Some people want to frame the park question in terms of "needs" vs. "wants". I assume this is so we can "logically" reach the conclusion that a dumb ol' park is just a "want" an' therefore somethin' we can do without.
By that logic eyesight might be considered merely a "want" since many visually impaired people can function well without the benefits of eyesight.
Pappy thinks we reach a more meaningful evaluation if we look at it in terms of value to the community. Will a park with an amphitheatre (etc.) provide greater value to the community than the cost its installation an' maintenance will incur?
Yes! Immeasurably more!
When foresight is what we need, willful blindness is what they want.
____________________ How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
