> Greg Meyer wrote: (snip)
> So what exactly IS the rush on this? Yes, we've been without a pool for
a
> year, but wouldn't it be better to work on this for one more year and
> resolve some of the differences before putting it to a vote?
>
> I'm a little concerned with the suggestion that "if we don't act (now)"
it
> jeopardizes any future pool or recreation center project. I can't
imagine
> why the need to act is so urgent and why the failure to do so would have
> such dire consequences.
>
> Greg Meyer
Maybe the rush is to push this through before the voters wake up to what is
happening. What seems to amaze me is that the pool committee seems to
think the discussion is about indoor Vs outdoor. This is completely wrong.
The discussion is about why are we wasting 3.6 million dollars on a
facility that can only be used @ 70 days a year. What was clear from the
council meeting Monday night is that the city has no long term facility
plan what so ever. The question should be, if we are going to spend 3.6
million dollars, what could we spend it on that would be usable all year.
The committee, with its single focus on a pool, fails to see the larger
picture of rec facility needs for all.
I am not voting no because I want an indoor pool. I am voting no because
3.6 million dollars for an outdoor pool is a waste of money.
John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com