For the most part, Americans reject the idea of government ownership of the economy. Yet Minnesotans are comfortable with the idea of government ownership of facilities that provide recreational activities better left with the private sector.
It’s not just Minneapolis and Saint Paul that are home to city-owned recreational centers and such. The attitude that “government should go into the business of fun” carries out into the suburbs as well. And not just the inner-ring ‘burbs that are comfortably DFL.
Eagan, the home of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, is also the home of a number of government owned and operated commercial enterprises. It has a water park that rivals many a privately owned enterprise.
In the southern ‘burbs you can find city-owned water parks in Apple Valley,Bloomington, Edina, and Shakopee.
Northern suburbs have city-owned facilities as well. The only one I know is the Tropics of Shoreview, but that’s probably because I haven’t looked very far.
While such facilities certainly appeal to families, they put public entitites in competition with taxpayers. Why make the trek to a privately owned concern such as Wild Mountain, an hour’s drive from downtown Saint Paul, when you can let the kids run wild at the municipal water complex? More importantly for entrepreneurship, why start a business when your chief competition is a tax-exempt organization?
To further involve itself in commercial enterprises, Eagan recently expanded its water park by adding the Captain’s Course, a miniature golf course that, if the marketing materials are to be believed, is quite a step up from the windmill fare.
Eagan, by the way, also has a government-owned fitness center with all manner of weight training and cardio equipment. Why pay your dues to a commercial operator such as Anytime, Lifetime, or Snap Fitness, when you can get most of the same services for less at a government facility that just has to break even (if that) and doesn’t have to turn a profit? Kudos to those brave souls who decide to, well, fight city hall.
Is there a limit to what government can and should do?
If running health clubs and extravagant entertainment centers is part of its mission, maybe not.
No discussion of government-owned recreation facilities would be complete without mentioning golf. Governing magazine has called municipal-owned courses “the most nonessential of nonessential services” governments provide. Yet city governments can’t resist the urge to go into business. Again, thinking just south of the river, we have Valleywood (Apple Valley), Birnamwood (Burnsville), Inverwood (Inver Grove Heights), and others. Each is in competition with private owners.
Turn to winter sports, and you’ll find that Minnesota has municipal ice arenas by the score. It’s the land of hockey, after all. But we should look to private clubs and business owners to offer these services, not city hall.
They are also a few government-owned ski hills. Northern Minnesota features Lutsen, which is privately owned and operated, and probably the best ski and snowboarding resort that the Midwest has to offer. But Lutsen must compete for customers with Giants Ridge, which is owned by a state agency, and Spirit Mountain, which is owned by the City of Duluth.
THE NECESSITY DEFENSE
Granted, some of the various facilities came about when there were few or even no privately owned and operated facilities. Call it the necessity defense: if government doesn’t build it, nobody will come.
But does the temporary lack of some group’s idea for a recreational facility rise to the level of needing government involvement? That’s hard to believe.
Sure, having these facilities around can be useful. A couple years ago I thought of taking some small fry to a mini-golf facility south of the river. I couldn’t find any. So it’s easy to see why some Eagan residents would hail the opening of a city-owned course.
Remember, though, there are obvious drawbacks to such activities.
Each facility mentioned above fails several components of the test of a public good. Gates and employees can and do exclude non-fee-payers from pools, ski hills, and golf courses.
Government businesses put the majority of taxpayers in direct commercial conflict with the taxpayers who own golf courses, water parks, and so forth. They also risk taxpayer funds should the business goes south.
Commercial enterprises distract government from its core mission. Is a city about public safety and paving the roads, or is it in the entertainment business?
The government-as-business model can also open the door for further ill-fated ventures. It’s one thing for public officials to say “we don’t have enough courses for junior golfers, let’s build a course” to “let’s cure poverty by creating a right to high-quality organic food” or some other foolish errand.
Furthermore, municipal enterprises are self-perpetuating. A failing business goes out of business. A failing government agency … gets more money.
There’s an old saying found in many an office: lack of preparedness on your part does not make an emergency on my part. In that spirit, the lack of a golf course, water park, broadband service, etc., at the price and in the quantity desired by taxpayers does not make a case for government ownership of business.
Waiting for private sector entrepreneurs to arrive can be frustrating. But it’s better than plunging the public trust into commercial services.