news-record.com

OPINION

New aquatics center too important to downsize

Thursday, November 19, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

Regarding your editorial and Wesley Vaughn’s Counterpoint concerning the swim center (Nov. 14): Both are very reminiscent of opposition to the downtown baseball park and Center City Park: negative, pessimistic and cynical. Yes, the estimate for what will be a world-class aquatic center capable of attracting national and international events may be more than initially forecast.

However, not until you design such a facility can estimates be realistic. Furthermore, Matt Brown and his staff at the Greensboro Coliseum have worked diligently to develop a world-class facility that will not only bring millions of dollars to the city, but also create many jobs for local contractors and local suppliers.

Mark my words, this facility will be a showplace for national and international aquatic events, for training for the many area swim teams and for recreation for all of Greensboro. It also will provide a much-needed, state-of-the-art aquatic therapy facility for thousands in the Triad. Once completed, it will attract visitors and their dollars, provide revenue for hotels and restaurants, and improve the Lee Street area.

I strongly agree with City Councilman Mike Barber that this facility is too important a priority to compromise — and I might add, too important an investment to scrap!

Daniel L. Murray
Greensboro

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Lakeshia

November 19, 2009 - 3:40 am EST

The shearing of the sheep continues -

danagain

November 19, 2009 - 5:27 am EST

"...a world-class facility that will not only bring millions of dollars to the city, but also create many jobs for local contractors and local suppliers."

I remember the exact same advertisement for the $12 million swim center.

Get some Obama stimulus money, it would be more useful for a swim center than spending money studying the sexual habits of female college freshmen at Syracuse University. Hell, a lot of folks would do that for free.

mamaboilermaker

November 19, 2009 - 8:18 am EST

Yes, I'm sure it is far more important than reducing property taxes on widows who will probably never use an aquatic center. I'm sure it is so important that you don't mind taking money from your unemployed neighbors who are trying to keep their homes. Build your own stinking pool with your own stinking money and quit trying to tell us all you're doing us a favor by stealing from us just because you got a majority of idiots to vote for your dishonest bond.

marchlady59

November 19, 2009 - 10:02 am EST

Just for all to know. This swim center was never meant to be a recreational facility. So if we the taxpayers who are saddled with the $12 million burden are even lucky, we might be able to use the warm up pool yearly while they are cleaning it up. This facility is not going to serve the regular folks. If you are lucky, you might have a child who will be able to get a swim lesson as part of the Guilford County Schools program of which the community will be asked to sponsor. Of course, the question is, what part of the day will the Guilford County Schools set aside to send kids on a bus to a City Swim/Acquatic center and why would you need community sponsors? Even more reason to know that we the taxpayers were duped into voting "For the Kids" Parks and Rec Bond only to have your savvy councilmans Barber & Perkins switch it from Parks & Rec to Matt Brown who has already spent over 2 Million for the design and marketing. Downsizing isn't the issue - honesty is.

Panacea

November 19, 2009 - 10:23 am EST

The law lets us recall politicians. Why can't we recall a bond issue? Have the bonds been sold yet?

If not, why are we continuing with the travesty?

Beachwalk

November 19, 2009 - 11:58 am EST

I'll have to say this is one issue I disagree with Mike Barber on.
The $12 million price tag was too much to begin with. Now to have $5 million more attached to it is unacceptable. And I don't think the extra $5 million will be the last of the over expenditures.
Matt Brown can't even maintain the coliseum property he is charge of now. He is letting the auditorium go to shambles, just so the voters will get tried of the poor condition it is in and will approve a bond to tear it down and build a new one. Why would Brown be put in charge of the swim complex when he can't maintain the auditorium?

truth

November 19, 2009 - 12:52 pm EST

We have neighborhood pools, YMCA pools, City pools, lakes, ponds, etc. None of these suffice I guess.

The author of the letter is correct. When I look at my property tax bill, I do feel "negative, pessimistic and cynical."

Especially when I think of how I could afford to build my own inground pool if I wasn't so broke from paying for other people's pleasures.

elsoots

November 19, 2009 - 1:18 pm EST

Let the people that want this PAY FOR IT not the ones that do not want it. we want more sport park than we have poeple to play in them

Mick

November 19, 2009 - 3:11 pm EST

truth.

You are correct. None suffice, many are private and some are crumbling with age and none meet modern standards.

Do you ever not feel negative, pessimistic or cynical? Have you ever supported any bond package or project?

Panacea

November 19, 2009 - 5:09 pm EST

Don't change the subject.

The issue is that the swim center supporters had to play a political trick to get what they wanted, and once they got it, whups, sorry Greensboro we way underestimated the cost of the pool. So pony up and throw in another 5 mil, don't worry trust us, it will be worth it.

Yeah, right.

Truth's comments were spot on.

truth

November 19, 2009 - 5:12 pm EST

No,

I have never supported any bond package as they always hit property owners. Why should property owners pay for everything? Make people vote to raise the sales tax each time they want to build something and I guarantee you'd have different results.

truth

November 19, 2009 - 5:14 pm EST

None suffice, none meet modern standards? Sure, okay. Those swim meets at City Lake Park, Lindley Park and YMCA's are just in my imagination. Wow, so I'm not just negative and pessimistic, I'm also senile. Cool.

swerdna

November 19, 2009 - 8:39 pm EST

"However, not until you design such a facility can estimates be realistic"

How can one get estimates on any building project that hasn't yet been designed! If this was what was done, then they were screwed up from the very start!

Mick

November 20, 2009 - 10:24 am EST

Truth,

The Y is private... remember? Seats about 200 people (including swimmers) and has six lanes.

City Lake Park (which I believe is in HP not GSO) and Lindley Park host a total of three meets per year one of which is City Meet. . Another note, I'll meet you at Lindley Or City Lake on January 1st for a 25 yard freestyle match race (get the point?) Grimsley and Smith seat few folks on metal bleachers as well. No warm down pools, outside venues, antiquated facilities, bathrooms, etc little to no bleachers or seating. I understand your stand against bonds and I understand the arguments against a pool facilty (always have). I also understand the complaints about the process but arguing that there are sufficient facilities in GSO is a waste of your time.

truth

November 20, 2009 - 4:22 pm EST

Sufficient for whom, I guess is the difference. Sufficient for folks who want to compete in swim meets year-round? Maybe not. But most folks, including me, could care less about swimming in January. So, I'll concede that these pools are not sufficient for people who want year-round access for swim meets.

The Y is private. Of course, it is. The new swimming facility should be privately funded as well, IMO.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search