The Reasoning to Support a Million-Dollar Football Field

The Reasoning to Support a Million-Dollar Football Field

By Henry W. Hessing

The Mayor of the Village of Babylon proceeded correctly in writing an open letter to the public, raising public awareness, and reiterating basic questions that proponents of a million dollar football field should be prepared to answer.

The reasoning presented in various letters to the editor of the Babylon Beacon for purchasing and installing a million dollar football field needs to be stated clearly and concisely. It would be helpful if proponents would prepare a clearly reasoned document that describes the proposed action; the specific authorization being requested; what contracts and procurement method would be implemented; what are the aggregate payments; what financing or investment is required; and what are the sources of funding.

This document should define what the background of the project is; what is the project duration; have there been prior authorizations? If the project is “for the children” has there been a study prepared comparing injuries to athletes on various types of playing surfaces included and thus validating what alternates have been considered and the viability of each? What are the benefits to the Village of Babylon and/or region; what other impacts are there; and what, if any, are the outstanding issues? For example, has there been a traffic study or is an environmental impact statement required?

A financial analysis is required. Whose budget is affected; what is its status; what is the expected cost recovery; and is there any anticipated future authorization from this action? What are the fees or fee schedule? What is the Village’s investment? What are the terms/escalations that have to be obligated to operate and maintain the project? What are the total aggregate payments?

Other comments might include: security requirements; life expectancy of the field and the cost of renewal. Who must sign an agreement? Who has rights to terminate an agreement? Who will be obligated to maintain insurance?

To evaluate the merits of a project, planning is required. By not knowing how to plan a project, by not answering basic questions involved with planning a project, no evaluation can be made.

One letter to the editor stated, “We should all remember that in a civilized society we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good of our friends and neighbors.” Unfortunately that statement does not answer the planning questions noted above. If a project is well planned, why does anyone have to make sacrifices? No answer.

Financial decisions for a football field should be based on intelligent planning and not “sacrifices.” The thinking that perpetrates the undefined term “sacrifices for the greater good” means sacrifices of one group are necessary not because they involve any evaluation of the proposed project but because they don’t. This view allows no discrimination between what is of value and what is a none-value.

This view is a full-scale renunciation of value. It believes that the individual has no value. It is paradoxical to proclaim the universal equality of all, while simultaneously invoking special privileges for certain groups. Thus, if the rational and the irrational are to be treated alike, the latter must be given objectively preferential treatment. The proponents preach an amoral equivalence – i.e., a system under which a value is never to be deemed preferable to a non-value because there is no evaluation.

In the name of justice, taxpayers should be demanding a tax cut that lowers their tax bill by a million dollars. The proponents of a million dollar football field do not want a tax cut and do not want justice. They want redistribution of wealth. They want to confiscate the income earned by the taxpayer and give it to people who have not earned it. It is but a twist on the Willy Sutton reasoning for eminent domain under the guise of altruism.

In an article written in February 2001, Edwin A Locke, a professor of management, defined altruism.

“The moral principal used to justify income redistribution is altruism. Altruism does not mean generosity or benevolent concern for the less fortunate. Altruism means: other-ism. It is the doctrine that it is your moral duty to live for others and to sacrifice your life, property and well being for theirs. It is the code of self-sacrifice. Under altruism the productive are the ones who must give and the non-productive are those who receive. The inability or the unwillingness of the non-productive to create wealth gives them a moral claim upon those who do.

The doctrine of altruism induces (and is meant to induce) guilt. It makes the successful feel they have no right to their achievements. The goal of altruism is to disarm the producers morally so they will not defend their right to their lives and property.

Altruism is the moral code that underlies Marxism. Marx’s credo was: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need.” Man has no right to exist for himself because he is a servant of the state or society to be disposed of as they see fit.

Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. An American has the “inalienable right “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes property rights. It means that your life and property belong to you, not to the state or society. It means that the government’s job is to protect, not to violate, rights.”

The proponents of a million dollar football field would enforce altruism through coercion for a goal they desire. When the property of some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice.

Acting in one’s own interest while respecting the rights of others is fully moral – it is the fundamental requirement of a successful and happy life. It means that you are not an object of sacrifice, but a sovereign being. It means that your property belongs to you. It means that every individual whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American ideal. Proponents of a million dollar football field should be self-reliant, plan their project, be able to defend it and seek private donations. Using tax dollars is a grave injustice. Reducing taxes by a million dollars is only a beginning on the road to a truly just society where each man keeps what he earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others.