Priscilla Salant took up this challenge. Her idea was to get a few people
together to see if we could come to some consensus before getting a whole
roomful of people together. She is really a community-minded, conscientious,
inteligent, brave, level-headed woman, and I'm very pleased to have gotten
to know her better through this process.
So we met. There were a few members from this list, some members of the pool
committee, and Pam Palmer and Tony Johnson from city council.
The meeting was facilitated by volunteers from the Martin Peace Institute:
Ed Krumpe, Chuck Harris, Bill McLaughlin, and Curt Brettin (?). Everyone's
goal, I think, was to come out of the meeting backing the same idea for a pool.
The short story is: we didn't. We didn't even come close. But it was still a
useful exercise. Although no one's thinking changed much, I think we have a
better understanding of why we all feel the way we do.
I think the one clarification that I got from the meeting and that I
continue to hear from city council is that the pool design that we've all
seen is "conceptual." There can be some tweaking of that design. What isn't
clear is what the parameters of that concept are, or what constitutes a
tweak. For example, if there is sufficient money available, would it be OK
to design the pool so that it COULD be covered sometime in the future if it
turns out that there is sufficient demand (and money) for that? Right now,
some people think the "concept" is for an outdoor pool and that spending
even minimal amounts of money now to allow for the possibility of covering
the pool later would be inappropriate.
Although this was not specifically discussed at the meeting, I continue to
believe that this community would be well served by a well designed survey
AFTER the May 26 election. If the levy passes, this survey could tell city
council (who will then communicate with the architect hired to finalize the
design) what the parameters of this concept are. Do we want to spend a
little money now to allow for covering this later? Would people prefer the
same concept, only with two pool tanks so that one could be covered later?
Would people like the bathhouse designed so that it could serve as a locker
room if a recreation center were added later? If the levy does not pass, it
would be important to know why. Did people who voted against it want an
indoor pool? no pool? a less expensive pool? a multi-purpose recreation
center? The answer is important if this community is to go forward and
continue recreational planning.
It is with some reluctance that I post this. Not everyone may have seen the
meeting the same way I did. However, I trust that if that's the case, they
will let all of us know.
Lois Melina
************************
Lois Melina
Editor, "Adopted Child" newsletter
P.O. Box 9362
Moscow ID 83843
phone: (208)882-1794
fax: (208)883-8035
Lmelina@moscow.com
www.raisingadoptedchildren.com