A Proposal for the Greensboro Aquatic Center

Last week, we laid out the case that the pricing structure for the soon-to-be-opened Greensboro Aquatic Center systematically excludes those who are truly poor.  That is unfortunate, but true.  The Melderec con Simkins crowd threw a bone-- swimming lessons-- to make it appear that the facility will be serving the poor; but of course that turned out to be merely a token effort, a gesture for PR effect.

For many years, area homeless have not always had a place to shower and take care of their personal hygiene needs.  The city has an abundance of parks and recreation facilities, and also all the facilities at the Coliseum; but has not provided such assistance for the homeless.  We learned online over the years about how the homeless used to use the central library for hygiene needs, although of course there are no showers at that facility.

Recently, the Interactive Resource Center (IRC) opened, but it is located a bit east of downtown.  My understanding is that it offers showers.  That  facility represents, however, only one location for the entire city.

The aquatic center will doubtless have very nice, extensive facilities for showering.  It occurred to me that city staff could identify one hour out of the day that the aquatic center is least busy with users; and make it available to the homeless during that hour.

I expect that the facility's predominantly upper-middle-class-to-upper-class clientele would not have any objections to this idea.

Oh, I know some might come up with a litany of excuses why it cannot be made to work.  But if city staff is determined, this plan can be entirely workable.

In any case, I think this proposal would give the homeless more choices with respect to where to go; and more geographic coverage and flexibility.  Some homeless might potentially be in closer proximity to the aquatic center than to the IRC Washington Street location.

The main thing, of course, is that the facility would truly be serving the poor.  Systematically.  Every day. 

Because it would not be doing so otherwise.

 

 

Comments

[Stormy]

Oh, boy, I can't wait to see how this one unfolds, Joe. I can hear the long knives being sharpened now.

[bubba]

I can't wait to read the responses. This is going to be FUN!

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba and Stormy, there are a couple of critical points to be made. First, I don't think the city has made this type of facility available for the homeless in the past. It provided some financial assistance to the IRC, but that was after many years of... nothing. But it has all these parks and rec facilities all over town, and the extensive Coliseum facilities as well where I think the wealthy purchase special boxes and the like.

Second, the infrastructure at the aquatic center is already in place. It is already provided. There is no need for new construction costs. In addition, the staff is already in place. There would be minimal additional operational cost associated with this proposal. It takes virtually no time or effort to point someone to a shower room. And there is Coliseum security staff on campus in the event they were needed for any reason.

[Mick]

Nah, I dont think there will be many posts at all. Kind of a silly thread. I think most people will see this for what it is ... a very weak attempt at satire. Therefore, folks (including me) probably wont get too riled up. Unless some rabid Tea Party types get a hold of this piece (see Allen Johnson for clarification). Now, if Joe really wants to get some responses he needs to come up with more commentary that illustrate his actual beliefs. You know, more gems like this!

"If there were lots of poor people using the facility, the swim community would be subjected to lots of people around them who look different than they do, act different than they do, and perhaps even smell different than they do."

Roch's got a pretty good list on another thread as well. Check em out everybody.

But just to make sure... Joe, is it your contention that all municipal facilities or even just the recreationl type municipal facilities should be free for all to utilize and that these facilities should also be used, not only for the intended use, but also as care stations for the homeless? May cause some minor logistical issues at Natural Science Center and The Sportsplex as well as GAC. Do you think we should add showers to park bathrooms to further facilitate your idea? Or are we just talking about the GAC? Or does Joe G get to pick and choose? Some minor clarifications may be in order. In any case, this just doesnt seem to be in line with your fiscal hawkishness. Maybe it is just me.

Maybe Michelle can help you funnel some of your new found energy for the less fortunate. I think she would be an excellant resource for you Joe. I await further posts in this regard with great antici........................pation.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, I think city parks and recreation facilties should not price themselves out of range of the poor. That does not necessarily mean that they have to be free, but they need to be affordable to the poor to the extent that they can use the facilities at the same level as other citizens.

