Originally posted by Conniekat8
But, you're puzzling me, on one hand you're saying there's no shortage of swimmers, but on the other hand, you're telling me the pools cant seem to stay afloat.
Do we again have a number of swimmers expecting it should all be free, or subsidized by the government? If there's no shortage of swimmers, why are pools closing? Something here doesn't add up.
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? 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.
Also I think you're confusing the points different people are making. I never said I'm not willing to pay to swim. 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.
Originally posted by Paul Smith
PS: ....even voted for Perot (once).
That disqualifies you from any further intelligent discourse on any matter.
I'd prefer a 15% discount at Wal Mart/Target where you can buy the same potions as GNC at about 1/10th the cost. That's a big discount at the world's biggest retailer - talk about one big idea.
Wonder what Rowdy would say about that? WWRS?
Originally posted by PeirsolFan
You have not only several indoor pools but several university pools, and you also have the King County Aquatics Center (2000 Olympic Diving Trials, Goodwill Games). In addition to that, there are a slew of athletic clubs and independantly owned public pools like Ruiz-Costie.
You're entitled to your opinion, but mine is that the amount of pool space currently available is barely adequate. The WKCAC in Federal Way is a great facility to have in the area, but keep in mind it's 20 miles south of downtown Seattle. That doesn't make it real convenient as a workout facility for those of us living north of downtown Seattle. The only other long course pool is an outdoor pool that's only open in the summer.
Geek.....well done man...I knew you had it in you! Target would be ideal! And by the way...you ever see Brusters Millions? "None of the above"? Rather than vote for either of two very bad choices on occasion the "intelligent" thing to do put out a protest vote!
By the way Rush is old news......gotta go with O'Reilly while driving my gas guzzling 3/4 ton quad cab diesel monster truck with a gun rack in the window.....great watchng the wide eyes in the rearview mirror of the Prius driving liberals going 50 in the left lane when I come up behind them!
Sam...........all cattle buddy!
John.....can't beleive Texas let you in the state let alone the university.....isn't there some law against foreigners (ie; east of the Mississippi)?
I didn't realize how well paid our teachers were during the eight years of the Clinton administration.
They should have probably retired while the gettin was good.;)
Connie......no relation (thankfully), I would have killed him growing up!
Come to think of it that hallway was rather dark!!
Keep up the hard work, we (those of us who *** and not attend conventions) need people like you shaking things up!
Originally posted by Conniekat8
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.
I totally disagree. I think public pools are absolutely essential to the sport. I'm not saying pools should be totally free, but the fee should be reasonable. I fear that if all pools are private you're going to exclude a large segment of the population from swimming. And, yes, I'll admit it, I'm a bleeding heart.
So back to growing the membership of USMS. Let me pose this question: why do you think it is important to grow USMS? And using the fact that it is one of USMS's "core objectives" doesn't count.
Edit: and let me clarify my position. I'm not opposed to growing USMS. I just feel that membership is already at an acceptable level. I don't believe raising my membership fees or meet fees to furhter market USMS is the right thing to do.
Originally posted by jpheather
Raising the registration fee or entry fees for meets isn't going to matter a whole lot to the middle 50% of our members. What we have to remember is the effect on the older 25% (some who have lots of money, others don't) and the younger 25% (mostly who don't, judging by the number of checks they've bounced this year).
Just one thing that needs to be considered.
We could give a senior citizen and college student discounts or something to that effect. I'm sure details can be worked out.
Can't really make sure *everyone* is happy with these kinds of things, one has to settle for a majority not complaining too much.
Originally posted by MegSmath
Ah, if only it were that easy. The entry fees for Nationals are actually part of USMS code -- article 104.5.4D(1-5). In order to charge more for Nationals you'd have to submit an amendment, and of course this is not a Rules year, but a Legislation year, so you'd have to have it declared an emergency and then get 90% of the delegates to approve it! Change does not come quickly to USMS.
Yeah, I know....
Doubling the fee doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing this year. It would have a hard time passing even if it didn't have to be an emergrency legislation.
I have a feeling that they'll go for the amount of the increase that they can squeak by this year.
As for those of you guys who are saying "Do IT" and aren't coming to the convention as delegates, here's what you need to do, write your LMSC representatives and tell them that as members out there, you are in favor if the increase. Your LMSC representatives (delegates) come to the convention to represent your interests. So, they need to know what your interests and preferences are.
It's almost like 'writing your congressmen'.
Originally posted by knelson
I don't know. Does masters swimming really need more exposure? The team I train with already has five or six swimmers per lane at workouts during the peak season. We have a short course Nationals meet that usually brings in 1500-2000 swimmers. Much more and the meet timeline would be horrendous. It seems to me USMS is doing just fine with the current marketing.
One of USMS core objectives is to grow membership. So, if you want an organization that doesn't expand, this isn't it.
As the organization grows, the nature of nationals may change to keep the size and length of the eent at a manageable level.
Maybe at some point only people qith QT's will be allowed into nationals, as it is with most other sports, and there could be another national event that is less competetive and more cammaraderie orientes. All kinds of things can be one.
Juast like anything in life, things change, you can't prevent change.
About pool overcrowding... well, as a result of USMS aexpanding and swimming getting more popular, on the long run it should result in more pools being built, more places to swim available, more qualified coaches, masters programs getting more respect and pool time from pool oerators.
The expansion doesn't mean just more members stuffed in the same ole overcrowded pool, and more members taxing the same tired coach.
Done right, the expansion includes more services, more resources, more tools for swimmers and coaches, more facilities, better quality overall, more fun events and ways for swimmers to connect...
When done in a careful and balanced way without taking unreasonable risks, expansion could go a long way, and not really have a negative impact on the existing members.
