notes on government, sports and popular culture
.....Interesting discussion over at Cone's
regarding the city's SCAT program.
The conversation steers briefly over to the Wachovia Tower, producing this from Roch Smith:
"Ed, the fallacy of your defense of the Carroll building subsidies, indeed everyone's defense of the deal, is that it supposes an all or nothing situation, i.e. either we pony up the tax breaks or the building will not be renovated. It ignores the third possibility that I haven't seen dismissed as unrealistic -- that we do not offer tax breaks, the building gets renovated anyway and local governments get to keep the taxes they are prepared to refund."
I couldn't have summed up the big picture any better myself, although I pointed out the three politicians who voted against incentives for Roy Carroll bent over backward to wish him success.
I think what's bothering me about the SCAT issue is it's being debated in an inverse manner. It seems as though general transit is the given while city officials figure out how to streamline SCAT.
The way I see it, the debate should be the other way around. Funding for SCAT should be the given while the city seriously discusses streamlining service for able-bodied riders, who, let's face it, have more transportation options than the disabled.