Funtown Project in Cityville

Thesis: Our Town Council has decided to deny the application of Corporation, Inc. for the following reasons:

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The plot adjacent to downtown is a public property and its development should benefit everyone in Cityville.

According to the proposal, Corporation Inc. states all costs associated with the development will not include any portion of taxpayers money. Any project funded or set to be funded with taxpayers money is a public project (Naylor et al., 2010). It is important to consult the public when making such a decision and Corporation Inc. are only liable to make such a proposal to the city council after proposing the idea to the public and getting its approval.

Corporation Inc. indicates that its plan to develop Funtown will not serve the disabled children in the town. Every child or human being needs equal treatment as others therefore isolating them from the other children when playing is unethical hence the plan is not habitable for all (Clinch & O'Neill, 2010).

Corporation Inc. puts its interests before those of the beneficiaries. It is planning to construct a separate smaller disability playground near by the main building because it will save them extra costs. The company's idea is not considerate on the youth who are supposed to use the facility but instead looks into the most economic plan. Public projects should put the interest of the users first when initializing them (Lovell, 2011).

Cityville is a small town. The unused plot can be used to expand the town and public funds will be needed to fund and maintain the facility after its development completion.

Towns grow as years pass and this means Cityville will grow with time (MacVicar & Ogden, 2001). Developing some of the unused portion of the towns land for a facility that serves only a selected age group in society is wrong because there may not be any other place for expansion in future.

The facility needs staff and equipment to operate (Clinch & O'Neill, 2010). Corporation Inc. only caters for the development of the recreational facility but not its operation. In the end, taxpayers money will be used to support the activities hence going against the proposal that not taxpayers expenses will be incurred.

Additional consideration

Corporation Inc. has not outlined its benefit from the proposal. Most donors or sponsors have some targets on the projects they fund (Naylor et al., 2010). It has not told the city council how it will recover the money it has used and whether it plans to take some shares of the facility once Funtown is developed.

Concession

Despite the proposal having some limitations, it is a good idea as it will enable the youth in Cityville spend their leisure time in Funtown and avoid engaging in negative practices such as drug abuse which is common among the youth.

In conclusion, Corporation Inc. needs to address the public over the proposal as well as have better terms to ensure the project will be beneficial to the public wholly.

References

Bodey, K. (2011). Allowing Private Youth Sport Endeavors at Public Facilities. Journal Of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 82(7), 4-5.

Clinch, J., & O'Neill, E. (2010). Designing Development Planning Charges: Settlement Patterns, Cost Recovery and Public Facilities. Urban Studies, 47(10), 2149-2171.

Lovell, P. (2011). Reframing recreation as a public policy priority. New Directions For Youth Development, 2011(130), 141-150.

MacVicar, A., & Ogden, S. (2001). Flexible working in sport and recreation: current practices in Scottish public, not-for-profit and private leisure facilities. Managing Leisure, 6(3), 125-140.

Naylor, P., Bridgewater, L., Purcell, M., Ostry, A., & Wekken, S. (2010). Publically Funded Recreation Facilities: Obesogenic Environments for Children and Families?. International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health, 7(5), 2208-2221.