Here's an end-of-summer rerun. (Actually, I have asked this many times. So it's really more of a re-rerun. But it could be argued that it is the essential Spokane question.)
Is Spokane big enough to offer the attractions and benefits of a city without being dragged down by the drawbacks of the urban experience ... or is it not really large enough to generate the upside of city life but is still home to the hassles and social ills often associated with metropolitan America?
A) The former. Most of the people who complain about the lack of culture here never leave home. B) The latter. Places like Portland or Minneapolis -- or, for that matter, Bozeman, Bend, Logan or Flagstaff --- would be a better bet. C) Neither. D) Depends on how much money you have. E) Not that simple. Are you more interested in kayaking or in foreign films? F) Your health, family happiness and income security are all that matter regardless of where you live. G) Does medical specialists and college basketball count as culture? H) It's the former. I can show you the ticket stubs. And I don't think our crime situation is "Let's move to a gated community" bad. I) It's the latter. People here talk about diversity as if it's just a race thing. But its real magic is holding open the possibility that, on any given day, you will meet someone whose life experiences and perspectives are altogether unlike your own. I don't find that here. J) It's a little of both. K) Spokane would be fine if people just realized that nothing here -- good, bad or in between -- is unique. L) Spokane would be fine if people really understood why family members who moved to the West Side are not dying to come back. M) Other.