Peace be with you,
Kay. Across the wall of the world,
A River sings a beautiful song. It says,
Come, rest here by my side.
-- Maya Angelou
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Joan Berney wrote:
> You bring up that Nampa had corporate funding for their pool,
> then you intimate that UI and WSU should maybe kick in as they
> are the corporations in our area.....Maybe there could be
> more corporations if our community development people were
> doing a better job? Why is there not? It is a good
> area....the governor has just set it up for taxes to bring in
> big industry....who is failing at their job???? When will
> there be more options for our citizens, our children's
> future....when will our community realize there is nothing
> here and do something about it....and then maybe, just maybe there
> can be discussion about corporate support for some of these things?
>
> Joan Berney
>
> ------- Forwarded Message Follows
> -------To: vision2020@moscow.com From:
> schmidt6@TurboNET.com (schmidt6) Subject: Re: Swimming pool
> editorial Cc: editor@moscow.com/attn.letter Date:
> 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
>