Having problems with message search?
If anyone does respond to Mr. Marcus's absurd reply, here are a few facts.
-2000 people signed petitions in support of high school swimming, and it is expected that about 400 Howard County kids would participatate in that sport. The vast majority of swimmers who would benefit do not swim competitively now. Thus, we're not dealing with a small number of competitve swimmers pushing for this.
-He makes a comment that such a pool would not benefit the leisure swimmer. On what grounds does he say this? Where do people swim who are not members of the YMCA, Lifetime, or CA? Where do the elderly swim? Where do people swim who can not afford club memberships? Shouldn't there be a public facility for them?
-He also does not address the simple fact that without a non-private pool in the county, the needs of this county's residents are dependent on the whims of profit generating institutions. As we
learned with high school swimming, such organizations' needs do not always gibe with public needs.
-Why fifty meters? Becasue, if we're going to spend money for a pool (which the county already is doing in Fulton), then why not spend the money in a way that meets as many needs as possible and has the highest liklihood of being profitable and well utilized. Again, Mr. Marcus does not address the fact that the county is building a small pool for not much less money than it would cost to build a 50 meter complex.
-Finally, let's face a fact that Mr. Marcus simply ignores. Every other county has an indoor public pool. Most have several. We don't even have one. How can this county justify that? In my opinion, Mr. Marcus lives under the illusion that CA is a municipal group, rather than the private organization that it is. He likely wants to protect its near-monopoly on the aquatic realm. That would be
fine if CA had come to the plate and built a good pool. They had a chance in River Hilll. But they are profit-generating, they view the needs of their members as much more important than community needs (as I was told so many times by CA brass as I fought for some pool time for high school swimming), and they are willing to run a large swim program with inadequate facilities because they still make money on it.
Anyway, Mr. Marcus uses the tact of so many politicians by tersely stating that those pushing for a 50 meter pool are a small group of selfish human beings. He uses no facts in his argument. He simply does not even acknowledge the arguments in favor of such a pool. Whoever does respond to him needs to merely state the facts. I hope someone does!
Andy
Monte,Thanks for posting this ... I hadn't read today's paper and completely missed this, so thanks.Would you like to respond? I think it's good to have as many "fresh" names as possible associated with this group. We (and I can help) might have to do a little bit of research first (i.e., call Aaron Greenburg, Ulman's Chief of Staff) to be able to accurately respond to this letter-writer.Here's what Aaron Greenburg told me on Dec 3, via a phone conversation, regarding how the (newly established) Revenue Authority works. Andy has also spoken to him -- and can correct me if I'm wrong. But here's my understanding of the process.Funds from the Revenue Authority (i.e., bonds) pay for revenue-generating capital projects, such as parking garages and swimming pools. The key "standard" that revenue-generating capital projects have to "pass" is that their revenue must be at a level that can cover the debt service (i.e., loan payments). If the pool can make enough revenue (on an annual? or periodic? basis) to pay for its own debt service, then the project would be considered "feasible."The question is whether or not a 50-M pool would be a revenue-generating venue. It's a feasibility issue, and the HoCo Rev Authority will decide IF an indoor pool is feasible based on the outcome of a Feasibility Study, currently being done by an independent consultant. I heard the Feasibility Study should be completed by mid-2008. We could always follow up with Gary Arthur (Director of Rec & Parks) to find out if that due date has changed.That's what Aaron Greenburg told me.The part I don't know (b/c we didn't discuss it further) is how they actually issue bonds. We should ask Aaron: does the Rev Authority have the power to unilaterally issue bonds for such a project, once they determine it's feasible? Or do they have to make a recommendation to Ulman/County Council, who would then have the authority to approve the issuing of a bond(s)? Or is it completely out of their hands, and is it something that must be presented on a ballot during a general election, and voters must approve?Aaron Greenburg should be able to answer that question --- although it really doesn't matter for our purposes. That aspect just impacts how long the process itself takes.In my testimony to Ulman, I said that I was glad the Rev Authority was considering the pool project. But I also suggested (based on an idea given to me by Aaron Greenburg!) that Ulman propose to have some "seed money" in his FY2009 Budget to get this project started. The idea being that public funds give it a little kick-start but that's all --- realizing that there's not enough cap budget funds to finance this project.So I think we're proposing something entirely different from what Phillip Marcus thinks were proposing, and I think THAT'S the issue that needs to be addressed. What do you think? I was going to write my own letter responding to the Howard County Times article that appeared on 12-20-07 clarifying that very issue -- that user fees need only to support the debt service (loan payments) and not fund the capital project itself.Diane
In a message dated 12/30/2007 11:25:58 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, mschwarzwalder@... writes:Andy,I never got a chance to thank you for your superb letter to the editor so my apologies forbeing late. And thanks Diane for all you have done and your persistence to 'the cause'.Can you believe Phil Marcus? It's one thing to present a letter that is of sound argument,but for a seemingly intelligent person to write a letter that is so factually faulty is surprising.I'm not surprised at the tenor of his letter, which is arrogant and hostile, much as Mr. Marcuswas on the Columbia Council.I was wondering if and who is going to write a response?Monte
Offline 
Send Email