I am not proposing to add shower facilities to additional facilities at this time. My proposal is to make the showers at the Greensboro Aquatic Center available to the homeless, because the facilities already exist and are already being paid for. Do you favor or oppose my proposal?

[Mick]

Prices are $1 (group) and up to $5. So in addition to your being completely insincere (being kind here) I thought I was pretty clear I also believe your entire premis to be crap. So, what is your definition of more affordable than the price structure if not free? You have been far too specific in other areas to be so general in your ideas about pricing. Particularly when your problem appears to be with said pricing. Which (again to be abundantly clear) I dont believe for a moment. But just for grins... what do you see as adequate pricing if you truly believe $1 - $5 is too high? Always keep in mind the bottom line has been a very real past concern of yours. Quotes will abound I am sure. So you may have to explain your change of heart or admit to being full of ____. Seems hard for you to remain consistant here. Sad to see you abandoning your principles in this regard as that was the only thing you had going for you. You could always just make up the numbers. You are pretty good at that. Make sure you use weasel words and phrases such as "I believe" or "feel" or "in all likelyhood" to give yourself the wiggle room and plausible deniability that you so love.

You certainly didnt have any trouble making up ____ (edited for you) about the evil swim community. This should be easy-peezey.

Oh, The Sportsplex has shower facilities too. I am sure you were once again completely unaware of that. Seems to happen a lot when you are typing. Not really sure of NSC though. Dont know about Hagan Stone Park either but I'd bet Bur-Mill has such facilities. You should look into it. You know in the interest of thoroughness and accuracy.

If a homeless person wishes to pay for access to the facility I see no reason why he/she could not shower. Do you, Joe? Actually probably gonna happen. It is interesting though that you have taken an idea that the GAC can help folks learn to swim and somehow digressed to free showers for the homeless. Is that really all you got? Kinda makes you look silly if you ask me. Childish almost. Someone else already used shark jumping elsewhere but gee willikers dude.

[Mick]

See you guys and gals at the Grand Opening Ceremonies. Lots of cool stuff going on with numerous demos, sign ups, free CPR lessons, guest appearances, general info, etc. I hope all goes well and I am sure you do too. And I think it is all free too to the public. Cool, huh Joe?

[Mick]

Sorry for the multiple posts but I want to make sure you all know The Grand Opening is next weekend 08/26 - 08/28. Lots of info, details, schedules, time tables, etc on GAC website. Check it out.

Perhaps Joe, you could use this opportunity to address some local dignitaries, celebrities, officials, pols, etc on your ideas and concerns about pricing, homeless showering and such at municipal facilities. Oh dont forget to address your concerns about the GAC bottom line and costs to the taxpayers too. Those concepts seem a bit at odds to me but have at it!

[Brandon Burgess]

Joe, if you support this proposal, then surely you have gotten over your problem with the weekly free meal being served in the library?

I'm impressed.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, I would actually like to expand my proposal. Greensboro doubtless has citizens who run into financial crises, are unable to pay their water bills, and have their water shut off. I would also propose that these individuals be permitted to use the shower facilties at the aquatic center.

And when I propose that these folks and the homeless be permitted to use the facilities at the aquatic center, I think it needs to be at no charge. That is the least we can do for these folks.

I have no problem with opening up this proposal to the Sportsplex or other P&R facilities as long as they have on-site security. One of the great things about being able to do this at the aquatic center is the fact that security is readily available on campus if needed.

Mick, I don't think we should charge the homeless to use the showers at the aquatic center. And I don't think elected officials need to really get involved. We have ample city staff who can make this happen. Let's remember that Matt Brown even felt he could move on the amphitheater without getting the clearance from the city council. Surely, he can do this as well to help the homeless. How could the city council have any objections?

How much should we charge the poor to swim at the center or become members? Just thinking out loud. Perhaps $1 per day per person, or $10 per month membership. That would provide enough incentive not to use the facility as a "hang-out", yet keep it affordable. Let's remember-- this is a public facility, so the poor should be able to afford using it.

