As I read the input and questions now coming from some of my friends
across the community, I assume that they must not have attended any
of the open houses or meetings the pool committee held. It's too bad
-- I'd bet the committee would have issued some personal invitations
if they knew then what they've heard from some of you folks since.
(As a "rec professional" and member of the Moscow Task Force on Youth
Recreation, I'm finding all this debate very interesting!)
Here're some additional facts and perspectives provided by the Task
Force and Pool Committee along the way:
> Reply-to: <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
> From: "John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
> To: "Vision2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
> Subject: Swimming pool discourse
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 22:37:38 -0800
> A couple of things to add to the discussion.
> What is
> unfortunate is that, while a new pool is certainly desirable, it is not the
> only recreation need of this community. In accepting the pool committee's
> recommendation last Monday, the city council refused to consider any other
> alternative than a new pool. It should be a serious concern to the
> community to have the pool as the only option discussed when considering
> 3.6 million dollars of tax money.
I agree with John to some extent here, but would note that our survey
of teens found that only 30 percent of them said they
typically engaged in recreational swimming in a town that until last
summer had an indoor *and* an outdoor pool.
The needs/desires of 70% of them were not being met.
Interestingly, a pool was ranked as a top priority by the
random sample of 400+ teens who responded to our survey -- right
up there with a youth center.
I would also note that the city Parks and Rec. Department is talking
about keeping this heated outdoor pool open from the end of May to
the end of Sept. -- 4 months.
> Can someone tell me what will be charged city and non-city residents
> per entry to the new pool?
The suggestion was made at the previous city council meeting that
county residents be charged a seasonal use fee equivalent to what
the tax increase for city residents would be.
> Can someone tell me why a piece of property in the city, selling for
> $325,000 and a "good deal" at that price, was assessed for only $80,000?
> Are there any more properties around like that?
> What will happen to the assessed value of land and/or lots if this
> sale goes through?
Assessed values of property for tax purposes are typically a fraction
of the actual market value.
Despite what some of the writers on this issue have suggested, I'd
say the crux of the issue here is really that we have two publics
here in Moscow with different desires and goals for swimming.
One wants to swim for exercise and year-round.
The other wants a more leisurely, outdoor experience and is willing
to pay big bucks for it even though the use period is only a third of
the year instead of year-round.
Both uses are reasonable, but financially deemed mutually exclusive.
Only a survey based on a representative sample of residents would
determine which group is in the majority -- or else the bond's
passage or defeat will do so.
Chuck Harris