I think the $$$/household is the way to let all the public, who would be
billed via the property tax rolls, how much it would cost, because
inevitably that is likely their first question, "How much will it cost me?"
I think the bond issue is the way local government can bring ALL taypayers
in as participants. I would think that it is perceived as a project to
serve all the public, because it was "public" pool which failed.
Further, I can't imagine that anyone views that a non-government entity
could be successful in raising the money to build such a project, then
further successful in operating it in a not-for-financial-loss mode. E.g.,
public participation in initial financing and operating is literally a given
for lack of any one person or group stepping forward to finance it in the
absence of government.
It's too bad there isn't some intermediate position with both public and
special-interest participation, initially, and over the long run.
I'm not a swimmer at all -- I sink lik a water-soaked log -- but I
nevertheless became enraptured by the visions (no pun) created on this list
of indoor-outdoor facilities which served much more than just "plain
swimming", as a focal point for "gathering". I'd really like to see such
developed, but not because I'm personally seeking a swimming facility for
myself or for my immediate family members. I don't have that bias.
I'm alarmed, though, because I don't see the multiple-function facility at
all in the news story I read in todays (12/27) Daily News? Did I read that
incorrectly?
Based on past behavior of Moscowans voting on bond issues, most projects
with any "frills" are doomed to failure at the poll booth, let alone likely
to be passed at the outset in most rudimentary form.
Maybe the "extras" have to be put in place as adjuncts, after a fundamental
facility is built. But that won't work efficiently, $$$-wise, unless the
original facility is designed to accomodate add-ons. Who do we have to
ensure that such a plan is selected and built? Or do the options mentioned
in today's paper do that. That wasn't my impression from reading the
article.
So it seems to me that there needs to be an officially recognized ,
non-government support group to work quite directly with the official arms
of government, the arms written up today, because I perceive that what I
have liked, reading on this list, is not particulary present in the options
now being presented to the public.
Maybe I'm just not paying attention? Maybe all is in place for the
official government direction, enacted through favorable public vote in
support of a bond issue, to work in harmony with additional, special
interest, public support groups.
Please straighten me out if I simply am not interpreting correctly what is
going on.
MoscowSam
aka Sam Scripter
scripter@uidaho.edu