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

[cheripickr]

I think the "smell" thing is all he wants to talk about at this point. It postpones addressing the merits of the proposal.

[michele]

For the record, some (not all) homeless people do smell bad -- probably most often because they don't have ready access to showers and laundry facilities.

And for some, alcoholism and addiction issues compound the problem. (Even non-homeless addicts and alcoholics sometimes have trouble controlling their bladders when they're wasted.)

Some homeless folks with serious mental illness don't bathe (or attempt to find a place to bathe) very often. That's actually a symptom of some kinds of mental illness, and there are housed (even middle-class to affluent) mentally ill people who also don't bathe regularly, even though they have bathrooms in their homes.

On the other hand, I know a lot of currently and formerly homeless people who bathe(d) regularly, either at places with showers (like the IRC or at homeless shelters), at a friend or family member's home, or by renting a hotel room or taking a "bird bath" in a public restroom.

As a result of this blog post and comment thread, I've been contacted by someone who's interested in knowing more about how the City could help with showers and laundry. Thanks for starting the conversation, Joe.

[Mick]

The "smell" thing, as you gloss over it so easily, was what started this crap. Give Joe a pass if you wish. Obviously, Its your call if you wish to do so. I didnt. It is good that you have his back and are willing to overlook such statements on some occassions. I suppose you could agree with his sentiments though.

Honestly, I think there are probably better ways to handle the issue of homeless hygiene, etc rather than re-purposing a swimming facility or a park or a school or the NSC or Sportsplex. But if you are on board with that plan then fine. I have always been a more faith based inititive type but obviuosly government intervention is cool with me at times. This plan seems somewhat at odds with what most have expressed here prior ... but whatever. And for the 100th time, I dont think Joe is or has ever been sincere as to the homeless hygiene issues with this proposal and it is therefore not worthy or deserving of that much serious discussion. Pretty simple really.

Dr John,
Do you believe Joe to be sincere in his new thinking and concerns for homeless hygiene?
If not, what do you see as his motivations here?

Further, what is your take on Joe's new found fiscal direction regarding all municipal and rec facilities in that they should be uniformally priced low (Joe appears to be the judge of what constitutes low)so as not to exclude the poor. This too seems at odds with prior fiscal preferences. Of course we all know, every price point will eliminate someone. So the end result appears to me to be FREE (or very nearly so) use of all municipal and rec facilities. Personally, I think pricing facilities reasonably thereby limiting (to the best of our ability) deficits relating to recreational and educational facilities as a whole is a better plan. BTW, Joe's plan includes closing facilities to help with the deficits which of course are made only greater by his new fiscal ideas. Sound good to you so far? Have I got it right Joe?

I have always been for reasonable rates at municipal facilities. We all seem to have differing views as to what is reasonable though. No surprise there and if legit probably a good thing.

You guys can all think me some sort of liberal progressive somethingorother if you wish.. but I am not. Swim families are not nearly the ogres that Joe and some here like to pretend. I guess it makes you all feel better somehow though. These threads have been somewhat revealing. I hope some good somewhere comes out of it. I doubt it though.

On second thought ... No real need to answer any questions Doc. I tire of this useless, endless debate.

I will leave you guys to your bitch sessions, amen corner, yes man mentalities. Go Ron Paul and all. See ya.

Thanks,
Mick

[michele]

Mick, I have no problem with the GAC. I think it's going to turn out to be good for Greensboro.

And my response to the person who contacted me was that my real hope is that we'll do smaller homeless day centers all across the city. This is something that was discussed in the early stages of planning for what eventually became the IRC.

Churches, neighborhoods, organizations, individuals, or the City -- whoever -- could open small locations (a house, a storefront, part of a church or City building) where homeless people could come in, shower, do laundry, use computers, get something to drink or eat, find out about homeless resources and also, have a place to rest, relax and feel welcomed. If enough people would commit to doing this all over the city, we could better serve the needs of homeless people.

The IRC is a blessing and has many vital services for homeless people. Perhaps smaller day center locations could also offer bus passes to go to the IRC to get additional help, when needed. This idea got a lot of support from homeless people when we talked about it previously, and it's still my dream.

