There’s a line near the opening of Callahan’s article this week which explains how a park funded by a billionaire is “just a short walk from his office in Chelsea.” This line has a strong implication which I feel the article overlooks to a degree. Callahan seems accepting of this and other such works as acts of philanthropy, despite the clear ways that they directly benefit the “philanthropist” performing the act. The park built by Barry Diller can just as easily be seen as a personal luxury instead of a public service, especially considering its location in an affluent neighborhood. It’s worrying that wealthy populations are spending so much time just looking out for themselves, even in their charitable acts.

This grows even more worrying when one considers the “rich get richer” numbers which are brought up in Cohen’s article. Wealthy people already enjoy a wide array of luxuries and amenities with no immediate fear of losing them, and it’s appalling that they would still be so greedy as to try expanding that array. I do wonder if the growing income gap is a result of this greed (as opposed to a way to dis-incentivize greed), but I still believe that there should be a balance between self-serving behavior and looking out for those less fortunate.