vision2020@moscow.com: Re: Financing options for new pool
Re: Financing options for new pool
schmidt6 (schmidt6@TurboNET.com)
Sat, 3 Jan 1998 08:48:18 -0800
>From: schmidt6@TurboNET.com (schmidt6)
>Subject: Re: Financing options for new pool
>
>>To: "Sam Scripter" <scripter@uidaho.edu>
>>From: schmidt6@TurboNET.com (schmidt6)
>>Subject: Re: Financing options for new pool
>>
>>>Saturday night, 12-27-97 @7:43 p.m., Pacific
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>From: Priscilla Salant <psalant@moscow.com>
>>>To: vision2020@moscow.com <vision2020@moscow.com>
>>>Date: Saturday, December 27, 1997 6:55 PM
>>>Subject: Financing options for new pool
>>>
>>>
>>>>I read the 12/26 DN pool article with interest. Question: Is a bond issue
>>>>the only feasible way to finance this project, or was the
>>>>assessment-per-homeowner just a vehicle for cost comparison?
>>>>
>>>>-P Salant
>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>Dear Sam and v2020
>>I think it would be reasonable to look at the numbers. A public discussion
of the costs and feasibility, i.e. the business, of a "public" pool could be
a very informative topic. It seems the committee has been charged with only
one issue to resolve and that was design. Form follows function and to
discuss form without consideration to the bigger picture is a meaningless
effort. Of course it did get me to start following this string.
>> I believe if there were an open discussion of the costs of
building, running maintaining etc. a pool we as an interested public could
inform ourselves and participate in a responsible fashion. That of course
requires the willingness to listen and compromise. And show up.
>> My above "quote" marks on public are trying to emphasize the lack
of usefulness of that term. Public. Is that who votes? Who lives here? Who
uses it? The whole bombding process is too rigid to serve this community. I
doubt the Chipman Trail would have passed a bond. But it was a needed and
obviously approved community effort. And it got done!
>> So.. I vote to broaden the discussion.
>> Some random thoughts;
>>Ever go to Ghormley on a weekday? Full of day care kids. FULL. Are they
the public? Do they vote, pay taxes? How does this enter into our community
equation?
>> A large part of this community, like it or not, is the student
population of both universities. Would we want to serve them with a
community pool? I would! I would love to have an attractive nonalcoholic
source of recreation for college kids.Plus, have you seen the cars they
drive? They could afford to pay a user fee....Or we could make some deal
with the UofI that a fee at registration would earn a season pass on the
vandal card....
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet