Nick Coleman thinks all people, in particular, the homeless, should be given unfettered access to the St. Paul Winter Carnival Ice Palace. The financial consequences be damned. And if they don’t get in for free, then nobody should get in. These are the facts of the case and they are not in dispute. They have been well established, in a column he wrote before the holidays, called "In the Shadow of Ice, A Warm Welcome."
For its cliched, cloying sentimentality and shameful exploitation of a homeless man's death to enable his guilt trip projection, many veteran media observers feel that was the worst column written in the history of the Twin Cities.
Maybe Coleman is aware of this dishonor (you folks are sending him the Fraters links, right?). Because he's taking another shot at writing the exact same column, maybe with an eye on improvement. This time entitled: "Wall Around the Ice Palace Will Freeze Out The Poor".
With a title like that, it seems to be a candidate for the worst column in Twin Cities history. But it's not the winner, if only because this time Coleman doesn't use the death of a man as cover for his sanctimony. Once again, those key paragraphs were:
Too bad the homeless won't appreciate the splendors of the ice palace. That's because the latest in a long line of palaces stretching back to the Winter Carnival's founding in 1886 will include a feature never seen before: A 10-foot-high perimeter wall to protect it from the prying eyes of the poor.
One regular was a wounded Vietnam War veteran named Robin, an alcoholic who camped in the brush and woods around the edge of downtown St. Paul.
Last spring, police found Robin near the Cathedral of St. Paul, on the steps that overlook a panorama of downtown, dead from an apparent stroke. It would've been a perfect spot from which to see an ice castle.
Maybe somebody in management got to him, maybe his conscience got to him, maybe somebody from the Pulitzer Prize committee for embarrassing melodrama got to him and let him know his nomination is already in the bag. But, he doesn't use that example again.
That's not to say he doesn't have some fresh bile to spew on the city's efforts to promote itself in fiscally responsible manner:
I have attended Winter Carnival events my whole life, and the only thing charming about freezing your keister off is the pleasure of doing it with your friends, neighbors and fellow citizens -- and doing it for free.
Nick Coleman is a rich, rich man. Bordering on filthy, according to reliable, though unconfirmed reports. He has a rich, rich wife (one with 20/20 Insight, no less). They live and write their weekly his and hers weepers for the poor from one of the posh sections of St. Paul. And to him, the only charming thing about the Winter Carnival is .... enjoying it for free? Cheap bastard. But wholly consistent with the behavior of a rich liberal.
Nick Coleman could write a check and take every Winter Carnival-loving homeless person in town to the Ice Palace and it probably wouldn't make a dent in his weekly latte and scone budget. But instead, he chooses harangue the efforts of the non-profit group in charge, because he wants to go for free!?
He goes further yet. He's not only angry that he and the poor can't get in for free. He seems annoyed that they're even building an Ice Palace in the first place:
But some people won't be able to see past the icy walls. They will be frozen out, unable to afford the price of admission. People seem to balk at acknowledging that we are investing $8 million in a "building" that will last 17 days, while many needs go unmet.
Under these conditions, if any "needs" go unmet, there can't be spending for any civic promotion of this nature. And with people like Coleman, there's always another need. As long as they're not personally responsible for it's resolution.
Coleman, of course, doesn't advocate the cessation of Winter Carnival Ice Palaces to pay for a perpetual list of social ills. He still has to play populist, and he knows the people love these things. So instead, he leaves the argument as:
Those icy walls don't have to come down. But the barriers should.
Meaning, I suppose, that private parties shouldn't be allowed to build the Ice Palace without taking a guaranteed financial loss? Remember, the last Ice Palace (with free admission) lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and threatened the continuing existence of the Winter Carnival. The admission fee this time is nothing more than a user fee, that allows those who enjoy the product to finance its existence. Maybe not a perfect solution - at least to the handful of homeless folks who care about such things. But it's certainly better than the alternative. That is, government subsidy. Otherwise known as forcing all citizens of the state (or city) to pay for it, whether they want to see it or not. And somehow that's more fair than denying a few homeless who don't have rich newspaper writer benefactors to get them in the door?
Of course, there is one other alternative. Not having any Ice Palace at all, ever again. If the homeless can't enjoy it, then none of us can. I suspect that’s a resolution Nick Coleman could comfortably live with.
No comments:
Post a Comment