Election letter: Aquatic center: Vote no

July 10, 2013 

Why I am voting no for the aquatic center:

It is not the money nor the location. It is because the real "public community" need is for a first-class aquatic center. That is not what is being proposed. Rather what is offered is a watered down inferior indoor facility which has been held hostage to an albatross outdoor slide.

The district considered three options of increasing cost. Option C, the greatest cost, included a first-class indoor facility, with 50-meter lanes, diving pool, wave pool and more, plus an outdoor slide and wave pool. It was too expensive (beyond bonding capacity) so what did the district do? It watered down the indoor facility to a third-rate one with the promise to "remodel" and expand at a later date. The numbers they crunched indicated that this "later date" is at least 15-25 years away. Anyone with common sense also knows that a "remodel" is significantly more costly than doing something right the first time.

Why did they not consider an Option C first-rate indoor facility, with a watered down outdoor slide show? Could not the outdoor proposal await private investors on a lease basis? Especially since not one outdoor facility historically has succeeded in the Tri-Cities.

I will vote for the first class indoor aquatic center when proposed. I will not vote for this current inferior boondoggle.


Tri-City Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service