I'm not glossing over anything or giving anyone a pass. (It's not my job to judge.) I appreciate any opportunity to get people thinking and talking about homeless outreach.

[Joe Guarino]

Yes, Mick, if lowering prices leads to budget shortfalls, then we would have to make some choices as to which facilities and/or services to offer, and which not to offer.

Cheri and Michele, it is a bit surprising that the "smell" issue would be controversial. Of course, one could speculate as to the motives of those who raise it. For those who deal with all strata of society on a regular basis, the "smell" issue would be completely unremarkable. And of course, my original reference was about the willingness of some folks (or the lack thereof) to be around others they might regard as unpleasant in some way.

And you're welcome, Michele. I hope the communication you received leads to the city seeing the wisdom of using the aquatic center for this purpose.

[michele]

"For those who deal with all strata of society on a regular basis, the 'smell' issue would be completely unremarkable."

When I was serving as a case manager at my church's outreach ministry, I had lots of unsheltered homeless people in my office every day. Other folks would walk in my office and go, "Wow! It smells bad in here!" Honestly, I didn't notice it at all. I guess you get used to it fairly quickly. But it seems to be off-putting for people who aren't used to it. That doesn't offend me, it just gives me an opportunity to talk with them about homelessness.

[Mick]

"Of course, one could speculate as to the motives of those who raise it."
Joe, you raised it! And for the record you were not referring to homelss at the time.

You do need a transaltor.

What if someone cant afford the $1 Joe... Free for all. Why is your $1 reasonable and the existing $3 exclusionary?

So you do advocate lowering prices and then closing facilities .. Okey Dokey. Great plan there Joe. Awesome.

[Mick]

Arrgghhhh

I gotta stop this BS!

[Spag]

"I am kind of surprised you think repurposing the GAC into a part time homeless hygiene station is a good idea."

I never said that.

[Mick]

If you dont want to participate... dont. I will cease my efforts to get comments on Joe's smelly folks commentary from Spag and Joe and leave there silence for all to interpret.

[Mick]

Oopps. Spag and John.

[bubba]

"I tire of this useless, endless debate" he says, then proceeds to make four more posts.

You're not doing too well here, little buddy.

[bubba]

"I tire of this useless, endless debate" he says, then proceeds to make four more posts.

You're not doing too well here, little buddy.

[Mick]

we are in agreement both times!

and dont call me little buddy, skipper

[john hayes]

"For the record, some (not all) homeless people do smell bad -- probably most often because they don't have ready access to showers and laundry facilities.And for some, alcoholism and addiction issues compound the problem. (Even non-homeless addicts and alcoholics sometimes have trouble controlling their bladders when they're wasted.)
Some homeless folks with serious mental illness don't bathe (or attempt to find a place to bathe) very often. That's actually a symptom of some kinds of mental illness, and there are housed (even middle-class to affluent) mentally ill people who also don't bathe regularly, even though they have bathrooms in their homes. As a result of this blog post and comment thread, I've been contacted by someone who's interested in knowing more about how the City could help with showers and laundry. Thanks for starting the conversation, Joe."

".. it is a bit surprising that the "smell" issue would be controversial. ... For those who deal with all strata of society on a regular basis, the "smell" issue would be completely unremarkable. And of course, my original reference was about the willingness of some folks (or the lack thereof) to be around others they might regard as unpleasant in some way..."

I think Joe and Michele covered the basics of the smell issue straightforwardly and without theatrics or trying to use it as a bludgeon. I'm not sure what you want me to add to it. I certainly have no more expertise on it than Michele. I'm not following your histrionics very well. There is something here that you are taking way too personal that I am just not in tune with. If you are disappointed in me for not bashing Joe because you quoted his passage 4 or 5 times, I am sorry.

[Mick]

Okey Dokey. But yes I did take it personally when Joe insulted me, my family and many of my friends. I guess I am just odd that-a-way.

And I think Joe is using the less fortunate as his lance against this particular windmill.

[Steve]

mick, sign me up as one to give Joe a pass on the comment.

There is no doubt that rich people smell different than poor people. This is achieved in many ways including quality perfume vs. cheap lotion, a healthy diet vs. poor diet, and also hygiene habits. But you know this, right?

The question/offence is: Are most rich people uncomfortable with swimming, showering, and socializing with poor people?
(you defined swimming sports as “more white, more upper middle class and beyond”)

Not knowing you, I chose to believe the offence is because you (and possibly your friends) are an exception and are comfortable alongside the poor.

But if you have insight, please show how the majority (not the exception) of upper class white swimmers purposefully engage in activities that include lower class people.

[Mick]

Kindly put but kind of a snobby question donthca think? You choose to believe that because it is the path of least resistance. It is easier to hate that way. As Barney Fife so eloquently put it "She is one of the rich and the rich are differant". "We" are no differant than you and your family. "We" are your neighbors, classmates, church members and friends. "We" are as politically and religiously as diverse as any parent group of youth sports. Mostly white - yup. Mostly middle to upper class and beyond - yup. Ever go to a lacrosse game? Soccer? Even some baseball teams?

Like what... Like this... ? Our swim club has worked Thanksgiving morning 6-noon helping prepare and deliver meals at Urban Ministry for at least 10+ years. I KNOW SEVERAL kids have gone on numerous mission trips over the years. We have scholarshipped athletes both white and black that we absorb the costs ourselves. We have had an unofficial outreach program for years. We have a few Big Brother/Big Sister type athletes. We have a learn to swim program and have had for a few years now. We have worked with the Special Olympians for several months every year for years. We "GASP!" attend the Black Heritage swim meet in Cary. There is plenty more but that seems a good start. Our kids go to the same schools everyone else's do. Sure some go to private achools but more go to charter schools. We are no differant.

I know it makes it easier for you all if you think we are differant, rich snooty, lefty elitists. Sorry. Aint so. Over 2000 kids (not a typo) participate in summer (CSA) swimming every summer right here in good ol Gso. The summer club my swims for is very middle class.

We are no diff than you. But speaking of you. What is it you do that makes you think you are so much better than me, my family and my friends? Or that allows you to be OK with Joe's BS commentary from time to time.

How did you put it ... Paraphrasing of course: please show how the majority (not the exception) of your friends engage in activities that include lower class people.

Your turn. Have at it.

[Mick]

My response reads more terse than it is meant. A bit hurried. Just kind of an odd question and I cant think of many instances where that would be asked. But whatever.

[GreensboroObserver]

Mick, I admire your tenacity but NOTHING you can say will change their opinion of the swim association. I know this will fall on deaf ears too but I'm not sure if this was mentioned or not, this past summer the swim association raised over $200k for the American Cancer Society. Total contributions of over three million since the start of Swim for Cancer.

[Mick]

I know most minds are made up here and that is fine. But, I do this just on the off chance someone else might be reading and to drive myself crazy(er). And I think Steve's question was legit (odd but legit). Good thought about good ol Swim for Cancer. What is that about 35 years now? Go Coach Sawyer!

Evil swim community only millions of dollars to Amerian Cancer Society.

[Joe Guarino]

With that kind of fundraising prowess, it seems they could have built their own pool, or contributed heavily to its capital costs.

But maybe that's just me.

[john hayes]

Agreeing with or even TOLERATING Joe's opinion or disagreeing with yours equates to one thinking he is better than you?? If you would cut the drama by about 80% you would stand a much better chance of getting your points across. You just seem to be trying to create outrage any way you can.

[bubba]

"You just seem to be trying to create outrage any way you can."

He's trying to deflect attention away from this entire monstrosity he helped create.

Plus, he said he was bailing out of this discussion MANY comments ago. We see how good his word is, don't we?

Watch for some variation of his trademark "cud chewing" rejoinder.

[Mick]

Hmmm, Three rather personal attacks from one post. Including one for being part of raising millions of dollars for cancer research. How low can you go Joe. I must be getting better at this.

Bubba, I was specifically addressed so I answered. I am not trying to deflect anything. You should really know me better by now. And you are right. I am not going to go backwards and rehash the history, etc. I will leave that to the herd here.

So Joe you think we should abandon Swim For Cancer and contribute to the pool? And the private sector did pay for the scoreboard. Something like $250,000 to $300,000. I do hope that continues in some fashion. And through practice times/lane rentals and sponsoring meets and of course parking fees, etc the swim community wiil contribute heavily to offsetting some operational costs for years to come.

