news-record.com

BLOGS

Thinking Out Loud

Would pools swim or sink at the polls?

Odds don't favor a new vote by the public on additional swim center funding.

Suggested by Councilwoman Trudy Wade and Danny Thompson, among others, the idea calls for a referendum in 2010 on $6.8 million to fill the funding gap.

Voters approved $12 million for the center as part of a parks and recreation bond package in 2008. Problem is, the project will cost more than $18 million.

A majority of council members probably won't go for Wade's idea.

And the abject fear of a referendum by swim center proponents makes one thing unmistakably clear: They perceive that their public support is shaky at best and that they would lose at the polls if this thing came to a vote on its own -- as they have lost before.

And they probably are right.

Permalink

Posted by Allen Johnson on Monday, December 14, 2009 at 6:31 pm

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

brian444

December 15, 2009 - 1:40 am EST

This project is a no-brainer due to the mass infusions of cash it would bring to our fair city. By increasing debt in order to reduce debt, our elected leaders are at the cutting edge of current economic thinking on the subject. Submitting this crucial decision to a vote by the public would be an abuse of democracy.

Mick

December 15, 2009 - 6:56 am EST

Another sterling example of journalism from AJ and company. Just type how you "feel" and call it a day.

Please define "among others". Cant be too many others now can it.

I really would have liked real reporting on this very legitimate debate. Not your gig I know.

Interested

December 15, 2009 - 7:13 am EST

In Mr. Johnson's defense, this is a blog, designed for reader commentary. It is not a news article. If that is what you are looking for, there have been plenty available on the home page over the last few weeks.

Mick

December 15, 2009 - 8:47 am EST

Thanks, Im pretty well up tp speed on the subject. And in my defense, I am editorializing about the coverage on both the editorial side and reporting side. Both of which have been lacking in substance. Which is my reader commentary. Good facts, good info, educated opinions, etc would have allowed for more thoughtful debate. Here and elsewhere.

Fact Checker

December 15, 2009 - 7:54 am EST

Can the voters decide on the Cerfificates of Participation type of bonds?
If they can't, then having the voters decide on the additional bonds could be seen as asking them to choose between bonds Greensboro taxpayers would pay for or, bonds (COPs) paid for by visitors via the hotel tax.

tim tribbett

December 15, 2009 - 10:14 am EST

I agree that if this was put up for a vote it would lose and probably lose big..It lost on it's own before it was snuck into another bond. All the people who are so sure that this will make money would you be willing to invest your lifesavings into it? Our government should use the same degree of caution with public money that they would use with their own.Since the people(or at least property owners) are paying for this they should demand a vote on it.I think the previous vote should be null and void due to the deception used and the dramatic underestimation of the cost. I would ask anyone who does not want to put this issue to the taxpayers "what are you so afraid of?" Don't the people who are actually paying for the darn thing deserve a say? Good for Trudy Wade!

Mick

December 15, 2009 - 10:30 am EST

GOOGLE. There were numerous articles and editorials in N&R, YES! Weekly, Rhino. It was on TV. There were several council meetings where it was discussed. No one is saying "it" will make money as a stand alone facility. No one has argued pools make good private businesses. Quite the contrary. But this facility will bring people to Greensboro and it will have significant economic impact.

Trudy Wade is in favor of the facility but opposes the process and funding. The additional 6+ million is NOT to be paid by Gso tax property owners and tax payers but from CVB funds collected as hotel taxes from folks visiting Greensboro.

brian444

December 15, 2009 - 11:27 am EST

Bottom line question: what good does "significant economic impact" do for me? SEI is something that happens at a distance, somewhere out there. In the meantime, my tax bill will go up: the one delivered to my house that I pay with funds from my checking account. With the pool, I'm getting something in return, since my kids swim year round. But for the vast majority of folks, they're getting nothing except a higher tax bill and "significant economic impact." It doesn't help that pro-poolers have sacrificed their credibility by selling a bond that covers 2/3 of the pool's cost.

Allen Johnson

December 15, 2009 - 11:31 am EST

Mark your calendar, Brian. You and I agree 100 percent.

DonMoore

December 15, 2009 - 10:33 am EST

We voted yes for a Parks & Rec Pool. Put it back under Parks & Rec, with an apology that the City mislead the public by giving the pool to the Coliseum. May be we will forgive the city.

