| To the Editor: Why do we need a new pool now? |
| Written by Paul Collings |
| Wednesday, 01 February 2012 09:59 |
|
Once again, property owners of Bowling Green will be asked to raise their taxes to support a pet project. This time the Aquatic Center of Bowing Green, or a new swimming pool. Why do we need this now, when many homeowners are struggling to pay already high taxes, from the pet projects of the last few elections, fuel, food, oh and, need we forget the income tax increase recently passed? Citizens are struggling just to make ends meet, but by golly, we need a new pool. The flier I recently received stated the existing pool would be sustainable for another 3 to 5 years. In 3 to 5 years the committee could raise money to build the new pool instead of putting all of the burden on home owners. The flier also indicated that the existing pool would be used for around 6 weeks this summer. Real good use of money, fill the pool and then drain it. Maybe it is time for the group, who feel this pool is needed find alternative funding. It used to be that committees would have fund raisers, sell bonds and get donations from people who will use the facilities. No, not in Bowling Green, we put a tax burden on everyone, if you use the facility or not. It is time to stand up and vote against this levy. But I guess I will have to come to the reality, that the supporters will mobilize the university students, and others who have no financial interest in the levy to get it passed. It is also amazing, how it is on the ballot in March that always has low turnout and everything passes. Business as usual in BG. Paul Collings Bowling Green |
Front Page Stories
| Rossford seeks input on schools 05/19/2012 | DAVID DUPONT Sentinel Staff Writer  Ron Vincent came prepared with pencils, brainstorming exercises and blowout noise make [ ... ] |
Perrysburg Twp. tries EMS/fire levy 05/19/2012 | CHAYSE HELD Sentinel Staff Writer  PERRYSBURG - Perrysburg Township Board of Trustees have approved the placement of a ne [ ... ] | Other Front Page Articles
| ||
Comments
There will be a group, to be called "Alternative Solutions - No New Taxes" which will be working to educate the voters on why we should not approve this levy, but begin to really take a critical look at "public" services and how the community and business leaders can provide for the city.
We have to remember that this levy is on top of a proposed new income tax coming this fall, so residents and citizens of BG will be hit twice in one year with new taxes.
You can find the group on Facebook right now, and after their filing with the Board of Elections will be start promoting the alternative vote (no vote) in March.
Secondly, just because the previous pool was paid for by taxes does not mean that is the only way.
The pool has made money, and if it was not run by the city, it would have money for capital improvements.
There are other alternatives, to include a simple replacement not paid for by taxes.
As mentioned, I am NOT against having pools and other recreational facilities in our wonderful town which raise our standard of living.
However, just as we got into the mess of having an outdated pool in our community through government run programs, we are only further setting ourselves up for more problems.
We should seek alternatives to the old methods. We should seek alternatives to taxes and city run only recreational facilities.
We should be open for additional discussion, especially when it is NOT a simple replacement.
I do appreciate the feed back Cindi!
As I continue to mention, there are many ways we as a community can have these items which DO raise our standard of living, without added costs.
Across the country, there are numerous examples of private organizations and businesses who handle recreational facilities with very positive results.
Again, I had great fun as a child in a community pool (neighborhood association pool which cost my family of 5 kids about $350 per summer).
There are other alternatives, however the Parks and Rec departments go ahead on the sub committee's recommendation is either pass the levy or close the pool. I don't believe that to be true.
You obviously don't know me. I have never voted for a tax levy and never will. I find it fundamentally wrong that people with no financial burdon can vote to tax those of us who do. Tax levys should only be vote on by those who will pay for it. Additionally, tax levys are like the congress did with the social security pool. They considered it a slush fund that they could rape to pay for their pet projects. Our local governments do the same with the levys, simply tax property owners, an easy source of revenue
We who pay rent, darling boy *do* pay property taxes! It's calculated in what we pay the landlord! If we didn't, all we needed to pay was just the utilities we use.
Second, you're obviously uneducated in the ways the city government is run! If a levy is to raise funds for a *specific* goal (such as the pool), it can't be used for anything else!
Maybe if you started attending City Council meetings and educate yourself, you wouldn't be showing us all how ignorant you truly are.
Paul, please accept my apologies! I am in total agreement with your reply.
Hey buddy, were you just released from jail or something over the "Occupy BG" mess? Where in the HECK did all this pent up anger about the "Tea Party" come from anyway? Go back to your parents basement and leave Paul alone!
Wanting the other taxpayers to buy you a pool is outright selfishness! If you want the rest of us to buy you a new swimming pool please feel free to leave BG.
The liner's almost shot, maintenance of this old pool getting tougher and more expensive to keep going, and there's new technology the park district can use in regards to pool operations.
There are other methods, but taxing is the easiest. Especially when they suggest all city council supports the measure (when that is a light stretch).
As a community we can do better than forcing people to pay for a luxury. What about businesses in the area and sponsors? What about other value added services which could help raise money?
The pool made money last year (excluding capital improvements which are not a "current" expense in the accounting world). You can not tell me that they can not look for additional value adds and pricing strategies to meet their capital needs. We can do better as a community.
If it were just a simple saving of the pool, it would not cost $3.8 million.
I am not skewing facts. Until the council people at that time go on record in full support, its here say (sp)
There are other ways, including a scaled down replacement of the pool. What is put forward is a larger aquatic center, exceeding what people would call a "replacement". This is a case of horrible planning, poor financial planning, and poor management.
If the demand is there for additional value added services, a slightly larger replacement could atill be paid for by admission and charge for use.
It should require real planning and leadership, not just gaining quotes for construction and saying its the Park and Rec's way or the pool gets closed. They are using scare tactics as opposed to looking for real alternatives.
Too big of a risk to take out a big portion of City Park at such a high cost. We need to reexamine alternatives to the full plan.
I must qualify that I am NOT a Tea Party person or candidate.
I agree that these things are great! They do raise the standard of living. However, there are alternatives to what we are proposing, but they are left out of the discussion. The idea from the beginning was to raise taxes or close the pool.
The community is actually held hostage by this levy. It is either we pass the levy or they close the pool. How would a normal person react?
There are alternatives to replacing the aged pool, without adding taxes and by continuing to add valued services to our community.
RSS feed for comments to this post.