vision2020@moscow.com: Re: Moscow's proposed swimming pool

Re: Moscow's proposed swimming pool

Kathleen Warren (warren@wsu.edu)
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 16:05:41 -0500

Excellent analysis, Priscilla and Jack. After all the constructive
comments we had on Vision2020 about indoor vs. outdoor, size, etc. I was
amazed at how quickly a "committee" could come up with a decision that
completely flew in the face of what appeared to be educated, carefully
considered, economically sound proposals, without a meeting or survey of
the community at large to let these proposals be heard and considered. Now
there is even a donor who is giving the purchase price of the land. I
suspect and hope that the donor is altruistically motivated with the
community's best interest at heart, but because the decision making process
on the design and type was so quick and made with such limited input, one
can't help wonder if politics might be contributing even to the decision to
donate. Could there be a hidden agenda? (I have no idea what it could be,
or why there would be one. I have to reason to suspect one, but I've been
caught by my naivete before.) Let's keep talking and if we eliminate one
idea in favor of another, have some sound reasons for doing so. Kathleen
Warren =20

At 02:03 PM 3/22/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Dear Marshall,
>
>We are writing to raise concerns about the proposed design and location of
>Moscow=92s new pool.
>
>We=92ve heard two basic arguments in favor of an outdoor pool. First,
>=93Nothing beats swimming outside on a hot day!=94 And second, =93We can=
=92t
>afford an indoor pool.=94
>
>We don=92t dispute the first argument. Swimming outside on a hot day is a
>fine experience. But this isn=92t a hot place! Nine or ten months a year,
>it=92s too cold to swim outside, and some years, even that is wishful
>thinking.
>
>=93But we can=92t afford a year round facility =97 voters won=92t pay the=
extra
>costs,=94 people tell us. We think the City may be taking a narrow view of
>what it means to =93afford=94 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.=20
>The relative benefits from an indoor and outdoor pool are clear: The
>community gets four times the benefit from an indoor facility that=92s open
>four times as many hours.=20
>
>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=92s
>willing to get less value for the investment. Does all this really come
>down to dreamy-eyed folks who just =93love swimming outside on a hot day=94=
?=20
>Please help us understand why we can=92t 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=92d 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=92s demise. Yes, the design
>committee talked to many people in several different locations, but not to
>a random sample of all Moscow voters. Don=92t 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=92s complaint that the=
School
>District=92s position has been misrepresented? Why can=92t the city work=
as a
>partner with the School District? Can=92t 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.=20
>Finally, if you=92re set on building an outdoor pool, but can leave the=
door
>open to enclosing the facility someday down the road, do it!
>
>
>Sincerely,=20
>Priscilla Salant and Jack Carpenter
>
>
>
Kathleen Kuehn Warren
Assistant Director, Corporate Relations
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Washington State University
509-335-6456; warren@wsu.edu


This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet