News-Record.com

Kind of reminds me of the presidential election.

Speaking of change....

Looks like Obama is intent on changing Bush's cabinet into Clinton's.

Allen, I'm following your most logical reference to saying there is a need to sell the Canada Dry site near the Colisieum to a private developer. What I'm hazy on is; why the people who owned the Canada Dry building didn't do that?

Any comments or conjecture?

Allen,
Let's test the math on your repeated claim that people did not know what they were voting for. For it to be true, 69.2% of the new voters who voted for the P&R bond must not have known it contained a pool. That is highly unlikely.
(There were 70,080 more total votes cast for the P&R bond in 2008 vs. the pool bond in 2006. The 2008 P&R bond got 48,480 more yes votes than the pool bond in 2006)
The P&R bond won by a convincing margin. Greensboro's voters have spoken. Now city government needs to carry out the wishes of the electorate as soon as possible.

Allen,
Ignorance, confusion or apathy are not reasons. They are excuses. The issue of the swim center's inclusion in the recent P&R bond was discussed during the public, televised and replayed City Council meeting where it passed by a majority vote. Both you and John Hammer wrote about it negatively in your respective periodicals leading up to the election. It was blogged about extensively.

You are absolutely correct concerning timing and placement. Now is not the time to add financial pressure on the citizenry and building it on the Canada Dry property would merely add 3.2 Million to the cost. When should it be built? That will depend on our present or future City Councils' and Managements' ability to put our financial house in a position where we are not outspending our tax revenues. Where should it be built? On currently municipal owned, centrally located property. This would ensure the highest economic efficiency and best accessibility for all. Fortunately we should have plenty of time to explore these issues since the current council has vowed not to use the bonds for at least a year.

I will propose either somewhere on the Coliseum footprint as part of the Sports/ Fitness/ Recreation Village in the W. Lee St./ High Point Rd. Corridor Plan or as an integral part of a solution to the never-ending War Memorial Stadium controversy as potential locations. I also hope that either corporate or private foundation support ( or both ) can be retained to accentuate this facility in order to make it a superior asset to the city economically, socially and aesthetically.

As a side note, I hope that we have a better idea than bull-dozing the Coliseum Motel. Unless there is a ready, willing and able buyer reimbursing the city, let us partner with one of the many charitable organizations to operate a facility to serve the most severely challenged members of our community. Using the existing amenities of housing, food service and meeting space could make an immediate impact on the less fortunate and demonstrate our city's commitment to their welfare.

Thanks for the forum,

Tommy

Ted, it seems pretty darned likely to me that 7 of 10 "new" voters actually did not know that the 2008 P&R bond included a swim center. It seems quite possible that the 70,000 "new" voters came to the polls for other races and weren't well-informed about the swim center. If they were, they might have shown up in 2006.

It's hard to argue that voters' opinions on the swim center were not clearly expressed when it came up for a vote by itself. Even if we leave aside 2000, when voters may have been confused by the term "natatorium," that leaves us with 2006, when after an aggressive promotional campaign, nearly 60% of voters rejected it.

In contrast, in 2008, when very little was done to promote the swim-center component of the P&R bond, when in fact many of us guessed that the strategy was to say as little as possible, nearly 60% approved it.

Mind you, as an observer of bare-knuckle politics, I applaud your strategy. You framed the proposal to your advantage, and it worked. The swim center was approved fair and square. But let's not pretend that your keep-it-under-the-radar strategy wasn't a factor. You effectively admitted as much when you said the big question was why it hadn't been included previously in a general P&R bond.

So take the bow you deserve. Thanks to your savvy maneuver, the city's voters have approved the swim center, and it's time for us as a community to find the right way to go about building it.

Andy - Interpretations are in the eye of the beholder however, some of your facts need clarification.
I had nothing to do with putting the pool in the Parks & Rec. bond. Councilman Barber did that. We did appear before council to publicly state why we thought it was a good idea but, Mr. Barber got the idea started without asking me or anyone else I know of in the swimming community.
What more could we have done to promote the bond? I know that I went to a lot of meetings, talked to a lot of people, wrote cards to friends and did everything I knew to do.
Civic clubs were not enthusiastic about allowing us to speak. My own Rotary Club only allowed a very brief, facts only presentation. There was no strategy to say as little as possible. We said as much as we were allowed and could afford. I did not make any savvy maneuver or engage in any bare-knuckle politics and certainly have nothing to take a bow for.
The only true test of the "didn't know" hypothesis is to ask voters to approve a P&R bond that only includes a pool. That can't happen now though. Politics works like politics works and this is the result. What is that saying? Democracy stinks until you compare it to the alternatives.

I don't understand the problem. Almost any stand-alone item has a lower chance of passing than if packaged with other stuff, and for a simple reason: the collective package benefits more people. If I don't want a swim center, I may vote for the package because I want the new basketball courts. In the same way, War Memorial is doomed to fail since it serves a very limited demographic. But packaged with other "cultural" stuff--the Civil Rights museum, e.g.--it would be much more likely to pass. Is this not self-evident?

My examples, of course, are not accidentally chosen, since there's a strong correlation between users and races.

To posit, however, that voters just "didn't know" is to make them out to be stupider than they actually are.

Ya'll are all wasting your breath worring about buying stuff and bonds and taxpayers burdens and all that other stuff. Remember, Councilwoman Goldie said the future and what the city buys and what price they pay doesn't matter, because we could all be dead tomorrow.

I wish I had something to sell her. Kudos to those that did.

Allen, quick, which parks in our town operate at a profit? Which have no operating costs? What do our parks really cost? Why dont you do a nice expose on what Barber Park really costs? Does everyone in town use Barber Park? Can you go play a game of baseball at Carolyn Allen field whenever you want? Volleyball or tennis at the bubble at Barber Park? Soccer at Bryan Park? No you cant. All this only proves that the swim facility is rightly placed as part of Parks and Rec.

The partnership with The YMCA was probably a good idea. It didnt work.

Did you do any research on some of your criticisms? Or is this all just "feelings". P&R has done extensive research on the public vs "private" or "rented" useage. Cost analysis, costs to the public, closures to the public, etc were all researched by the P&R staff. Ever bother to make any phone calls about your concerns? I can assure you site selection will begin asap. As to all your comments about the economy and we should wait on the issuing bonds, etc. Do you read your own paper? That has been settled and we will wait.

Just take your ball and go home Allen. You are a classic sore loser. Most of your issues have been addressed. Do a litlle research prior to crying next time. You look silly here.

Yes, Mick. I interviewed three City Council members and Ted Oliver for this column.

I would disagree that most of my questions have not been answered:

Where will the swim center be built?
When will it be built?
Who will operate it?
How much will it cost taxpayers each year?

So you didnt interview anyone from Parks and Rec? Seems odd to me. I would think many of your questions could be answered through them? At least you could get better info as they are closer to the eveyday stuff than TO and 3 City Council members.

Site is TBA. I would think this will be settled first and soon so more detailed planning can proceed. I'd go with on downtown area or CVM area if I were a betting man. But who knows.

I read in The Greensboro News and Record that most of the bonds would not be sold until the economy improves. So that is indeed open ended. I think that was a bit of sound management on the part of City Council. Do you disagree?

Park and Rec wil operate the facility. Just as it does the other pools and parks in the Greensboro system. I dont understand your question.

Yes, a pool operates at a defecit. As do most parks, the CVM, WMA, museums and many municipally owned facilities. For the most part, that is the very reason such facilities are municipally owned!

Again, many of these questions are better answered by Parks and Rec folks. I can assure you extensive research has been done on similar NC facilities. Asking the right questions of the right people is part of your job Allen.

Some people may be stupid but THE PEOPLE usually are not. Unless it goes against the grain of AJ I guess.

Sorry Allen, I dont see what good came out of your bitch session you call an editorial. You just cant believe a pool finally passed in spite of your efforts and opinion.

My column clearly agrees with the idea of postponing issuing bonds and starting construction.
As for who will operate the center, I'm not so sure that's clear.
Under one scenario it could be built on the coliseum grounds (no land to buy .. the city already owns it).
And Matt Brown and the coliseum staff would operate it.
As for Parks and Rec, it had no plans for the center ... at least for now ... and had not included it in its bond requests.
Mike Barber came up with that idea.
Further, with all the belt-tightening, is there room in the P&R budget for the yearly operating costs?
Is there room in taxpayers' wallets?

Allen,

If you know the answer then why did you ask when will it be built?

I am aware of the CVM location, etc. I went to several meetings. Never saw Matt Brown or any Council members but there were plenty of P&R employees, Bonnie Kuester, several P&R Board members, David Hoggard, etc. I personally talked with P&R employees about such issues as location, operating costs, public vs "private" use, what facilities they had researched for their info, etc. They were pretty well versed in the issues within a very short period. So "they had no plans for the center" was indeed true at the beginning of the process but is kind of a stretch at this time. Too bad you didnt take the time to talk to folks who might actually be able to shed some light on your concerns. Seems to me a logical first phone call.

Personally, I prefer the CVM location mainly on the "free land" idea. Centrally located, easy to get to from the highways, usage of existing parking, facilities and staff, etc is also a plus. Dont really care though between CVM and downtownish. Convenient access for citizens and visitors is an important issue. Shoot, Im a selfish person and I wouldnt mind it out at the airport near the "Urban Loop" on donated land from PTIA or FedEx.

I have my doubts this is really about the money with you Allen. You supported the WMA renovation. Didnt you support every bond issue except the P&R? You singled out the aquatics facility for your only thumbs down didnt you? You apparently believe there is plenty of room in taxpayer wallets. We actually came out ahead of your endorsement plan now didnt we?

Still no comments on baseball at Carolyn Allen, soccer at Bryan or volleyball/tennis at the bubble? How about playing your guitar at WMA or the CVM? Shootin some hoops before, during or after the ACC Tournament? Many public facilities, parks, etc are often used for private or for profit events. The pool will be no differant. Of course, you know that. Its just not convenient for you.

I have no personal issues against the swim center. I just don't consider it the wisest use of taxpayer money.
The auditorium already belongs to the city, thus the city has some obligation to take care of it.
It also arguably touches more segments of the population in more ways.

Allen, any comment on a council member stating how things are paid for by the city is irrelevant and nobody should worry about it because we could all be dead tomorrow?

We could all not be dead tomorrow and still paying taxes.

Given the effort you have put into defeating the pools over the past years, this sour grapes editorial, etc I have trouble believing you have no personal issues. You have supported nearly every bond effort over the past several years (including a skate board park as I recall) except a pool.

So I guess there is room in the tax payer wallet for everything BUT an aquatics center, huh? I dont see how you can have it both ways. There is room or there isnt.

Your priorities differ from a large sector of the City. The P&R bond passed by the widest margin... did it not? Do you believe the vast majority didnt understand the ballot? Do you think the average voter doesnt understand 12 million dollars (regardless of the length of the description).

Now, when the time comes, we will have a quality indoor facility suitable for competitions and usable by many sectors of the citizenry. It is past time.

You're right, Allen. And the N&R won't have a thing to say editorially about it because "that's our Goldie, Isn't she something?"

Can you imagine a Republican congressman working on the bailout saying something like this and the N&R not even editorially commenting on it? Or can you imagine Billy Yow after voting to buy a buddy's inflated real estate saying something this outrageous? You'd be all over it.

Why can't we all get along? My son swam with GSA starting at 9. He learned to swim at two. He enjoyed learning more strokes and it was a good experience because he had only swum before in Lake Norman (life guarding help pay for college tuition)). I have issues with parking. Parents cannot pay $10 to park three times a week near Matt Browns coliseum. More pavement equals less permeate qualities..Folks we need water..it is precious. The pool must be on a bus line due to it is necessay. The pool must be sustainable, not a pie in the sky wish. Location location location is the answer. Christine

Great points.

Paying to park at CVM would be a huge issue for me. My kid's up to 7 pool practices (also GSA) per week and 3-5 times is the norm for most. Yikes! Bus line is certainly a piece of the puzzle.
Makes the public swims and health/safety programs more available to many.

The definition of sustainable is the issue. It will lose money as a building (most all do) which again is why most large pools are municipally or university owned. The projected losses do not include the economic benefits to The City or taxes paid by visitors. Most parks lose money as well w/o the added benefits of out of town money.

It will get done. I suspect meetings on location will begin soon. Could be interesting. There are many ideas out there.

Mick While you are sorting out Parks and Recreation rules regarding outside swimming, heed, P & R closes pools over nine months of the year and out of towners are not reliable. Best bet is covered solar panel 12 month a year pool to even enjoy out of towners cash. Go to the northeast of Greensboro to find the topagrapy suitable to have locals pay a fair admission price, join teams and swim 12 months a year and we will teach all children not to drown.. Church Street Cone Blvd has Guilford Boad of Education land for sell. Look, scout, bring back, not out of towners, but intowners. Christine

Allen?

Oh, Allen...

I just figured out why JR was so miffed about going to the Bahamas and living off realty profits-it's kind of a Republican thing.

Selling real estate to the City of Greensboro, with the council that's in place, ( "It doesn't matter how we finace things because we could all be dead tomorrow" )is almost like some kind of abuse of people with diminished capacity. It's like going down to the local mental institution jumping the fence, and having relations with an eighteen yr. old mentally retarded girl. She's of legal age, but one should be ashamed.

