tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post7876948382469425533..comments2023-09-11T08:58:24.710-06:00Comments on Reach Upward: My City's Municipal Swimming Pool DebateScott Hinrichshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-42156572723688379382009-09-08T18:17:59.595-06:002009-09-08T18:17:59.595-06:00I did not say that I opposed the pool. I must adm...I did not say that I opposed the pool. I must admit that I'm somewhat ambivalent about it. I understand the principled libertarian views of those that say that the city has no business providing the pool or any other recreation facility (including city parks). I understand the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_Theorem" rel="nofollow">Coase Theorem</a>, but I can't see that it would work in a way that most people would find socially acceptable with respect to municipal recreation facilities.<br /><br />Besides your standard parks, our city also has a small skate park and a senior's center. There is no direct charge for many ad-hoc activities at these facilities. (I can walk into any of the parks and play Frisbee with my kids anytime I want.) There is a charge for reserving any of the facilities for events. I think that these offerings all enhance the community. Could they be privately provided? I'm not convinced that this is the case.<br /><br />The pool is a special case because it required taxpayer approval and because there is a direct charge for any use of the pool. Not only do I pay taxes to support the pool, I cannot use it without paying an additional fee. Moreover, taxpayers voted against the bond, but the city effectively incurred the expense and put it on the taxpayers' shoulders anyway through a different funding mechanism.<br /><br />I felt significantly benefited from having access to the municipal pool as a kid. I think it would be a shame not to replace the defunct pool so that today's children could enjoy the benefits I enjoyed. But did we have to do it on such a grand scale? And is all of the management expense necessary?<br /><br />The fact is that we have the pool and the politicians that brought us the pool have since been re-elected by the voters. As far as I can tell, none of the council members suffered for their support of the pool. The two mayors discussed each lost an election because of his handling of the pool issue, but voters ultimately re-elected the original pool-supporting mayor. To me this means that the voters aren't terribly displeased about the pool.<br /><br />I can't say that I am opposed to a swimming pool on principle. I am opposed to the city building any facility that exceeds fiscal responsibility. And I think that any cost a city considers incurring should carefully consider the taxes paid by those in the community that can least afford them.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-47588981629701334862009-09-03T23:35:47.587-06:002009-09-03T23:35:47.587-06:00You didn't make it clear where you stand on th...You didn't make it clear where you stand on the pool debate. I'm really curious to hear where you stand and why. It seems like young families are least able to afford paying for the sorts of facilities that can really enhance a community for young kids. The goodness of the facility doesn't seem to be a question. <br /><br />The real question is how the facility should have been financed. I guess I'm pretty persuaded that the swimming facility is similar to a park and is a fair expenditure for a city so long as it can afford it. Do you oppose or support the pool on ideological or pragmatic grounds?Bradley Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06030210881782328907noreply@blogger.com