We are writing to raise concerns about the proposed design and location of
Moscow’s new pool.
We’ve heard two basic arguments in favor of an outdoor pool. First,
“Nothing beats swimming outside on a hot day!” And second, “We can’t
afford an indoor pool.”
We don’t dispute the first argument. Swimming outside on a hot day is a
fine experience. But this isn’t a hot place! Nine or ten months a year,
it’s too cold to swim outside, and some years, even that is wishful
thinking.
“But we can’t afford a year round facility — voters won’t pay the extra
costs,” people tell us. We think the City may be taking a narrow view of
what it means to “afford” a long-term investment.
Please consider both the costs and benefits of the indoor and outdoor
options, and think about which offers the most value for our investment.
The relative benefits from an indoor and outdoor pool are clear: The
community gets four times the benefit from an indoor facility that’s open
four times as many hours.
So how do the costs compare? If the costs of an indoor pool are less than
four times those of an outdoor pool, the Council should justify why it’s
willing to get less value for the investment. Does all this really come
down to dreamy-eyed folks who just “love swimming outside on a hot day”?
Please help us understand why we can’t afford to spend a little more and
realize a greater proportionate value.
Even if we really understood whether Moscow could afford an indoor
facility, we’d still be concerned about the decision making process. Yes,
the design committee has done a good job. Yes, the individuals have been
generous with their time and energy. But when all is said and done, the
larger community has been left out of the process. Examples:
First, at the recent City Council meeting, members of both the Council and
the committee remarked that the majority of people appear to want an
outdoor pool. On what basis is this statement made? No representative
sample survey has been done since Ghormley’s demise. Yes, the design
committee talked to many people in several different locations, but not to
a random sample of all Moscow voters. Don’t mistake this process as one
that yielded reliable information on which make estimates about the
opinions of all likely voters.
Second, we understand the site selection process. At the City Council
meeting, we learned that more than a dozen sites had been considered but we
only heard about one. Where are these other sites and why are they
inferior? In his recent letter to the Daily News editor, Wayne Olson
raised a legitimate question about the Mountain View and F location. At
the very least, tell us why his concerns about flooding are unfounded.
And finally, the process with respect to the school district is completely
obscure to us. What do you make of John Danahy’s complaint that the School
District’s position has been misrepresented? Why can’t the city work as a
partner with the School District? Can’t we get more value for our
investment by working together? Might the District have property that
lends itself to the pool site?
In sum, we are not convinced that an outdoor pool returns the most value to
the taxpayers. Selecting a pool design, location, and financing plan is a
complicated, important decision with long term consequences for all Moscow
citizens. The community simply does not have enough sound information on
which to base a final decision.
Concrete suggestions for next steps: First, publicize the cost estimates of
indoor, outdoor, and hybrid options with an insert in the Daily News and/or
on the Moscow Vision 2020 listserver. This will encourage discussion, and
in the process, move towards agreement. Second, meet with Jack Hill, and
allow the public to attend and ask questions. Third, hold a public
workshop on alternative locations for the pool. Invite people who are
knowledgeable about the extent and implications of the flood plain.
Finally, if you’re set on building an outdoor pool, but can leave the door
open to enclosing the facility someday down the road, do it!
Sincerely,
Priscilla Salant and Jack Carpenter