|Buy a lottery ticket,|
Support a path
Here's what the Salvation Army has to say on gambling:
The Salvation Army is opposed to gambling. The nature of gambling lends itself to exploitative, deceptive and manipulative practices. It is contrary to Christian principles of love, freedom from oppression and concern for others.Kinda interesting, don't you think?
As such it should not be a means of income generation or economic development, whether by government agencies, charitable organisations, churches or commercial interests....
Gambling is becoming increasingly common and accessible, often promoted and enabled by governments. Gambling may be large and sophisticated – such as lotteries, casinos, slot machines, online gambling or sports betting – or small and loosely organised informal games of chance.
(The question isn't exactly fair. The centers are an odd private-public benefaction, and questions that might look like rhetorical or leading ones with an "obvious" answer are often more complicated. So, yes, these are sincere questions.)
Another interesting angle is that while the City of Salem would be required to approve and apply for the funds, the project would benefit the City of Keizer, not the City of Salem. It would be for the kids, but they would be from families in Keizer.
Though the question is not charitable, it is worth asking: Should the City of Salem be undertaking projects for the benefit of Keizer residents? If so, should Salem ask for something from Keizer?
The key here is that Keizer's existence and incorporation was fundamentally premised on a rejection of Salem and the prospect of annexation and the associated taxation and benefits. Only in this light it is reasonable to ask whether Salem should undertake a project for Keizer. Because of course if we think access to the Kroc Center is a valuable thing, a good thing, we should should want to make sure it is available equally to all. But maybe Keizer should help out a little?...The inter-city politics are interesting.
Finally, it's more than a little odd to read the neutered language here:
“People don’t feel comfortable making that crossing,” said [City Staff]Kids! We're talking about kids!
The main problem isn't that "people don't feel comfortable," the problem is that the parkway isn't safe for kids and few parents in their right mind would send kids on their own to cross the parkway! (The only people, including adults, who feel totally "comfortable" making that crossing are lunatics, numb to danger! Crossing the parkway is always being alert to danger.)
Maybe City Staff can't make a stronger statement without damning the City for the dumb siting decision - but it seems like it puts the burden on people for complaining without reason, for an overwrought and subjective desire for comfort as opposed to an objective standard of safety. (Maybe this is a reportorial decision, however.)
And over at N3B, advocates point out some of the irony that SKATS is in favor of an expensive giant bridge and highway over the river for people in cars, but is not in favor of a foot bridge across the parkway for kids because it would be expensive.
By siting the Kroc Center in an industrial wasteland, and with the Salvation Army's acceptance of that, the City of Salem and Kroc Center have brought on themselves a bunch of difficulties, and it's not clear that remedying these should be the City's highest priority.
(For more on the Kroc Center and the history of the path proposal, see notes here.)