news-record.com

The voters have spoken, whether they knew what they were saying or not.

We're all now the proud owners of a brand-new, $12 million swim center.

We don't know yet where it will be built or who will operate it -- or even when it will be built.

But it's ours, to love and to cherish, in shallow waters and deep, till debt do us part.

After failing miserably at the polls in two previous elections, the swim center bonds passed this year because few voters likely knew they were there. The center won approval on Nov. 4 as part of the fine print in a $20 million parks and recreation bond package.

Although the ballot contained a 118-word description of the what these bonds would buy, only seven syllables ("a swimming facility") mentioned the costliest item on the list.

Is it too cynical to suggest that the bonds passed with 57 percent of the vote because too few voters knew they even included a swim center? Not really.

When asked if they'd known what they'd done, some voters readily admitted they'd checked the "yes" box with no clue that they were approving the center.

Swim center boosters had, in fact, counted on that. "We thought that the best thing we had going for us is the parks and recreation name," said Ted Oliver of the Greensboro Swim Association.

Parks and recreation bonds haven't failed in Greensboro in at least the last 40 years. Conversely, swim center bonds have never passed, falling handily in 2000 and 2006, when they were placed as standalone items on the ballot.

When asked last week if he agreed that a lack of voter awareness helped pass the bonds, Oliver wouldn't say.

"The real question is why it wasn't put on the ballot as a parks and recreation project before," he said. "I think that's the better question."

Either way, mission accomplished. Now what?

Clearly, the new center should meet the needs of the city's active and passionate competitive youth swimming community. It should provide a valuable training facility, as well as attract regional meets and the revenue they would bring.

But a swim center remains an expensive proposition, especially as the economy (barely) treads water.

City Councilwoman Trudy Wade questioned how the city could possibly take on a new property while it struggles to repair buildings it already owns, including War Memorial Stadium and War Memorial Auditorium.

That's why city leaders would do well to proceed cautiously. They'd also do well to provide something hardly anyone did during the campaign: straight talk about what this project does and does not mean to the community.

They can begin by postponing the center, just as they have other bond projects. As of last week, the City Council was expecting as much as a $4.5 million budget shortfall and was scrambling to find spending cuts.

Even the man who placed the swim center bonds on the ballot sees the wisdom in waiting.

"I'm among the first to say let's move fast," Councilman Mike Barber said last week. "But in this economy we've got to stop. The swim center, bond issuance, head-count increases ... everything should be put on hold."

They should level with voters about what this facility really will cost. Construction expenses are only the beginning. When a swim center was placed on the ballot in 2006, it would have shared space, staff and resources with the Greensboro Coliseum. Even so, it was expected to lose $200,000 a year.

They should remain open to partnerships. Remember, the swim center idea began more than a decade ago as a partnership with the YMCA. Sharing the operating expenses with another party would place less of a burden on taxpayers.

They should figure out where the pool will go and tell the rest of us. All we know now is that it presumably will be somewhere within the city limits.

Whatever location the city chooses, one site it absolutely, positively should not use is the Canada Dry land near the coliseum. The city plans to purchase that site and eventually resell it to a private developer.

And that's precisely what ought to happen.

Finally, city leaders should stay true to the notion that this facility will be more than a venue for competitive swimmers. They billed it also as a means to expose underprivileged youth to swimming and water safety. And they need to follow through.

Oliver agrees. "I don't think government should build things that only cater to one part of the population," he said. "Let's open it up. Let's make it available to everybody."

Amen to that. We're all paying for it. We all ought to have a chance to use it.