[Joe Guarino]

Brandon, the free meal encourages recipients to congregate in what is essentially a public space, creating the appearance of disorder. I do not favor creating the appearance of disorder in public spaces by allowing them to congregate.

I don't think the homeless taking a shower at the aquatic center during low usage times would do this. They go in, shower, get their business done, exit. No congregating.

[Mick]

Any price point is going to eliminate someone Joe? Are you an elitist or something? The truly ... how did you put it... "smelly, differant looking and acting" (I'm paraphrasing of course) folks may yet be excluded. You wouldnt want that now would you? And again I am positive you are just as concerned with pricing at all recreational and educational municipal facilities. And I am equally sure you are not singling out The GAC for any personal reasons or animosities or anything so petty as that. Right?

"Just thinking out loud" Excellant weasel phrase Joe! My compliments.

[Steve]

Mick, I thought part of the point about pricing was the location of the GAC. They built the Taj Mahal of pools yet most of the community who can walk to it, can’t afford it.
I don’t think the GAC is priced out just for the “elite” but I do think it could better serve the surrounding community (densely populated and low income).

I don’t think the Sportsplex is very walkable. And I’m sure the average client/income level at Sportsplex is different from its surrounding location. The Natural Science Center is very different as far as the surrounding income levels of GAC.
The Parks and Rec Gillespie Golf Course is a very affordable (and fun) place to play golf. Would that same course be priced different if it was near Oak Ridge or Summerfield instead of on MLK?

Yes, Hagan Stone has shower facilities. But I have never seen a homeless person with a sign out in the country. Which brings us back to location…

Several years ago, Harlem residents were getting run out by all the new development. This “renaissance” was changing neighborhoods and a culture that had very deep roots.
On one side, it’s just progress, right? After all, this is Park avenue. (um,North)

But the other side is, when is it ok to take over an area (because it cheap) and then tell the locals that if they want to come around that it’ll cost ‘em and it wont be cheap?

Mick, thanks for the heads up on the Grand Opening.

Joe, love the expanded water proposal. Maybe they could take 5 gallons of water home per visit. That way they’d have a toilet flush for later.

[Mick]

No, I would say your support of your proposal (which is of course insincere made up BS) and opposition to the library program (a real life instance)more than adequately illustrates "how you really roll". As if there were any doubts! Thanks Brandon!

And that was some very weak reasoning there too, Joe. Ouch.

Consistancy is a b____ aint it Joe.

[Joe Guarino]

From the aquatic center website:

"Men’s and women’s locker rooms are provided with private shower accommodations and ample toilet facilities. Designated master’s locker areas and youth locker rooms are also provided. In addition, a family changing room is located adjacent to the training pool."

It sounds very nice, doesn't it? If the taxpayers are already paying for it, should we not let the homeless and those without running water use it?

Mick, again, I think the pricing at all P&R facilities should not exclude the poor. But you have not answered my question. Do you favor or oppose my proposal?

[Mick]

Steve,

I just dont agree that $1 - $5 is out of line. I just dont. Is it affordable for all... unfortunately not. Smith, Grimsley and Lindley Pools are priced lower. Bur Mil is $4 and $5 dollars. Is this due to the surrounding neighborhoods or the facility itself or both? Is swimming in the "Taj Mahal" (your phrase) or Bur Mil worth a couple bucks more to some people than the aging, limited, smaller older facilities at LPP and Grimsley or Smith? I believe most would say so. I am glad citizens have options.

Joe's concern in this instance is totally and completely fabricated (again with the nice).

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, I think the pricing levels at Bur-Mil should be reduced. That is too high for a public facility to be charging the poor.

[Lee Harvey]

I believe this is a practice that is known as "gentrification." Is this something you support, Mick?

[Mick]

Joe, I believe I did answer the question. We simply disagree on the price points.

Which leaves me once again consistant with my long standing opinions, concerns and support for this facility going way way back. You... not so much. Sucks dont it.

Joe, should the homneless be allowed to shower at the pools at Grimsley or Smith or Bur Mil or Northeast Park or Lindley Park or at local Rec Centers for instance? Or does your BS program only concern The GAC? Warning... Please do some research before commenting so as to not show your ignorance of public facilities yet again.

Did I miss your crusade against Bur Mil Pool. $4 for kids and $5 for adults, Family pass for four or less $150 - remember that is basically Memorial day through Labor Day. Consistancy is a real b____ aint it. Dang it!

[Mick]

Joe,
Sorry, missed your above response about Bur Mill whilst typing. But perhaps you could point me to your previous posts concerning reduced prices at Bur Mil and I believe from another thread The Sportsplex. Or is this crusade something that has come up recently?

Lee Harvey,
My opinions on and support of The GAC are mostly unchanged and consistant over quite a long time now. If you think placing a pool on Lee Street qualifies as "gentrfication" ... whatever. Seems a bit over the top to me though.

But, while we are at it ... Do you support Joe's ideas of reduced fees at public facilities? Do you also believe $1-$5 was purposely designed to be exclusionary? Because that isJoe's original premis. Unless of course he would like to back off that theory.
Furthermore, do you support Joe's idea that municipal facilities with showers and of course security be opened up for free showers for the homeless oh and people who cant pay their water bills too? Are these ideas something that you support Lee Harvey?

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, let me understand your position. You are in favor of allowing the homeless to use the aquatic center if they pay the daily user fee, which they obviously cannot afford. Does that sum it up accurately?

For various reasons, I don't think opening up the school swimming pools to the homeless would be workable. However, this proposal could extend to any city P&R facility as long as adequate staffing and security arrangements are already in place. Again, the great thing about using the aquatic center is that there is already staff and security in place on site to handle the situation.

And again, I think the pricing at all the city P&R facilities needs to be affordable for the poor.

[bubba]

"See you guys and gals at the Grand Opening Ceremonies."

I think a $20 admission fee should be levied against those who attend, to subsidize swimming opportunities for the poor. And while we're at it, let's levy a $50 per entrant fee on all swim competitors who plan to participate in the events.

[bubba]

"...which is of course insincere made up BS"

Actually that phrase applies to the nonsense peddled by you and the other enablers/apologists for yet another trip down the rabbit hole with taxpayer money.

[Mick]

I remain steadfast in my opinion that the user fees at GAC are reasonable and consistant with other various municipal facilities. Nor do I believe, as you do, that the fees were designed to keep citizens out. Any price point will exclude someone, somewhere at some time. That is life. If you wish to proceed with your homeless hygene initiatives I applaud your endeavors. I somehow think that is not going to happen though. Call it a hunch.

John Dewey Pool at Grimsley is operated by Parks and Rec but I do suppose the locker rooms may well be the property of GCS. However, are you sure you want to limit your pricing and shower programs for the poor, homeless and those whose water has been shut off to Parks and Rec? Or should we include all public facilities? or, once again, do you get to pick and choose? I will however also allow for exceptions to schools. Only makes sense you know.

Your apparently brand new stance on user fees at public facilities is noted and will not be forgoten.

Seems you are backing into your arguments a bit but whatever. Shark Junping.

[Mick]

Bubba, I think you suggested fees would be counter productive. Use of the facility by competitive swimmers isnt quite that high but it sure aint free. But thanks for the input on these very important issues.

So Bubba you think Joe's arguments to have free showering at municipal facilities with showers and security for the homeless, poor and people who have had their water cut off AND the lowering of all P&R fees so as not to exclude the poor to be sincere?

Bless your heart.

[Steve]

bubba, would the fee’s be to help offset the financial impact? We ARE talking about Matt Brown and the Coliseum. It would likely cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to create a $50 entry fee system.

[Harold]

Disheveled dude, smelly, shows up at the aquatic center with the entrance fee clutched in his dirty stained hands will get turned away.

