Recruiting

I think the part that doesn't add up is you're neglecting the fact that it's the local government making these decisions and they don't necessarily have to make a lot sense. Obviously they have been subsidizing the pools to some extent if it will save them money to close them. But why shouldn't they? Does a city park make the city any money? Pool is not a ecatly the same as a city park. Sure, some of the facilities may be city owned. It's not the same as a walkway with some benches and greenery or a softball field. Cities have a responsibility to provide recreation options for their residents. This means spending some of our tax dollars on public pools among other things. I don't agree with you at all there. Pool is not a park any more then a gym is a park. If pools should be free, then gyms and personal training and triathlon gear and running shoes and tri-bikes and any other rescreation options should be free. Also, cities don't really have the responsibility to provide the recreation. If you live in a city that is financially healthy enough to offer a fair amount of park and rec facilities, it's a bonus. Not an entitlement. For cities, it's a marketing tool to have parks etc... to attract people willing to pay taxes to live there. If it becomes unfeasible to do that, or too expensive to maintain, it'll go away - or they raise your taxes. Personally I prefer not to have government hands in it. If I like a business, they will get my patronage, and I would expect them to charge enough so they stay in business. Not to drive themselves out of business so I can afford them. If there's something I can't afford, well, guess what, I don't get/buy it. I don't look for government to subsidize it for me. Anyway, you asked if a park makes city money, in an indirect way, it certainly does. You have a nice well kept pleasant to live in city, guess what, you'll be able to charge more property taxes. Also, most parks aren't built at city expenses anyway, the land developers end up having to build them if they want to put in a subdivision, and dedicate them to the city (public) and city just maintains them, and the cost gets passed on the homeowner as a part of the price of the home they just bought, and not in property taxes. Taxes only pay for maintenance. Also I think you're confusing the points different people are making. I never said I'm not willing to pay to swim. No, you didn't, I forget what exactly you said, but it gave me the sense that you think that pools should be very low cost. After you mentioning equating a pool to a public park, you sort of confirmed the impression I was getting. (or maybe I do have you confused with someone else) Well, we aren't in 1930's any more, the times of public baths and pools. You want a sport that will attract quality, sopnsors, be in step with fitness requirements of people that are trying to stay in shape and participate in sports TODAY, yopu can't rely on the government to give it to you. You rely on government, you'll get government-quality service - which is what you're getting now, overcrowded pool, other pools closing.... So, you have a choice there, keep barking up the government to give you a freebie or run pools like businesses, like stadiums, ice rinks, bowling alleys and other sports and recreation facilities are run. My only point is that it isn't axiomatic that if membership in USMS increases that all of a sudden there will be more pool time and/or pools available for our use. I never said it would happen suddenly or immediately, or as a result of sole marketing after new members. What I was trying to explain that growth of membership should be a part of a more comprehensive overall growth plan. Not something as simplistic as getting a bunch more people to join, if there's no pool time or places for them, to swim. I mean, is it not plain common sense to not do that anyways. Why would you even think I would be advocating something so simplistic as just tossing more swimmers into overcrowded pools???

I think the part that doesn't add up is you're neglecting the fact that it's the local government making these decisions and they don't necessarily have to make a lot sense. Obviously they have been subsidizing the pools to some extent if it will save them money to close them. But why shouldn't they? Does a city park make the city any money? Pool is not a ecatly the same as a city park. Sure, some of the facilities may be city owned. It's not the same as a walkway with some benches and greenery or a softball field. Cities have a responsibility to provide recreation options for their residents. This means spending some of our tax dollars on public pools among other things. I don't agree with you at all there. Pool is not a park any more then a gym is a park. If pools should be free, then gyms and personal training and triathlon gear and running shoes and tri-bikes and any other rescreation options should be free. Also, cities don't really have the responsibility to provide the recreation. If you live in a city that is financially healthy enough to offer a fair amount of park and rec facilities, it's a bonus. Not an entitlement. For cities, it's a marketing tool to have parks etc... to attract people willing to pay taxes to live there. If it becomes unfeasible to do that, or too expensive to maintain, it'll go away - or they raise your taxes. Personally I prefer not to have government hands in it. If I like a business, they will get my patronage, and I would expect them to charge enough so they stay in business. Not to drive themselves out of business so I can afford them. If there's something I can't afford, well, guess what, I don't get/buy it. I don't look for government to subsidize it for me. Anyway, you asked if a park makes city money, in an indirect way, it certainly does. You have a nice well kept pleasant to live in city, guess what, you'll be able to charge more property taxes. Also, most parks aren't built at city expenses anyway, the land developers end up having to build them if they want to put in a subdivision, and dedicate them to the city (public) and city just maintains them, and the cost gets passed on the homeowner as a part of the price of the home they just bought, and not in property taxes. Taxes only pay for maintenance. Also I think you're confusing the points different people are making. I never said I'm not willing to pay to swim. No, you didn't, I forget what exactly you said, but it gave me the sense that you think that pools should be very low cost. After you mentioning equating a pool to a public park, you sort of confirmed the impression I was getting. (or maybe I do have you confused with someone else) Well, we aren't in 1930's any more, the times of public baths and pools. You want a sport that will attract quality, sopnsors, be in step with fitness requirements of people that are trying to stay in shape and participate in sports TODAY, yopu can't rely on the government to give it to you. You rely on government, you'll get government-quality service - which is what you're getting now, overcrowded pool, other pools closing.... So, you have a choice there, keep barking up the government to give you a freebie or run pools like businesses, like stadiums, ice rinks, bowling alleys and other sports and recreation facilities are run. My only point is that it isn't axiomatic that if membership in USMS increases that all of a sudden there will be more pool time and/or pools available for our use. I never said it would happen suddenly or immediately, or as a result of sole marketing after new members. What I was trying to explain that growth of membership should be a part of a more comprehensive overall growth plan. Not something as simplistic as getting a bunch more people to join, if there's no pool time or places for them, to swim. I mean, is it not plain common sense to not do that anyways. Why would you even think I would be advocating something so simplistic as just tossing more swimmers into overcrowded pools???