How Do We Get the Aquatic Center to Serve the Poor?

Last week, I made a couple of proposals regarding the new Greensboro Aquatic Center. 

It had become evident that the pricing structure for the center effectively excludes the poor.  In addition, there has been a longstanding need in this community for facilities where the homeless can shower and attend to their personal hygiene needs.  I therefore proposed that the Greensboro Aquatic Center change its fee schedule, and bring its prices down dramatically, so that it is affordable for nearly everyone in the city.  In addition, I proposed that the center set aside one hour every day for the homeless to visit and use its shower and locker room facilities to take care of their personal hygiene. 

I was very pleased that Michele Forrest, a local homeless advocate and blogger, endorsed this proposal.  She indicated that quite a number of homeless individuals set up camp not terribly far from the aquatic center location.

The facilities and staff are already in place, and there would be minimal cost associated with opening up the facilities to the homeless at no charge.  Consider the description of the facilities on 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 all sounds very nice.

This is the big grand-opening weekend.  There has been a nearly month-long PR blitz that has attempted to get people excited about the aquatic center.  But the fact remains that city staff, led by Rashad Young and Matt Brown, are effectively excluding the poor and the homeless.

Recall that Rashad Young was chosen to be city manager when Yvonne Johnson was mayor.  And of course, management decisions by city staff have been lifted up in certain quarters as a paragon of what we should be doing as a city.

I think it would be appropriate first to ask what the appropriate next steps are to get Rashad Young and Matt Brown to adopt these proposals.  I welcome comments toward that end.

But in addition, I would like to see other major media voices in town get behind these proposals: the News and Record editorial page led by Allen Johnson; Yes!Weekly; Ed Cone, who has the preeminent progressive blog in town; and the Rhinoceros Times.  There is simply no legitimate justification for city staff to bar the homeless from using the facilities at the aquatic center; and for them to price the facility so that the truly poor cannot use it.

This is a public facility; and it should be available for the use of the least fortunate among us.  Let's brainstorm some ideas as to how we can convince city staff to do this.  In addition, I hope other media voices will join in this effort. 

Comments

[Don Moore]

Joe, who are you kidding? This was never meant for the public. Give TDBS some more bus passes to give out and close the White Street Landfill and you won't hear from East Greensboro for a few months.

Right now it appears as if the Swim Center is going to book more events than the coliseum, so I suggest that we start demo plans to remove the coliseum to allow for additional parking for the trillion visitors and gazillion dollars the Convention Center Folks say the pool will generate.

[Joe Guarino]

Don, I agree with you. This facility was never meant for the general public. It was never meant to serve the poor.

But that does not mean we should not advocate for it to serve those functions. This facility is owned by all of us, after all.

[Harold]

You're right. This is an elitist venue. The Common Man is not welcome. The swim meet type people (the Sedgefield, Summerfield, Fisher Park, Irving Park types) don't rub elbows or share towels with the average Joe (not referring to blogmeister Joe) let alone associate with the likes of the homeless. The public has been bamboozled from the get go with respect to the intent of the "community" swimming pool.

[sensei]

Great idea, but I'm doubtful that local media will even mention it, much less get behind it.
I'm sure there's a way to accomplish this, in spite of the elite. Perhaps Michele Forrest could show up at GAC with a few "friends" who need to avail themselves of the facilities. Test the waters - so to speak.

[Joe Guarino]

I suppose we could do that, sensei. The problem is that there is an admission fee of $5, I think, for adults. So the staff probably would be required to refuse entry on the basis of failure to pay the admission fee.

[michele]

"Perhaps Michele Forrest could show up at GAC with a few 'friends' who need to avail themselves of the facilities."

If the GAC decides to offer homeless people a free place to shower, I'll happily direct them there. Otherwise, I wouldn't knowingly put a homeless friend in a situation that could potentially cause them to feel rejected and embarrassed. That already happens far too often in their daily lives.

I agree with Joe that the admission and membership fees of the GAC probably puts it out of reach to many of our city's low-to-no-income folks. But it's my impression that they aren't the target audience, anyway.

The Gillespie Golf Course is a great deal for local golfers, but it's still pricey for those with low incomes. Likewise, the Greensboro Sportsplex has lots of amenities, but a fee structure that's probably unaffordable for most poor people.

Common sense tells me that if all City facilities were made low-cost or free for the poor and homeless to use, it would cost taxpayers more money. And especially in this economy, that wouldn't go over well.

The reality for poor and homeless people is that there are some things they simply can't afford to do. I'm thankful for organizations like the YMCA, which offers scholarships to low-income people. But that's paid for by the Y's generous donors -- private, voluntary charity, rather than taxpayer-funded assistance.

It's my understanding that the GAC has 35 events booked now, including the US Synchronized Swimming 2012 Olympic Team Trials. That's bound to generate revenue for Greensboro, both publicly and privately -- as well as media coverage, locally and nationally. That's good for Greensboro.

[sensei]

I was going to suggest that perhaps tdBS could come up with passes to the GAC - seriously, but it sounds to me like Michele doesn't support the idea.

[Joe Guarino]

Michele, with respect to the events booked, it is unclear those will pay for the center-- either its capital expense or its operational expense. And one other factor is that we don't know how many of these will be repeat customers. It is understandable that many would want to try out a brand new facility, but how many will come back every cycle?

I think city recreational facilities should be priced so that the poor can afford to use them. And if that has budgetary implications, then cut the number or availability of facilities. It is not right to price the poor out of using these facilities.

[Mick]

I sincerely hope that the GAC does make strides, attempts, scholarships for less fortunate types. Thanks to Hoggard we all know P&R has scholarship programs so maybe the GAC will follow suit. I know some of the local private swim clubs do. Community programming is part of the success puzzle for the facility in my opinion. We shall see how it all fits together. It will take cooperation.

I do also know as a fact that swim families are nowhere near as nasty, evil, snotty as despicably portrayed here. Matter of fact they arent anywhere near as nasty and snotty as people ARE here as amply evidenced above. Just sad.

And you are right Michelle. The GAC is priced in line with other area municipal facilities (recreational and educational) and is also similarly priced to other facilities in other NC cities. I would be all for lowering fees across the board but the bottom line would just be worse. I think some here might object to that as well. I believe Joe just wants to keep lowering fees and closing facilities until budgets meet some undefined acceptable level. Seems an odd strategy but whatever.

I also sincerely hope that all here make further attempts to help out with the homeless problems around the city. Even if this new plan doesnt come to fruition. There seems to be quite an outpuring of interest of late. That has got to be a good sign, right?

Unfortunately, I cant help but believe Joe (and others) are not sincere in this new endeavor and are using the homeless, less fortunate and poor as some sort of weapon. Also sad.

Thanks Michelle for really helping the community.

[michele]

"Michele, with respect to the events booked, it is unclear those will pay for the center-- either its capital expense or its operational expense."

True, but if GAC events have a sufficient economic impact on the city as a whole, wouldn't that justify the taxpayer expense? Obviously, we don't know if that will be the case, but I certainly hope so, since it's already been built and there's no going back! ;)

"It is not right to price the poor out of using these facilities."

I agree.

[michele]

You're welcome, Mick, and that's kind of you to say. I am grateful beyond words for the way that God has provided for me and blessed my life, and it's an honor to be able to help others.

[Joe Guarino]

I think George Hartzman estimated a $40 million total capital expense after the notes are paid. I guess the problem with assessing economic impact is that it is very difficult to measure. And even then, is it morally right to tax the working class and lower middle class to provide an economic impact on behalf of owners in the hospitality industry?

But you are right-- there is no going back.

[Mick]

"with respect to the events booked, it is unclear those will pay for the center-- either its capital expense or its operational expense"

No one ever said they would Joe. But each and every event helps as tax dollars also come to city coffers via other avenues. But Joe is very right in that repeat customers will be the long term key. No doubt. Repeats and a good base of semi regular rotating events as well. I believe the YMCA just booked for a second year with an option for a third (or something like that) for the Y Nationals. That is a big deal guys. So are the Olympic Trials for synchonized swimming (not that I will go). It is all part of a very VERY good start. A start many here said would not happen. Remember all those "If you build it they will come." jokes's and statements? I do. There are a lot more events out there too. NC High Scool regionals and states. ACCs. Diving events? Water polo events? But, I strongly caution against too many per year as we need time for community use as well. A tough balancing act for The City as I have said from the start.

But as Don illustrates oh so well. No matter what... It will never be enough for some folks. Ever.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, ideally I would like to see the fees come down across the board so that the poor do not have to apply for scholarships-- so that they can feel free to use the facility without jumping through degrading hoops.

[Joe Guarino]

Also, Mick:

How do we measure those "tax dollars also come to city coffers via other avenues"?

[michele]

"And even then, is it morally right to tax the working class and lower middle class to provide an economic impact on behalf of owners in the hospitality industry?"

There are a whole lot of poor and homeless people working in the hospitality industry, and if the GAC creates more hospitality jobs, or even just helps current employees continue to have a job, wouldn't the paying taxes thing kind of even out?

[Mick]

So are you concerned with the bottom lines or fees. Those two strategies seem somewhat at odds. Though each are legit concerns.

[Joe Guarino]

These tend to be jobs that pay very poorly. It is of questionable wisdom to offer this kind of "economic incentive" to create low-paying jobs.

Again, the number of jobs created, if any, will be very difficult to measure.

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, I know those concerns seem to be at odds. But this project was sold to the public as a city parks and rec facility for community recreational use, and as a regional swim facility; and the price tag went up dramatically. I think the public has a right to expect that the poor are not excluded economically from using the facility; but the public also has a right to be concerned about what the facility is costing us.

[Mick]

Joe,
You are absolutely right that those dollars are tough and maybe even impossible to measure. But that doesnt mean those dollars dont exist. They do and they will. I know what we used to spend when we traveled... Argghhh. These events add up. The tax dollars add up. It all helps.

And again, I see the GAC as an amenity and I am not as concerned with bottom line as some. The balancing act between rec and biz will be tough. Right now all we have is the biz side pre-event info. Only time will tell for the rec side.

[michele]

I really have to defer to others on the economics of the GAC. The sum total of my economics education is Econ 101. I did make an "A", but that was a long time ago. ;)

[Joe Guarino]

Mick, what you spent when you traveled was impactful to you and your family. And yes, other families spent similar amounts. But tracking the impact of the amount you spent against the capital and operational costs of facilities used; and deciding whether it fed corporate profit or truly created jobs, is a trickier notion.

[Mick]

Joe,

They dont seem at odds by any definition at some level they are at odds. You cant be overly concerned with the bottom line and at the same time tout reduced and free usage for all. Then turn around and complain about the bottom line again. It just isnt logical. Just as I and others have said... it is and will continue to be a balancing act.

As far as pools go, as a whole, The City does offer very reasonable user fees at Grimsley and Smith and Lindley. GAC and Bur Mil are slightly higher. Differant levels of service, opportunity and quality at differant price points is a reasonable practice. Makes sense to me anyway. Isnt "running things more like a business" a mantra seen typed here?

[Joe Guarino]

Michele, I don't claim to know the economic impact of the GAC, either. But my regretful suspicion is that it will always be nebulous.

[Mick]

Joe,

A percentage of what we spent went to various municipalities via taxes. That is how it works. And just like here, those taxes went to the owners of the business ie tax payers (except TAC) but those dollars are not credited to the business (in our case GAC). Impossible to count .. yup. But it still happens. Its real money and probably a goodly amount. The more events, nights, weekenders, etc the more taxes. You really cant discount that Joe. We may never know how much moola but we do know its there. I just wish some would stop pretending it wasnt even there. But I also wish others would stop pretending it was ... how did Don put it... gazillions of dollars.

But it has been fun watching opponent's arguments morph as the facility progresses. But that is the nature of the beast I do suppose. Have a good weekend all. I will be spending some time at our favorite evil facility. My son is participating to a small extent.

[triadwatch]

one thing that is missing is the final cost of the GAC, will someone inquire when the numbers become available or will they play a stall tactic on final numbers

[Joe Guarino]

Good point, Keith. And let's remember a huge staff was hired-- much larger than we had been led to believe. That means the operational expense is much higher than we had been led to believe.

[Love-me-some-stone-hearted-doctor]

Mick, of course Joe's contradictions aren't logical, that's because this is a fabrication, a cynical ploy to try to manufacture some kind of controversy of embarrassment. He is doing so at the expense of other people's hardships, even as it means roping into the mockery those who genuinely care, like Michele. It is a mean joke, and goodhearted oblivious Michele and others who are suffering misfortune are the butt.

Make access to the pool free and Joe will complain that taxpayers are bearing the entire burden, charge a small fee and Joe pretends he has become a champion of the poor and the homeless.

