requests for sports facilities, and it certainly gave you 15 minutes of fame, The question remains why you would set winning records as a requirement for stadiums when it is not requisite for other public funding.
Public schools, for example, continue to receive public funds even when the students are not showing winning records. In fact, one can make the argument that we should put funds in schools that are not winning so their winning percentage can increase in years to come. It's called development. Also ,we spend money on prisons and that money is spent on people who come to have losing records, sometimes in your line of work.
{{Information |Description={{en|1=Staley Da Bear, the official mascot of the Chicago Bears. }} |Source=http://www.flickr.com/photos/blueyeda73/2988610732/ |Author=[http://www.flickr.com/photos/blueyeda73/ blueyeda73] |Date=10 28, 2008 |Permission=see belo
One of the main reasons we should be exploring the idea of spending public funding for sports teams like the Bears is to bring more quality opportunities to our area. If the Bears had a state of the art facilty they woukd be much more likely to be considered for hosting events like the Super Bowl and giving the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago more leverage in winning a future bid for hosting the Olympic games. Those events would certainly bringg revenue to the owners of the facility but would also bring visitors, jobs and positive notoriety to the area.
If you still insist on making winning records part of government financing of a stadium I'm not sure the requirement of 3 of 5 years winning record your proposal calls for is the best way to go. According to your plan, a team could win 3 of their last 5 and then have 9 straight losing seasons. A back end approach seems more feasible. Perhaps after the team that receives financial backing from the state starts playing in their new facility there be a written into the contract that if the team has a combined losing record any 5 consecutive seasons in a 19 year period that they have to pay the state a predetermined amount. This could either be a percentage of the original financing amount or a percentage of their annual revenue.
If such a plan was in place after government money was used to build what was then called Comiskey Park or Comiskey Park II, there would have only been 1 5 year period of 15 (1995-1999) where the White Sox would have needed to pay a penalty. During that 19 year period the White Sox went to playoffs 4 times and won the World Series in 2005. Those 4 playoff appearances were one more than the 80 seasons played at the original Comiskey. When put that way it seems like it was money well spent.
.jpg)
As for calling your act the BEARS act may make sense to you since Lake Forest, I believe is in your district but to name it for just one team when many may want to finance a stadium seems again like a cute way to make a name for yourself. I would suggest a better acronym and a better plan before calling any more audibles.
No comments:
Post a Comment