The horror of it all. An Irving Park elite in the same shower area with a High Point Road bum. Believe you me there will be a smell and wardrobe factor implemented for entrance purposes.

A community center. Not.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, this certainly opens up for conversation the fees at P&R facilities throughout the city. This is territory we had not explored previously at this blog, and frankly, I am not sure I was even aware fees were being charged at other facilities. But if they are set above a minimal level, they will tend to exclude the poor, and that is a problem. Public, taxpayer supported parks and rec facilities should be financially accessible for all citizens, including the poor.

Of course, this also opens up a can of worms with respect to other Coliseum programs, many of which are unaffordable to the poor.

But the aquatic center is a new facility; and it is therefore an appropriate place to begin this discussion. And as I said, it has built-in capabilities to serve the hygiene needs for the homeless and those without running water. In fact, its own website makes it sound quite appealing.

[Mick]

Frankly, I am not surprised that you are unaware and ignorant of pertinent facts. Nice to see you admit it for once. Never seems to deter your thought processes though.

Just to make sure "we" are all on the same page ... "we" are all aware that the CVM and GAC are not P&R responsibilities, right? You keep referring to P&R. Do you really mean all municipal faciliies or just P&R or just those that YOU pick and choose. Joe, to be honest, I really dont have time to educate you in this regard. Maybe you should take some time, educate yourself as to some facts and details. Then maybe we can get back to this at a later date when you are up to speed, better prepared and at least somewhat informed. You sure did comment an awful lot on a topic you admitted to being quite ignorant about.

And Harold you once again step into the "elitist" BS trap. I live in a very middle class home and neighborhood. Many of my kids' swim friends do as well. Granted, not all. It is a sport that remains more white, more upper middle class (and beyond) than many. That is easily demonstrated and one would be silly to argue the point. However, I also remain consistant in my hope that the GAC will indeed expose more and more kids and adults to water sports and water safety.

Joe, I still dont see how lowering fees and free showers fits in with your overall fiscal outlook? Maybe you can explain that to us all. Or just maybe you are not being quite honest about all of this. Hmmm, I wonder.

[bubba]

Mick digs his hole a little deeper with every post, doesn't he?

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, the bonds for the swim center were passed at the polls as a P&R project. Do you remember? It was represented to the public as a P&R facility, and that is how it passed. It was represented that this would be a community swimming pool. The words used during civic discussions, by my recollection, were "natatorium" and regional swim center. Of course, the facility was later transmogrified to a Coliseum aquatic center capable of hosting national and international events.

I don't think it is unreasonable to have expectations for the aquatic center as if it was a P&R facility, because that is how it was sold to the public. I don't claim to know everything about all the city's P&R facilities. But it should make moral sense-- and sense from the standpoint of public policy-- that these facilities should not be priced out of the reach of the city's truly poor.

[Joe Guarino]

And BTW, with respect to the "fiscal conservative" issue, if the loss of user fees at P&R facilities were to create budgetary pressure, then the answer is simple. Reduce the number of facilities to reduce operational costs. It would be better to have fewer facilities, and for all of them to be accessible to all the city's residents, rich and poor alike. It is absolutely insane to have such a huge number of facilities, and to price them out of the poor's reach.

[jaycee]

Expect Skip Alston to get a no-bid concession for towels and soap at a cost of $2.5 million, label anyone who objects to it as a "racist," take 3 years to provide what he's been paid for, and then demand a taxpayer-provided bailout because of cost overruns. He will have Deena Hayes administer the program and 37 of his relatives on the payroll, some of whom don't even live in NC.

[Stormy]

"However, I also remain consistant in my hope that the GAC will indeed expose more and more kids and adults to water sports and water safety."

And, who are those kids and adults that do not have the opportunity now, if they choose? Do we need an expensive aquatic swim national competition center to accomplish that?

I do believe that Joe's original proposal on this topic was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it does serve to expose the hypocrisy of this center and all of those that rammed the project and its funding through under the guise of a community swimming pool to add to Matt Brown's collection of Coliseum fun parks.