Mick

December 15, 2009 - 12:19 pm EST

I was wrong above. Trudy Wade is opposed to the klarger version. I was thinking of Rakestraw above.

I dont disagree entirely Brian. The diff is not being made up with property tax dollars.

The same could be said of many city owned facilities for many people. I havent been to a library in years. There are numerous parks I have never been to. Never played baseball at Carolyn Allen fields. Many kids dont play volleyball or basketball at The Sportsplex. Many dont swim recreationally or competitively. The diff here IS the economic impact. The smaller version will have far lesser and the maintenance may not be that diff due to lesser and probably fewer meets and therefore lesser rental dollars.

We shall see tonight I guess.

Allen Johnson

December 15, 2009 - 12:24 pm EST

Mick:
True, not everyone uses parks and libraries, but they have a much larger impact on more people, day to day.
Plus, the people consistently support parks and rec facilities at the ballot box.
The same hold for recent expansions to the public library system. The voters clearly said yes.
Would the same happen for the swim center?
Even Robbie Perkins thinks not.

brian444

December 15, 2009 - 12:57 pm EST

That cuts both ways: the economic impact exists precisely to the degree that the facility is used by out-of-towners. When the pool got sent from P&R to the Colisseum, it was implicitly reconceived as something different from Bryan Park, where anyone can play. It's not Bryan Park plus economic impact, it's economic impact plus maybe we'll let you swim there occasionally if we don't have a meet. At least that's how it's viewed by many.

Add to that the swimmer demographic, which I think is a constant subtext to this discussion. When Friendly beat GCC at city meet last year, I half-jokingly commented that it was right out of a Disney movie: the rich, country-club white kids are defeated by the plucky, underdog upper-middle-class white kids.

Mick

December 15, 2009 - 1:41 pm EST

Anyone can play at Bryan Park soccer fields at anytime?

There SHOULD indeed be plenty of public swim, community programming, etc. No argument there. I will also add that I am worried about P&R not being involved particularly when it comes to community oriented programming. That and parking are two sticking points for me.

Mick

December 15, 2009 - 12:45 pm EST

Why would anyone vote YES since CVB has agreed to pick up the extra tab?

Allen Johnson

December 15, 2009 - 3:42 pm EST

The CVB isn't paying for anything.
Those tax revenues don't belong to the CVB. They belong to the citizens.

Mick

December 15, 2009 - 4:29 pm EST

The CVB spends/controls some of that pool of money (with strings and guidelines) no matter how you parse your words AJ. And it is not Greensboro Property tax dollars making up the diff . It is earmarked to help increase tourism, etc. The powers that be and others think the GAC is a good use. You and others do not. We will se ehow it goes soon.

Allen Johnson

December 15, 2009 - 5:30 pm EST

The CVB is funded by the city ... not the other way around.
And tax revenues are tax revenues.
As for what happens tonight, I expect the swim center to survive. But the end to this process does not justify the means.

Mick

December 15, 2009 - 7:43 pm EST

Actually I think CVB funds are county funds or maybe the city's share of county hotel taxes. Anyway, say it how you like Allen. The CVB funds are to be spent on certain items and in no way are property tax related. Citizens of GSO do not pay them unless they stay in a local hotel. I bet you dont squawk when CVB funds are spent on WMA or anything else you agree with or prefer.

Molly the Dog

December 20, 2009 - 6:02 pm EST

And here in lies the problem, Allen, you are completely clueless as to the CVB contribution and its funding. You failed to at least call them up and ask the big questions, instead you push the misconception of the CVB being part of the city. Garbage and slackness at it most highest. You should be a shame! all it took was a few calls and an attempt to understand and yet you presented a false story to the public. Wow! If you do not know what your are talking about, then say so, but to present a false story is.....

Allen Johnson

December 28, 2009 - 8:55 am EST

Molly:
I did talk to the CVB director for about half an hour.

Doug Johnson

December 15, 2009 - 3:38 pm EST

I keep reading about a motel tax, guess what when you travel this same thing applies to you.
This and the restaurant tax are to of the biggest shams around. you do not pay this! Are so you are told.
They make Madoff look like small potatoes.
Bottom line you pay for a few folks enjoyment.
Weather it be my sport golf,are swimming, libraries, they are used by few!
I played thousands of rounds of golf. I yet to play on a taxpayers paid course!
Nor should the taxpayers ,pay for my entertainment!