The economics of funding

My father was a city council member for a very small Arkansas town for too many years. I knew when the phone rang, it was probably about a pothole when I hoped it was from Aubrey Nixon, the girl I had a crush on.

His was a thankless, tiresome, awful job. My father had the city on his mind. I had Aubrey on mine. Unrequited love was the thing Dad and I shared. We dealt with it but there’s a residual effect which leaves me hesitant to ever address a town’s council.

But, to the city council of Gonzales, I need to say this:

Please reconsider your decision on funding for the Come and Take It celebration.

The council was advised by the Gonzales Visitor and Convention Bureau to cut $24,000 from the entertainment budget, leaving the committee that oversees the event $6,000 because hotel/motel occupancy taxes were down $400,000 last year.

I visited Gonzales three times before it was home. Each time, I met someone who told me I needed to visit during Come and Take It. It became apparent it’s a big deal. Locally, it always will be, because of history and lineage. To a visitor, as I was, it was an intriguing event.

Cutting the budget by 66 percent seems to make fiscal sense but seems counter-intuitive. Essentially, the decision to decrease an expenditure for drawing visitors because visitation is down chaps my macroeconomic instincts. We need to invest more. Not less.

Economics aside, entertainment is a big deal. Big budget movies make big dollars. Big name musicians draw big crowds. A celebration that is centered wholly on the essence of Gonzales deserves a big budget.

There’s two kinds of math and I understand the city is focused on the type they are looking at on a balance sheet. I get that. But there’s speculative math and that’s tougher. It’s very difficult to project how many people, like me, would drive from Bastrop or Eureka Springs, Arkansas to Gonzales, but I’m certain the sum is proportionate to the investment.

I propose we rethink this decision to reduce that investment by two thirds. Understanding there is a reality that stands opposite of hope or projection, a reduction is prudent. But 66 percent is huge. It will have an effect and it will be felt.

Let me be clear. The city is right to look at expenditures with a tight belt. They have a tough job and I’m a fan of what we get and what we don’t on almost every decision they make. The Come and Take It decision on funding is a rare exception. The correlation of expense and result is evident. Every dollar spent was worth it even when it wasn’t obvious. The amount non-profits alone have taken in has grown relative to the investment. Their net profits increased 30% over a three-year span. Logic would assume local merchants fared as well or better.  By any measure, reducing the budget will follow the laws of monetary physics and reduce the gains.

Can we have a do over? I’ve never argued against a reduction before. But can we only reduce it by half? The extra $9,000 is needed because musicians like John Conlee aren’t cheap. But they’re worth the drive. And, coincidentally, the crowds they draw fix potholes and free up the phones.