[Mick]

So it is just the facilities you pick and choose. Okey Dokey. Seems a tough case to make.

And In case you missed it, I think the facilities pricing is reasonable and in line with other municipal facilities which is fine by me. All I ever asked. I do hope legitimate efforts are continually made to facilitate usage by many. We are in agreement that the whole P&R vs CVM was a fiasco. But that is cud chewing. I am long on record of wanting the pool facility to be used well by this community and certainly not just by competitive swimmers.

Joe, which P&R facilities specifically cater to free homeless showers again? I missed it. No facility other than free are available to rich and poor alike. The GAC is priced reasonably and similarly to other Greensboro municipal facilities.

Stormy, that is nothing but cud chewing. It is done and we have the facility we have.
So you think Joe comments about elitist swim community, riff raff and smelly folk were tongue in cheek or the free showers, etc. Obviously the free showers and lower fees are bS because we all know Joe doesnt give a rats ass about that. However, unfortunately I do not believe Joe's earlier reprehensible commentary was tongue in cheek at all. Sad and pathetic but not tongue in cheek.

We have all said all there is to say. Good bye.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, please be assured my aquatic center posts are not directed at you, and they are not about you. But last week, I said the following:

"These membership fees and daily use fees serve an important purpose, besides revenue generation. They will help keep out what the swim community will regard as 'riff-raff'."

That statement made you fairly unhappy. You protested at the implications.

But this week, I proposed that the fee structure be lowered to enable the poor to use the facility; and I proposed to allow the homeless (and those without running water) to use the facility free of charge. And you have not thus far seemed terribly eager to support these proposals.

Is your position representative of the swim community? Or are you just speaking for yourself?

I am trying to figure this all out.

But in the meantime, I think I have made a couple of great proposals that I hope will be adopted by city staff.

[Stormy]

I understand now. As long as an interest group is able to get their pet project through and get it funded by the taxpayers, any concerns expressed are just "cud chewing". As in we got ours!

[David Hoggard]

Late to the game, but thought I'd interject.

Greensboro P&R has a "scholarship" program for every fee based service/facility it runs. There might be a few that don't offer 'need-based' reductions, I'd have to check.

But I'm pretty sure that very few of the subsidies get the fees all the way down to free. (An example I recall is the City's youth football program. The non-subsidized fees for that might be $85.00, but the 'scholarship' might bring it down to, say, $40 or $20. In few instances are such programs truly without any charge. The thinking to that, I believe, is that everyone should pay what they can because it instills a sense of ownership and equality, however slight)

That said: Joe I think your 'free & reduced shower' at City facilities (that have such capabilities) idea has some merit, however know that it would involve an investment of (gasp) tax dollars to implement and run even at the GAC. However, knowing your politics, I suspect that you are not at all sincere about helping the great unwashed at public expense. You are just stirring the Aquatic Center pot.

I think the better idea is for a group of faith based entities to gather their resources and build a shower facility in the West Lees St. area. That need is pretty well covered on down E. Lee Street with the new homeless facility and Urban Ministries - both of which I'm confident that you and your congregation generously supports with actual money.

[David Hoggard]

By the way.

Unless you and your congregation ARE supporting the homeless facilities (showers, meals) efforts currently in place in Greensboro - I may have inadvertently labeled you as a hypocrite in the post above.

You ARE already supporting them financially, aren't you?

[Roch101]

If you can hang in there until Thanksgiving:

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/11/25/article/free_thanksgiving_food_boxes_attract_big_crowd

[Mick]

Stormy "Cud Chewing" is in reference to talking and talking and talking about something that is already done and been discussed, debated, typed about, talked about, voted on and approved, approved by two separate city councils, blah blah blah ad nauseum for years! Bringing it back up and talking again and againa and again. Cud Chewing. Got it yet?

You seem to have left out your other post Joe about smelly people who look and act differant. Is there a reason for that? Ashamed of that one perhaps? You should be. Despicable.

