Lois, your perception of the meeting matches mine, exactly. I've been very
frustrated as I tried to articulate what happened at the meeting. I
couldn't even explain it to John (who I happen to live with and who shares
this e-mail address), which somewhat explains his earlier post. Thanks for
sharing your wordsmithing abilities!
I, too, feel that a well-crafted survey after the bond levy is critical for
further planning and development.
Laurie
----------
> From: Lois Melina <lmelina@moscow.com>
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: meeting re: pool
> Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 2:35 PM
>
> John Danahy recently questioned why no posting was made about a meeting
last
> week between some of the Vision2020 folks and pool committee folks. This
was
> a meeting that grew out of Jo Williams' suggestion that we go beyond
posting
> our thoughts on the pool on this list to exchanging them in person, with
the
> hope that we would see each other's points of view and develop some
consensus.
>
> 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