Dr John, my intent was to specifically reference the question Steve asked me about how the swim community purposely interacts with "lower class". I suppose I failed there. Truly sorry for the confusion. I do not equate mere disagreement with superiority or inferiority. That does seem to be the speciality of some here though. I still find Steve's question odd. I think it sort of smacks of some sort of perverse sideways elitism. But we shall see how Steve responds. I did try to explain that particular post sounded far worse than I meant it to. Not good enough I do suppose.

As to drama, yeah I went overboard some here and there. I got my back up with Joe's initial commentaries. Still think they suck. Sort of hard to back off when you are constantly attacked and insulted. But I promise to work on that. I also promise to spend less time here. I think we will all be happier :). This is and has been quite a large waste of time and energy. Nothing good came of it. Too bad.

[bubba]

"With that kind of fundraising prowess, it seems they could have built their own pool, or contributed heavily to its capital costs."

Why bother, when there's Other People's Money that can be misappropriated, and you have a willing consortium of politicians, usual idiots, and self-serving people and their interests that support the unsupportable?

[Steve]

mick, obviously my kind assumption of you and your friends went over like a lead balloon. You chose to attack me personally as I ask for your take on a class of people.

The reason I posted, yet again, was because of the continued language that groups together anyone who has spoken negative about GAC.
Although I am a very part time visitor here and have no relationships with any, my joining in on posts do link me to the “they, them, ya’ll, and even congregation (by Hoggard). Hoggard took a nasty swipe, apologized, and then took another swipe at “us”. Not a classy move in my book. He is way off in my case also, and until now I felt his comment was unworthy of a reply.

The comments continue to pile on... GreensboroObserver- NOTHING will change their opinion of the swim association.

My beef has been and is the GAC pool politics and policies. Not the swimmers. It wasn’t just the swim assoc. who kept redecorating this thing until it passed. Can anyone say”NC Lottery” Actually the lottery vote was a lot more crooked.

However, I think the people who keep beating the racist/bigot drum based on Joe’s Aquatics post are just full of it. Talk about chasing windmills… and I’m pretty sure Joe isn’t green in dealing with this stuff and understands motives.
Again, I don’t know Joe, so if you want to show he’s a racist, bigot, with no human empathy then put your finger on an example. It’s all here in black and white. There should be a smoking gun of proof to accuse someone of those things.

mick, on some of your comments about me:
.
“kind of a snobby question”
The questions were in line (I thought) with the spirit of Joe’s original comment about elite people’s comfort around poor people. That was based on my memory and my view.
Upon review, Joe clarified with: “And of course, my original reference was about the willingness of some folks (or the lack thereof) to be around others they might regard as unpleasant in some way”.

Next are “You choose to believe that because it is the path of least resistance. It is easier to hate that way”
Are you serious? I give you the benefit of the doubt that you and your friends are comfortable around the poor. Then you call me a hater? OK, this could be on me. A High school diploma, sucking at grammar, and mixing in a little ADD might not lead to clear expressions. But..
You then give a Barney rich statement and continue with “we” are no different than you.
Talk about kinda snobby. How have you determined the class level of me and my family, more presumptions? I also know some swim folks, and one family is swimming and functioning at poverty level. Does that make the term “elite” unfair? Not when you look at something as a whole. Thanks for the schooling anyway.

“I know it makes it easier for you all if you think we are differant…Sorry. Aint so”
And you said MY comment was odd? Wow
Surely you think rich people and poor people have different standards and comfort zones.
If not, then you’re not going rich enough or poor enough. They are different.

On a personal level(which is how you seem to take everything) I’ve meet multi-millionaires who were the salt of the earth and also broke folks who were completely venomous. And also the other way around.

Yet, across the board (and back on point), it’s EASY for me to see that some “upper middle class and beyond” wouldn’t be pleased sharing there club or facility with certain poor people.

And if you want to label me a bigot, racist, and void of human empathy, then that’s OK, cause I know your measuring stick must be off.

