But again, in the interest of the greater good, if winter sports (presumably things like the Wirth Park Chalet, etc.) can get people outside and active during a time of year when they'd be otherwise sitting around on their duffs, isn't it acceptable if they're losing some money? It's so weird how certain government services must pay for themselves, while others can receive enormous subsidies and nobody here bats an eye.
I knew the geniuses would come up with the budget numbers.
I think that you are starting to get to the heart of the issue. How do we assign value to assets?
It *seems* like assets that can generate revenue SHOULD as long as it isn't in opposition to agreed upon values (i.e. putting a cell phone tower on top of the Lake Harriet Bandshell). This is how I'm evaluating it but I'm a guy that knows nothing about the MPRB budget and how values are assigned/evaluated.
Intuitively, it seems that the resources dumped into (or pumped out of) acres upon acres of golf course(s) seems counter to conservation of resources and global stewardship BUT, if there are lots of people walking *cough - not happening* then perhaps there are benefits to be weighed against the negatives that I've identified. Despite my negativity about golf courses, perhaps there is great benefit to cross-country skiers and that value needs to be calculated as well and after all of these things are calculated we get a useful tool to evaluate an MPRB asset.
Someone has to be doing this kind of thing already right? Again, I'm late to a lot of parties so I'm asking innocently and perhaps this territory is well-trod.