“Consider the Competing Needs”
In an op-ed published today, the editorial board at the St. Joseph News-Press encourages Missouri’s legislators and leaders in economic development to “consider the competing needs” when deciding whether to continue financially supporting the Tour of Missouri. (Link via Combest).
Taxpayers understand you don’t add to your stock investments when you are struggling to buy food and pay for college tuition. Business owners rarely add a second location, no matter the potential, when times are tough and they have payrolls to meet.
So, too, the state’s legislators and economic-development leaders must choose between funding the cycling competition or fully funding such things as teachers and early-childhood education.
This is an example of the “hard choices” that Sarah Brodsky described earlier on this blog. Before they spend money on any program — be it a cycling competition, a light-rail expansion, or anything else — state and local governments should perform this kind of cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the money can be spent more wisely elsewhere.
Is your contention that state and local governments are not considering competing needs? I think they are, but they apparently are not reaching the same conclusions as some would hope they would.
Comment by Ryan Anderhoff — March 29, 2010 @ 4:49 p.m.
Not arguing that state legislators shouldn’t considering competing needs etc etc etc.
Except as applied in this situation the reasoning is flawed:
Business owners rarely add a second location
The Tour of Missouri is already established as an existing, large, successful, world-class sporting event that brings in hundreds of thousands of spectators and millions in economic activity.
If you were going to start **another new** similar event this year (ie, ‘add a second location’) then obviously the answer is no.
But right now we’re talking about *an existing location* that is already established, already paying for itself, and the question is whether you continue that or not.
Perhaps you could look at reducing its budget–and you should look pretty hard at *how far you can reduce it* without actually ‘closing the store’ and losing all the benefit you are getting from it.
The Tour of Missouri can get along without any state budget at all–after another year or two of transition. It can get along with less state funding this year than last, and even less next year.
But if state funding goes to zero the event will end–or to put it more precisely, it will move to another state or country and that other place will reap the benefits.
The state has put a lot of money into the Tour of Missouri. It has paid off reasonably well even in the start-up period.
But it would be a shame if we smother the baby in the cradle just at the moment it is nearly ready to stand up on its own two feet and bring the same benefits to Missouri with far less (and finally, little or no) state investment.
Because the Tour can (and I agree with you, should) suffer reduced state funding this year, perhaps even dramatically reduced funding. But if the funding goes to zero the event will end, not just for 2010 but forever.
On the other hand if it survives 2010 it is on track to be close to self supporting in 2011 and self supporting in 2012 and onward.
Comment by Brent Hugh — March 29, 2010 @ 10:08 p.m.