You seem to refuse to acknowledge that I am happy and satisfied with the price structure. You can continue to play gotcha if you want but your attempts here have been rather transparent, weak and pathetic. Please continue your plans to repurpose municipal facilities as I am sure you will get some traction real soon. Castle storming is a favorite pastime round these parts. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul or Newt while you are at it.

David has added more info for you. You should be getting there by now with all the info provided to you by others. You know all the info you failed to gather on your own BEFORE writing this big pile of crap. Try not to type from a position of ignorance in the future. It is unseemly.

Explain to me again your fabulous opinion of the difference in the meal program at the library and your shower idea? That was truly awesome! Brandon kinda made you look silly. That was the only real GOTCHA in this thread. Well, maybe the revelation that you were rather ignorant on the topic. Nah... Brandon wins!

[Joe Guarino]

I appreciate your comments, David. I seem to recall you have served on the P&R commission, so I know you speak with some authority on this topic. But I am in disagreement with the practice of offering "scholarships" to the poor. It is yet another application, yet another indignity they have to undertake when the facilities and services should be priced at an affordable rate for them in the first place. And I am not sure whether the scholarships you describe solve the problem of high daily user rates at the aquatic center.

I don't think allowing the homeless and those without running water to shower at the aquatic center would cost much money. There is the cost of the water, and that's about it. I suppose the showers could be time-limited.

I ordinarily don't try to use this blog to advertise the various ways I assist the poor. And there are several. But perhaps one of the biggest among these is that I give fairly substantially to the Salvation Army in Reidsville. I have been doing this for a fairly significant number of years. I won't give precise numbers, but it is quite a bit. That is my choice as to how to direct my charitable giving, keeping in mind that my place of business is in Rockingham County.

As Roch suggests, my church has its Thanksgiving initiative, and also has a core of folks who assist with the homeless in various ways. I am unsure about line-item budgetary giving, and have never served on the committees that make these decisions.

[Mick]

Joe,
The daily rates are not "high" as has been illustrated repeatedly. Also, you could easily scholarship memberships, passes, etc. So that problem is solved for you.

Joe, If lesser prices for poor people (your idea) to use municipal facilities (we know now not just P&R) are not scholarships then what are they? Please explain. Lest we forget -

"How much should we charge the poor to swim at the center or become members? Just thinking out loud. Perhaps $1 per day per person, or $10 per month membership." Joe G

Oh what a tangle web we weave ......

How much would your free shower program for the homeless and people who have had their water cut off cost, Joe? Let me guess... you have no idea. Did I get it right? Now you have folks monitoring shower time?! Oh my.........

Oh, and still waiting for your explanation of the difference between the existing and real library meal program vs your fabricated and insincere shower program. Why support one but oppose the other? Let me help...

I don't think the homeless eating at the library during low usage times would do this. They go in, eat, get their business done, exit. No congregating. Sound vaguely familiar?

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, I am not advocating lower prices for poor people. I think prices should be lower across the board for everyone so that poor people should not have to make a special application and so they can afford it. These are public facilities.

And with respect to the homeless at the library, the meals are served outdoors in the area between where the parking garage sits and the library itself. The patrons congregate in this area and eat. The food is served there. This creates an appearance and feeling of disorder for library patrons who enter and exit the library building. The patrons do not receive a food package and leave. They stay there and eat. They linger there for a while. And remain mindful that this is a public space. I think it is a bad location to allow this type of charitable activity.

By comparison, the aquatic center indicates that it offers "private showering accommodations" that the homeless can use.

[Stormy]

Mick,

Allen Johnson, November 23, 2008:

"The voters have spoken, whether they knew what they were saying or not.

We're all now the proud owners of a brand-new, $12 million swim center.

We don't know yet where it will be built or who will operate it or even when it will be built.
But it's ours, to love and to cherish, in shallow waters and deep, till debt do us part.

After failing miserably at the polls in two previous elections, the swim center bonds passed this year because few voters likely knew they were there. The center won approval on Nov. 4 as part of the fine print in a $20 million parks and recreation bond package.

