vision2020@moscow.com: Re: Swimming pool editorial
Re: Swimming pool editorial
schmidt6 (schmidt6@TurboNET.com)
Sat, 21 Feb 1998 11:38:59 -0800
> Thanks to all the hard working Pool Committee members. Good work.
Good research. The recent Daily News editorial questioned an outdoor
facility. Once again they didn't do their homework.
An indoor facility sounds like fun, but we can't afford the initial
cost. The one in Nampa had large corporation capital support. If our local
businesses( UofIdaho, WSU?) want to chip in then maybe this could happen.
The Chipman Trail sure happened....But this is an order of magnitude greater.
I support an outdoor facility but, like Tom Lamar, a bigger one.
Have you ever been to Ghormley on a warm summer weekday in midday? It was
PACKED! Two or three daycares would bring their charges and it could be
uncomfortbaly busy. Why not plan for more growth? We'll have this new pool
another thirty years. Make it big enough.
Finally, the committee's research showed both indoor and outdoor
lose money during operation. Outdoor loses for three months, indoor for
twelve. Now why they lose money may be a different issue. And it may be tied
to the initial design. Can we run a recreational facility in this community
as a self-supporting entity? I don't know. That is a bigger question than
the Pool Committee was charged with answering. Their task was restricted.
Find the best design for the community. I think they flinched at the thought
of asking for too much, fearing a failed bond election, and scaled down as a
compromise.
I vote bigger. Dan Schmidt
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet