04-20-2018, 12:36 PM
(04-19-2018, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm of two minds on this. One, the action by the state legislature is certainly vindictive and retaliatory in nature. On the other hand, Memphis intentionally and surreptitiously circumvented state law by selling off the parks so the statues could be removed. So, the question really is, does a spiteful and petty initial move justify a spiteful and petty move in response? I'd say, no, but that seems to be US politics at this point.
(04-19-2018, 04:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell if they sold public parks then why should they be denied a slice of public funds?
This was a conflict between the City and the State. City basically claimed they could control what was on city property. State tried to control what was on city property by claiming jurisdiction over "historical preservation" (a power usually reserved for use against private property owners).
State got PISSED when the city found a loophole, so they withheld $250K that was supposed to help pay for the City's Bicentennial celebration. I guess they can argue that the State should not have to pay for a City celebration, but Memphis is a huge tourist site and the celebration there would benefit the state with additional business and sales tax.
