Makes alot of sense. I just think we keep tolling bridges and roads to pay for them. Seems like ya should spend that 30 million on them and get rid of the tollsPhilosophically I don't think the government should "necessarily" be funding projects such as this. Context is important.
I believe that ONLY AFTER all other infrastructure has been fully funded, then spending may(?) progress on such luxury(?) products.
However, I'm also somewhat pragmatic. The Indiana budget is about $18.5 billion, or $18,500,000,000 for those who like zero's (not Japanese.) So a $30M project compared to $18.5B is about 0.00162%. In other words, if you are wanting to be fiscally conservative and squish waste, and if you wanted to save Indiana taxpayers $1,000, then cutting this project would save $1.63 (rounding up.) If we're not squishing $185,000,000 then we're not even saving 1%.
I'm not saying it's not fiscally irresponsible, I'm just saying this is not the bugaboo I'd get in a twist over.
And by the way, maybe(?) it isn't fiscally irresponsible. Maybe... Projects like this may draw companies, employees, jobs to the state. There is an argument to be made that says younger workers like things to do after work. Projects such as this may(?) draw companies from which tax revenues will offset the cost. It isn't the strongest argument but it isn't a weak one either. The problem is that it is very hard to measure.
Regards,
Doug