Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Herald's week of pool LTTEs

Except for Uncle Al's opinion piece, every letter-to-the-editor and the editorial were about the pool this week. I won't be posting much this weekend, so this will probably be my last piece on the pool until Monday or Tuesday. And remind your friends to get out to vote next Tuesday at Cheshire High School!

As for my basic opinion...

more services = higher spending


fewer services = lower spending

The Open-Aire structure (which I like, especially when compared to The Bubble) would provide 12 months of "services," while a summer-only facility would provide 4 months of "services." But the bottom line is that Open-Aire would provide more services... and would result in higher spending.

Of course, there's an offset to that: gate receipts.

It's possible that the Open Aire building would result in higher revenue that would more than offset the higher spending.

But I have no idea what would happen on the revenue side. My guess is that more people would use the pool in the winter, but fewer people would use it in the summer. So who knows?

Regardless, I'll be voting no. And while I'm disappointed that the Council has failed to discuss a summer-only option, I'm glad that an alternative to the bubble is finally coming before the voters. I thank Jimmy Sima and John Purtill in particular for their efforts.

And one last thing, don't be fooled by the repeated statements about how the Open Aire structure would reduce the pool's operating costs. That's a factually true statement, but it's also misleading. In effect, you'd simply be moving costs from one bucket (pool operations) to a different bucket (pool debt payments).

My suggestion to you... if you like a 12 month / year pool and you are willing to pay taxes toward it, then vote yes. Otherwise vote no.

Opine away...

Tim White


Greg said...

I'm voting "no." Tim, thank you for this comment:

"And one last thing, don't be fooled by the repeated statements about how the Open Aire structure would reduce the pool's operating costs. That's a factually true statement, but it's also misleading. In effect, you'd simply be moving costs from one bucket (pool operations) to a different bucket (pool debt payments)."

The proponents clearly are trying to "fool" people into voting yes by talking about lower operating costs--even claiming the summer-only pool would cost more to operate. The gullible will vote for the enclosure while the logical, thinking folks who show up will vote no.

At the parade a proponent was working the crowd and handing out literature and actually made the statement to a group near me "If you're voting yes the vote is on the 22nd--if you're voting no it's on the 23rd." He then quickly added an insincere "just kidding" when no one laughed.


Anonymous said...

Tim W.- I am impressed with your analysis of the pool situation and clear understanding of both sides. I also respect that you are not just voting along party lines. Refreshing. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

It's like a salesman for a timeshare: "Spend a bundle of money up front and keep paying more every year for maintenance and over the course of your lifetime you'll SAVE money on vacations. You're stupid if you pass up this great offer!"

Montgomery said...

I'm voting YES to the pool enclosure. I want it, I'll gladly pay more taxes for it but I will not pay more for education.

If nothing else, having it pass will have the same affect as punching a hornet's nest...nothing gives me greater pleasure than watching you misfits spontaneously self-combust.

Vote YES

Bill said...

Good to have the opinions but must have facts. Milford did not cost 1.2 mil, it was actually 4. Much work was donated and/or provided in kind. The Y does not have to, pay Davis Bacon wages, the Canadian dollar was 28% lower in 2005 than today. The Y was not obligated to incur an 8% contingency fee and other costs the Town is required to account for. The cost of 7 .1 mil at 4% is 362k per year, energy savings offsets 200k of this. Point is people need to vote on the issue but the they must be given the facts, not made up scare tactic numbers.

Anonymous said...

I'm voting yes. It's time the town had a public facility we can finally be proud of and that will be used by our children & grandchildren. Let's say no to Bubble Boy Adinolfi's band-aids. Let's do this right for once.

Anonymous said...

Voting NO!--Herald said it best--a $7 million cover for a $3 million pool....
They say average homeowner taxes will go up $54 year..but what epople don't realize is that is an increase FOREVER; once the bond is paid off, that will become mad-money for the TC/TM.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous June 19, 2010 9:12 AM said...
"once the bond is paid off, that will become mad-money for the TC/TM."

I'm not for the pool either, but you should stick to the facts - once the bond is paid off, it will be out of that budget (bonded debt). There is no need for the "mad money" statement - it is a gross exaggeration.

Barry said...

"Point is people need to vote on the issue but the they must be given the facts, not made up scare tactic numbers."

Well said. Unfortunately, the Herald, it seems, can't do same. Does Adinolfi write the editorials?

In the end, we have liars, misinformed residents, well informed residents and everyone in between. But, this referendum will pass, cry babies will be kicking and screaming and I will be as happy as can be!

Vote YES...and slap the liars!

Anonymous said...

there is no way this is going to pass, thankfully.

Anonymous said...

Thankfully this will pass...don't underestimate the power of internet crybabies too lazy to show up to the polls on voting day.

Vote YES

Anonymous said...

haha - the insults always make me laugh. So easy to hide on the web. anyway, this will never in a million years pass, so no worries people.

Anonymous said...

Vote no to live in misery and woe. Vote YES so the town can move on to peace and happiness!

Anonymous said...

VOTE NO for a couple of reasons. Lower taxes and less unnecessary growth.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it's vote YES for lower taxes and necessary revenue growth. Keeping the pool as-is has proven to lead to higher taxes and stagnant growth. Remember...unions know nothing of lower taxes...we must continue to pay their ridiculous wage increases...we need more revenue.

Vote YES for prosperity.

Anonymous said...

A no vote does not mean lower taxes. It means higher taxes because the pool will cost more money for energy in the future.

Anonymous said...

