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.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
I will vote for the first class indoor aquatic center when proposed. I will not vote for this current inferior boondoggle.
CRAIG M. LIEBLER, Kennewick