8 Responses to “Let’s hope this doesn’t catch on here” »»

1. GlassHouse
   Comment by GlassHouse | 09/05/07 at 7:43 pm

   Hi John,

   >>> Why should other people

   (taxpayers) subsidize
   >>> someone else’s choice of lifestyle?

   The feds pay me

   about $9K a year to live in Boston. That’s what I get back from the IRS each year from my

   mortgage and property tax deductions. How about you?

   In addition, when I sold my single

   family house in 2004, I got another $100K from the feds because they forgave capital gains taxes on

   my housing profits. This worked out to another $7K pear year for the time that I owned the

   house.

   If I lived instead in a low-cost housing city like Dallas or Atlanta, it is unlikely

   that I would have received anywhere near the same amount of federal housing assistance

   monies.

   G.H.

2. John A Keith
   Comment by John A Keith | 09/05/07 at 7:57 pm

   Don’t get me started …

3. Jim
   Comment by Jim | 09/06/07 at 8:58 am

   Maybe we need to subsidize artists because they are the heart of the cities

   we love? What would NY be without it’s vibrant art community and tradition? Would it be the

   same? Or would it just be a city like Cleveland, Salt Lake City or Saint Louis?

4. Liam
   Comment by Liam | 09/06/07 at 9:02 am

   You can think of it as subsidizing

   one’s lifestyle choice (though I believe the proper phrase would be “career choice”), or you can

   look at it as an investment in the drive to maintain economic/commercial diversity.

   I tend

   to think of it as the latter. The average artist may not become famous and wealthy based solely on

   his talent and solo artistic output, and probably no one could argue that a collection of artists

   is going to suddenly make art supply stores all the rage, but an aggregation of creatively-minded

   types could spur economic development outside their immediate artistic medium. Artists draw agents

   and galleries. They can sometimes band together and put on shows. Some will see what their

   neighbors are doing and find inspiration to go into other forms of the creative field (writing,

   performance art, electronic media, graphic arts, metalworking, etc.), which can open many avenues

   of economic development.

   Beyond that, artists tend to draw yuppies who then buy condos and

   lofts and open restaurants. Yes, I know it’s a cycle, but in terms of economics, for a few

   thousand $$ each year to some artists… I’d say it’s not a bad investment.

5. Pam
   Comment by Pam | 09/07/07 at 3:50 am

   John,

   Is the fact that nearly 50 million Americans live without healthcare YOUR problem, if

   you’re not one of them?
   Is the fact that public schools are failing and not providing students

   with an adequate education YOUR problem if you don’t have kids?
   Is the fact that a college

   education leaves the average kid and family with thousands of dollars of debt YOUR problem if

   you’re not sending a kid off to college?
   SHORT ANSWER: If you live in what could be referred to

   as a “civil” society and not some third-world backwater, (that is, where it is recognized that

   each of our fates is indeed dependent on the well-being and success of others) then, yes, indeed,

   these are very well YOUR problems! Your argument is the same one people used to justify leaving

   people on rooftops in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. I invite you to continue to think only

   of yourself and your own needs and then see what kind of city, neighborhood and society you end up

   with.

6. Jim
   Comment by Jim | 09/07/07 at 8:51 am

   Pam, truer words could not have been said. thank you for putting John in

   his place on this topic.

7. John A Keith
   Comment by John A Keith | 09/07/07 at 9:18 pm

   Sorry, no, Pam, I don’t agree with you. You can try to make it sound as

   if what I was talking about was similar to what you are talking about, but it’s not.

   No, I

   don’t think I should have to subsidize the choices of other people. There are plenty of places

   for an artist to live, they don’t have some “right’ to living in an expensive neighborhood, any

   more than I have a “right” to live in Weston or Lincoln.

   To argue otherwise makes no

   sense!

   And, no, it’s not my problem what parents have to do to pay for their child’s

   college.

   I mean, really.

   The “society I know” is one where there is a sense of

   personal responsibility, of taking care of oneself and not relying on handouts from

   others.

   If an “artist” can’t afford to live in a certain neighborhood or in a certain town,

   I suggest he or she look elsewhere, and not to their local government to subsidize their

   lifestyles.

   Why should an “artist” (and I put that word in quotes on purpose) get any

   special treatment? An accountant or a streetsweeper could make the same claim - “What I do adds to

   the quality of life of my neighborhood, please pay me just for being here.”

   Oh, wait, are

   you suggesting that, too????

8. Jim
   Comment by Jim | 09/10/07 at 10:21 am

   You are being

   ridiculous. Again think about why New York City and Manhattan are so desirable to yuppies?

   Because it has culture, arts, life. You live in Back Bay, right? That neighborhood has enjoyed a

   revival because artists made it an appealing neighborhood. It’s not the drug dealers in the

   projects behind Back Bay that attracted you, is it now? To take over a neighborhood that artists

   made come alive and not give them a chance to continue to enrich the neighborhood because you can

   pay a higher rent or mortgage than them, is just shameless. Look at a neighborhood like

   Williamsburg in NY City. No one was living there 10 years ago but a few artists in illegal

   loft/work spaces. Now it’s all the rage. People want to live there because the artists made it

   an appealing area. If you see nothing wrong in just kicking them out, I pity your outlook on life

   and basic compassion for your fellow neighbor.

Leave a Reply »»