Vote NO for LOWER TAXES. A multi-million dollar additional investment at this time for something used by very few is not a prudent use of tax dollars and will only lead to increased taxes for all.

Anonymous said...

June 19, 11:05 AM

It's mad-money--the less the Gov't has of any money for any purpose, the better off we all are. In 2018 when all of our property taxes have DOUBLED, you'll know what I am talking about.

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding mne?
Keep the pool as is??

We don't plan on keeping the pool as is. When this $7 million monstrosity gets defeated by at least a 2-1 margin, we will then force the issue on making it a summer only pool and lessen the tax burden on the residents.
Don't think for a moment that when this is defeated that we are giving in to keeping the bubble. That will not be an option.
This is the first step!

Anonymous said...

How are you all going to feel when the BOE budget increase next year is 7 million? That money only provides benefits to the 5000 kids & parents. The education system provides no direct benefits to those of us that do not have kids in school. The pool at least can provide benefits to many more people. Secondly, once the BOE budget increases next year we will pay that and more annually, much more expensive than the pool 7 mil idea.

Anonymous said...

10:04, keep the pool as is. One improvement could be tried too. Work effectively with what we have, both town workers and town residents. Of course town workers can be relied upon to hide behind their unions and sing many choruses of whine, whine, whine all the way to the bank - - -

Spending 10 million more to possibly make the 2 million dollar pool work better than it now works seems just really stupid but we are talking CT government aren't we.

Town government at all levels screwed this up from day one. Now, as they have proclaimed it to be near its final collapse all we need to do to make them happy is fork over maybe another 10 million. If the 2 million pool is a mess after a couple of years just what will the town government deliver to us for another 10 million? A mess 5 times bigger!

Wake up before it's too late, the only rational vote is to VOTE NO for any more pool upgrade money.

Anonymous said...

How are you going to feel when we lose $3 million in state funding next year and we still have a higher education budget? Where will the money come from?

The key word in your statement is "CAN". The pool can provide more use, but will it to justify us spending $7million?
Show me the true numbers now, rather than the "43,000 visitors" that we keep hearing. Simply show me how many citizens of Cheshire used this pool last year?

Love yoursn and the rest of the pro-pool peoples logic, it will cost us less to spend $7 million.

Do you want to know how it will cost less? Fill it in or make it summer only.

Anonymous said...


So you're okay with a pool collapse because you were warned. Its okay to kick government around and there is room on this one but this is a fix. Judge it on that alone not all the I told you so crap that's flourished since its inception, construction and multiple repair orders.

Anonymous said...

12:22 PM
News flash....3,502 people used the pool last year or was it 5,320? Does this make a difference to you. It could be 20,000 but you don't use it so you have leaned on this simple question you have asked in one form or another every other post, as if you care. Typical rube.

Anonymous said...

It's simple, Vote YES for lower taxes.

Anonymous said...

I'm voting YES!

Anonymous said...

"Typical rube."

Yep! These rubes also believe that voting no on the pool will lower taxes. Ignorance is bliss.

Vote YES. Voting "No" tomorrow isn't going to bring back money to the education budget. Yes, sadly, there are those folks that believe we're to going to free up $7M for education if the referendum is defeated tomorrow.

Vote YES folks, YES it's really that simple.

Anonymous said...

"Do you want to know how it will cost less? Fill it in or make it summer only."

You are the wind beneath my wings! I'm convinced...I'm voting "YES" tomorrow!

Thank you!

Anonymous said...

4:20 you are so dramatic, "...So you're okay with a pool collapse because you were warned. ..."

Yes, I am okay with it collapsing. In fact I am amazed it is still standing. At best it was a terrible idea to begin with but it has more than proven just how terrible it really is for almost 10 years now.

If we are worried it will collapse the solution is a whole lot more simple then spending 10 million to fix it. Think it will collapse remove it and shut it down immediately. Get rid of the failing structure. Summer only or turn it into a year round parking lot.

A NO VOTE is a vote for lower taxes. VOTE NO TOMORROW.

Anonymous said...

For those folks who are voting no, what is it about Cheshire we ought to be proud of?

I suppose that if society in general in in decline we ought to lead the parade by shutting down the pool. Perhaps we can then close out other recreational facilities and the senior center since we are so much in favor of parking lots. (How many "no" votes tomorrow voted yes for the senior center because they think "we earned it"?; that debt and taxes were Ok cause it was for "your stuff")

We can have a public facility that will be the pride of CT, or we can be thought of as a town that fails. I've seen enough failure out of DC and the Gulf Coast. Let's do something positive for once.

Anonymous said...

The pride of Cheshire that 1% of the town uses? No thanks, we can find something else to spend 10 mil on ( that we don't have mind you). No one in their right mind wants to do into debt for that money pit. They suckered us once with the pool not twice.

Anonymous said...

I have to laugh at the continuous "Vote Yes" commentors here. I am sure it is just 1 or 2 people.

It is funny how they can come up with a figure of "3,502 or is it 5320", but try to deflect it on those of us who may not use the pool.
Do these people feel that it isn't important for us to know what percentage of the town uses the pool before we can vote?

This will lose by an overwhelming margin and I look forward to the day when they fill it in and plant grass on op of it. It will eventually go the way of the ice rink we once had.
RIP Cheshire Pool!

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

The pride of Cheshire a swimming pool???? Just like the proposed artificial turf to go along with our artificial brains?
Heard it was 110 degrees on the No Haven High Fball artificial turf field for graduation yesterday

Anonymous said...

just voted NO, and brought 4 NO voters with me. NO NO NO!!