If this was genuine, Joe could do something effective about it himself. Instead of shuffling off responsibility for his mock-plan on the media and other bloggers, if it were sincerely important for him, Joe could make it happen. Joe could seed a fund with his own money or solicit his church members to donate one Sunday's collection to a fund to pay for those poor and homeless Joe so sincerely cares about for them to swim and shower at the Aquatics Center. That would lessen the burden on the taxpayers and satisfy Joe's concern for the poor and homeless. A win/win. That won't happen because Joe's love for the homeless is a fake cynical ploy played out at the expense of innocent others, including the public mocking of Michele, and he prefers it that way.

[GreensboroObserver]

Love-me-some, if the good Doc was really serious he'd be manipulating Danny Thompson to champion this cause just like the faux porn controversy.

[bubba]

"...just like the faux porn controversy" says the faux "journalist".

[bubba]

"It is a mean joke, and goodhearted oblivious Michele and others who are suffering misfortune are the butt."

Save the phony moralizing for someone who is easily fooled by such tripe.

[bubba]

"But it has been fun watching opponent's arguments morph as the facility progresses."

No, what's been fun is watching you rationalize the gross misuse of public funds and public trust this abomination represents.

[Joe Guarino]

Love-me and Observer, do you support or oppose my call to reduce prices to make the GAC affordable for the poor? And do you support or oppose my call to make the facility available to the homeless free of charge?

Michele entered the conversation on this topic on her own volition. I admire her efforts on behalf of the homeless, and appreciate her speaking in favor of these proposals.

While I can see why some would resent proposals like these being made, I think we need to discuss the merits of these proposals, or the lack thereof. And if the proposals have merit, we need to figure out how to influence city staff to adopt them. Let's remember, it is city staff that is in control on the operational details of this facility.

[michele]

"...oblivious Michele..."

Not at all. I learned a long time ago that people (service providers, politicians, clergy, volunteers, etc.) have all sorts of reasons for helping the homeless. Sometimes, they're motivated by love, concern and a real desire to help others. Sometimes, their motives are more self-serving. Joe's motives are between him and God. I'd be happy to see the City make all its facilities available to help the homeless, regardless of who proposes it or why.

P.S. So many times, I've seen first-hand how people's motives and hearts can change once they meet and become involved with homeless people.

[Joe Guarino]

"Sometimes, their motives are more self-serving."

Fortunately, in my case, I have absolutely nothing to gain by making these proposals. But I suspected beforehand that it would attract lots of criticism, and perhaps even some name-calling. And it did.

Have been on record for a long time expressing concern as to how tax monies paid by the poor and minorities are being used for the aquatic center-- from which they will not benefit in anything close to a proportionate manner. That has turned out to be true. We need to fix that.

[Mick]

Joe,

I believe you would get more answers to that question if anyone thought you were sincere. And you started the unfortunate name calling and bad blood with the original post. The self serving nature of your provocative posts has been your painfully transparent attempts to corner supporters as your post above indicates. That is exactly what you thought you had to gain. You have gained nothing and lost respect.

Bubba,
I have no intention of chewing that cud with you or anybody. Juts google an relive the good ol days.

[Spag]

Joe is just pointing out what was apparent to many when this project was announced- it is an expensive toy for middle and upper class (mostly) white people. Joe is merely challenging those behind it to prove him wrong now that the project is finished.

[bubba]

"Joe is merely challenging those behind it to prove him wrong now that the project is finished."

But some of them don't want to "chew that cud" again. They're too busy calling Joe a racist.

Typical of what we've come to expect from those who continue to infect us with the REAL Greensboro Disease.

[john hayes]

but Sam, sticking pins in voodoo dolls is just easier.

[Roch101]

"Joe is merely challenging those behind it to prove him wrong now that the project is finished." -- Sam

Exactly. He's not trying to make our community better, he's trying to make a point -- and doing so at the expense of the downtrodden and the goodhearted.

[Mick]

Joe's early comments were despicable and he spent the better part of his blog time since trying to prove himself to be not totally wrong .... with no success.

Dr John, How do you feel about Joes comments on folks who smell differant?

[Mick]

Since this can of worms has been reopened...

How about you Spag. What are your thoughts on Joe's comments in the original post? Do you feel his new found concern is legitimate? Do you think it is OK for Joe to use the plight of the homeless and less fortunate as a weapon against this particular windmill? Do you think reducing costs across the board and opening municipal facilities as homeless shelters and hygine stations is a good idea?

I must have missed any post about how the GAC could be used as a care station if it were to be built.

