Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

buuj214 t1_iqw8ryk wrote

It's not exactly binary; it's not like, whelp, we added a trail, guess we can't also solve other problems. 'Don't make improvements until all problems are solved' is not a reasonable approach. Any level of government needs to be able to address all types of problems, solutions, and improvements at the same time.

That also ignores all the social and economic benefits of having recreation but that's a whoooole other discussion.

11

roccoccoSafredi t1_iqwlxdm wrote

No, I agree it's not binary. But in a world of finite funding, I cannot help but think the state could be using it in ways that would improve more peoples lives.

I'm not talking about things like "lets fix poverty!", but concrete expenses like the ones I've mentioned.

It's not like the opportunity for recreation doesn't already exist. And it's not like most people who would be using this trail extension don't already have the means to access either of the trails it's connecting. Sure, maybe a few, but is that number of people outweighed by the number who would benefit from some of the other things I talked about? I doubt it.

It's nice to have nice things, but my point is, we already have a lot of nice things. Maybe we should focus on having some more things that actually matter.

−3