I’d like to continue and “have at it”, but I’m out of time... for now…

[Steve]

Ok, I do want to explain my question of the upper class “engaged” with the poor.
Judging by the responses, it could be perceived I was questioning people’s level of giving (as Hoggard). That was not my point. There is a huge difference of comfort level between a “donation” and someone hugging a face that has pus coming out of their sores (i.e. Mother Teresa)
Although my point of “engaged” was more in line with the latter, I also would not be comfortable with doing some of the things Mother Teresa has done.

Maybe I’m loose on the stereotyping and profiling.
Some examples are:
-TSA should be scrutinizing young Muslims instead of strip searching grandma.
-If Latinos are involved in a violation or crime, check their green card or status.

…because the numbers are there.
Just as I think the numbers are there with Joe’s “could it be possible” comment.

Before I get accused of aligning the swim crowd with terrorist and illegals, let me try something different, hum, how about the church…
In any given church, there are a small number of people who have a relationship with Christ and are “engaged”. And a large percent of any congregation would be uncomfortable sharing a lifestyle with people vastly different from themselves. Does that make them bad people? No! But it does still exist.

As an individual, I try and treat every Christian as my family..
But if you think about it, the numbers aren’t there. 85-90% in the US say they are Christian, yet Americans as a whole don’t live very Biblical.
It’s not personal, just a fact. Am I making sense?

[Mick]

Steve,

Ok. I still find the question odd but I did think it was legit and I believe I made that clear. My answer missed and caused unneccesary friction. I gave you examples and you declined to do the same. But it is cool as I dont really need the info because I believe you dont need to prove anything to me. However, overall my "answer" was poor and far to aggressive. For that I apologize.

I dont care if anyone speaks negatively about the GAC. Never have. Many complaints are legit. Implying that I and my family and friends are elitist snobs who dont want to share the facility or be forced to mingle or associate with (you know how Joe put it) isnt about The GAC. Neither is asking me to prove it by example. BTW: Do you not see asking the question you asked is pretty much the same thing Hoggard did?

Joe's "clarification" came very late in the debate and isnt much of a clarification. He is still implying the swim community's lack of willingness to share the facility with some unknown unpleasant group. If you are willing to go with Joe's "clarification" fine. If you really think he was just talking about general people and their unwillingness to be around folks they find unpleasant ... fine again. Not really much of a revelation there. Sort of the definition of unpleasant. I think Joe was talking about he swim community not wanting to share the facility with folks they deem "lesser". Which is what I objected to. So we will just disagree.

The "we" was only in reference to the swim community as seen by those here. The "We", "they" thing is an invention of Joe and others here... not me. I very specifically attempted to show "we" are "you". I obviously missed on that as well. Sorry.

Id rather put our miscommunications on the medium rather than you and I but all three are probably guilty to some degree. I am really not a bad guy. Neither are my friends and I suspect.. neither are you. Which was my REAL point all along. You wont see me correcting grammar or sentence structure dude. Not my thing and I am totally incapable of it!

[Steve]

Mick, so after 3 threads and who know how many post, we are done...maybe :)
I hope you didn't miss my second post and the attempt to explain where I was trying to go.

I never thought you were a bad guy. Especially for saying something sharp about something you are passionate about. And that was part of my point about Joe.

till we disagree again, Good day!

[Mick]

Did miss the second post. And yes some sense has been made.

[Reggie Greene / The Logistician]

Interesting proposal Joe; however, as you know I prefer programs that focus on the front - end, in a proactive manner, as opposed to those on the back end, which only deal with static, short-term issues.

Let's have everyone who is capable of inventing something new, or those capable of assembling venture capital, or those capable of starting new businesses which will expand exponentially, make efforts to boost the economy to reduce the number of unemployed and homeless individuals. We will derive broader and longer term benefits.

It is the responsibility of each individual citizen to invent new things, and boost the economy. We can not wait on the private sector, nor can we wait on government. It doesn't make sense to wait on anyone or any entity.

[Joe Guarino]

I agree, Reggie, that a better economy that produces more jobs is a big part of the long-term answer. Innovation and entrepreneurship are important in that regard. And government needs to dismantle the barriers it has erected that prevent innovation and entrepreneurship.