Dr John, same same?

[Billy Jones]

There's no saving Greensboro, the city is hopelessly lost and spinning out of control. Public showers won't slow the fall. Or the fallen.

[Harold]

Matt Brown never had any intentions of allowing the High Point Road corridor citizen reasonable access to the "community" pool. This project was sold to the public as a community pool in order to get it passed. We're now finding out it's an elitist center catering to the smug and professional swim events. Yeah, they'll bring in some poor kids from the neighborhood from time to time letting them dip their toes all the while crowing proudly to the public, see, it's a community pool.

[Mick]

Cud chewing again, Harold. You are making up your own facts to fit your opinion. It has been touted as capable of handling competitive events from the start. Did it change ... yup. A lot of changes. But always compared to TAC and MAC. And I tell you, I sat in on some of the very early pre-vote meetings... there was no Matt Brown, No CVM types at all, all P&R folks and lots of em, no talk of CVM location, no preplanning as to how this turned out. PERIOD.

$1 - $5 per visit for non-members. $3 is typical. Cheaper than Sportsplex, Natural Science Center, Bur-Mill, Renting a boat at city marina. However, I am with you in spirit that more rec use is a good thing and is important to the overall success of the facility. I am glad to hear you are not as concerned with the bottom line as you are with community use. We are together in that regard.

No word from Spag and John yet. I'll be patient.

[Joe Guarino]

Have taken a little break this weekend to attend to some other things.

Mick, just to clarify, I do not think anyone has recommended converting municipal facilities to homeless shelters, as you stated. I think Michele has advocated opening more of these to the homeless for various purposes. I have focused on the GAC because it is a new facility; it has built-in security available; and has ample staff and facilities that are already being paid for.

I don't think we can make the mistake of regarding you as the voice of the swim community, but we can certainly think of you as their proxy. During the last thread on this topic, you seemed to come around to the idea of lowering prices so more of the poor can use the facility. But I sense you have still not warmed to the idea of allowing the homeless to use it. And it appears you deeply resent the fact that I have made these proposals. That makes me wonder about whatever your motivations might be.

Again, I can understand why the swim community might not want the homeless to use the facilities. But that does not make it right. The taxpayers paid for the facility, and it is for public use.

Yes, I have made a point with these posts; but I also agree with the policies I have advocated here. I don't apologize for that. And it has not, by any means, been at the expense of the poor and the homeless. If my suggestions were to be adopted, these populations would have greater use of the facilities.

[Mick]

The tax payers pay for a lot of facilities that arent used for or repurposed as hygiene stations. And I simply dont believe you.. not for a second ... after all the legit bellyaching about costs and deficits that your intent here is true. No apology from me there either. To be clear, I have absolutely zero doubts about what I believe your motivations to be in this regard. I strongly believe your brainstorming had VERY LITTLE IF ANYTHING to do with the actual health and welfare of less fortunate citizens. Furthermore, though few would admit it, I doubt anyone else does either. I think this was wholly an effort to trap and/or embarrass supporters of this facility that you so hate and to save your butt from your unfortunate early commentary. You now have no way out and therefore in your typical all out efforts to not be wrong about anything you have only one path.

I think maybe, someone needs to translate some of Michelle's comments for you.

You still dont get what I deeply resented. By choice or by ignorance. Either way it is a shame.

At one point you stated there would be problems with using Grimsley and Smith in the same fashion as you propose for the GAC. Would you care to elaborate? Oh, I was at GAC this weekend.. didnt see any security that you continue to refer to but I didnt go into locker rooms. I could easily be wrong about that though... big place.

[Spag]

My response? It looks like a lot of middle and upper class white folks don't like Joe's idea. I guess that kind of proves Joe's point, doesn't it?

[Mick]

"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." Joe G

Okey Dokey Spag. I will count you among Joe's allies in this thinking. I am kind of surprised you think repurposing the GAC into a part time homeless hygiene station is a good idea. Oh, not just homeless people but people who have had their water turned off too. But, I am truly disappointed you stand behind the above thinking. Fair enough I suppose.

Please know, I represent no one but myself here. EVER.

[Harold]

Joe's the voice of the common man with respect to the soon to be discovered unwritten entrance qualification rules of the GAC.

Bring Us Your..... on second thought, no, that will blemish the image of this state of the art "community" swimming pool. Once again, the common man gets taken for a ride.