Although the ballot contained a 118-word description of the what these bonds would buy, only seven syllables ("a swimming facility") mentioned the costliest item on the list.

Is it too cynical to suggest that the bonds passed with 57 percent of the vote because too few voters knew they even included a swim center? Not really.

When asked if they'd known what they'd done, some voters readily admitted they'd checked the "yes" box with no clue that they were approving the center.

Swim center boosters had, in fact, counted on that. "We thought that the best thing we had going for us is the parks and recreation name," said Ted Oliver of the Greensboro Swim Association.

Parks and recreation bonds haven't failed in Greensboro in at least the last 40 years. Conversely, swim center bonds have never passed, falling handily in 2000 and 2006, when they were placed as standalone items on the ballot.

When asked last week if he agreed that a lack of voter awareness helped pass the bonds, Oliver wouldn't say.

"The real question is why it wasn't put on the ballot as a parks and recreation project before," he said. "I think that's the better question."

Either way, mission accomplished. Now what? Clearly, the new center should meet the needs of the city's active and passionate competitive youth swimming community. It should provide a valuable training facility, as well as attract regional meets and the revenue they would bring."

So, yes, the P&R bond was voted upon and approved, and the city council later increased the taxpayers' ante from $12 million to what appears to be about $20 million. But, hey, we now have a state-of-the art "swimming facility". Not exactly the P&R swimming facility that voters thought they were approving, but still a great, and expensive, asset for the regional competitive swim community. How many voters driving down High Point Road and see the Greensboro Aquatic Center are aware that that's what they voted for to increase their taxes?

But, hey, that's just cud chewing, Mick. Yeah, I got it alright. But, cud chewing or not, I recognize a dishonest process that results in a dishonest result for the benefit of a special interest group to be paid for by taxpayers. But, then again, that's nothing new or unique for Greensboro or Guilford County.

[Steve]

With respect to Hoggard input, wasn’t the pricing at Parks and Rec locations Mick’s bone?

Are low income people going to have a hard time getting a Parks & Rec scholarship for the Coliseum? Is there no scholarship program in place at GAC due to the “P&R vs CVM fiasco”(Mick’s words)?

Are the poor being kept out of GAC?
If there is nothing in place (pricing or scholarships) at GAC to meet the needs of the poor, Joe’s point is valid.

Stormy…a year later…

Friday, December 11, 2009 N&R Gerald Witt
GREENSBORO — By next week, the city should have a better idea of whether it will build a competitive regional aquatics center or simply an indoor community pool.

[Steve]

If you go to the Grand Opening of GAC to check out our city’s new pool please remember that if you’d like to take a dip, this facility is NOT for you.

Please don’t get confused by the GAC website’s ONE LINE that states” this multi-purpose facility will also serve local citizens”.

That statement continues “through its diverse programming, including therapeutic rehabilitation and Learn to Swim classes”. You must be in a “program”.
Actually, there will be recreation swimming for “other” people. But don’t hold your breath. The lesser ones who chose this option will be CONFINED to the Therapy Pool. Oh, if they have teaching or therapy classes going on (many are expected) please, just try and stay out of the way.

Citizens of Greensboro, you paid (uh sorry, will be paying a long time) for it. Come check out our new pool. Don’t worry about the “No Swimming allowed” signs at the big pool and diving area, you’ll get over it!

[bubba]

"Got it yet?"

Guess not. I thought you had checked out...."We have all said all there is to say. Good bye."

Apparently not. You continue to attempt to defend the indefensible.

Keeping digging, son.

[bubba]

"...both of which I'm confident that you and your congregation generously supports with actual money."

Yes, as a matter of fact, this Saturday evening, at Urban Ministry.

When's the last time you made an appearance at Urban Ministry to serve, Hoggard?

[David Hoggard]

I wasn't speaking to you, Bob.

Joe - good on you for your charitable efforts and I apologize for calling it into question. Bad form on my part.