Mick wrote:
"Given the effort you have put into defeating the pools over the past years, this sour grapes editorial, etc I have trouble believing you have no personal issues. You have supported nearly every bond effort over the past several years (including a skate board park as I recall) except a pool. "

Actually, I hope the swim center succeeds. I just consider it a want and not a need, especially at $12 million, plus operating costs, plus the possible land costs (even if it goes on the Canada Dry property, the city will have paid $3.2 million for that land).

And I still think it passed under cover of the Parks and Rec label. But there's no law against that.

It won. Fairly and quietly. And, as I've written before,

Allen,
You have a funny way of showing your "hope". I felt you questioned the integrity of the swim community as well as the folks at P&R

Now, name a park that is a need. Did you feel the skate board park was a need? Improvements to Barber Park? I'll give you bathrooms at Gillespie (that situation was ridiculous).

Most parks have operating costs. The city lakes and marinas have operating costs. It is part of the gig. At least the pool will bring some folks to town on some weekends.

Christine,
This is to be a 12 month, indoor facility suitable for competitive swimming and hopefully even diving. It will have many uses for Gso citizens.
Swim meets (high schools, masters, local private clubs) will partially or fully close the pool to the public on occasion. There will be numerous teams (same as above) practicing as well. A 50 meter pool has 20+, 25 yard lanes. There will be room for simultaneous uses. P&R will have their work cut out balancing the schedule. They are up to it though. I believe I heard their will be day passes, week passes, year passes, etc. I am certain this will remain as affordable as possible.

As to swimming on the east side of town... I am in total agreement. Barber should have an outdoor pool someday (soon I hope). One thing I would like to see out of all of this is more swimmers both rec and competitive from east Gso. This in turn will lead to more swimmers for area high schools other than NW, Page and Grimsley.

This particular facility needs to be as centrally located as possible to to allow good useage from all of Gso residents.

Thanks again to the forward looking citizens of Gso.

Mick:
I do think that the swim center could not have stood on its own.
I find it hard to that the voters suddenly changed their minds on this issue.
As for the strategy, here is what Amanda Lehmert wrote on Nov. 6:

"GREENSBORO - For the aquatics center , it was sink or swim .

"But would it survive voters, who twice turned down other pool projects?

"The conundrum had a simple solution: Bank on the Greensboro Parks and Recreation Department brand - and keep quiet about a regional swim center with the 50-meter pool.

"The strategy won for bond advocates, who were pleasantly surprised with the comfortable 57 percent approval rate for the $20 million parks and recreation bond .

" 'People see it in a different context when it is associated with the whole parks and recreation system," said Trish Martin, president of the Greensboro Swim Association.

"I' t starts to seem a lot more like a thing that is for everyone and not just the swimming community. ' "

"The $12 million center , with a warm-up pool, diving well and spectator seating, was the largest item on the bond that includes repairs and upgrades to facilities across Greensboro. It's unclear when the pool will be built.

"In 2000 and 2006, voters rejected bids to build pools at the downtown YMCA and at the Coliseum complex.

"Both years, swimming promoters came out in full force to support the cause. They put up signs. They wrote letters to the newspaper. They talked to community groups and went on TV.

"That didn't work, so this year they needed to do something different.

"Parks and Recreation Commissioner David Hoggard urged the swim advocates to lie low, lest their promotion sink the whole bond package.

"Supporters instead sent handwritten letters to friends and rallied the swimming community to the cause.

"And they let the parks and recreation's good name stand on it own.

"' We thought that the best thing we had going for us is the parks and recreation name," said Ted Oliver, from the Greensboro Swim Association.

"Parks and Recreation Director Bonnie Kuester said that in her 40 years with the department, a parks and recreation bond referendum has never failed.

" 'If voters are going to give parks and recreation money, they are going to do the right thing with it," Hoggard said."

Do you think $26 million for Horse Pen Creek Road would have made it on its own? Where is your opinion piece in this regard. Again you single out the pool and therefore you are proving my point about your disdain for the facility. The pool has been part of the Park and Rec long term plan which was developed by a citizen board for YEARS. In my opinion it should have been part of P&R 9 years ago and 2 years ago. We did it right this time and wrong last two times not vice versa. I must note that this time around we enjoyed the support of The City Council including the Mayor. Which is something we didnt enjoy the last two times. Play a roll in the vote? .... I certainly think so.

Did we play it differant this time... yes. Shouting and taking the lead didnt work the last two times. Why would we try again? But it wasnt hidden or deceiving. This paper, Rhino, Yes! Weakly, TV, etc all had pieces about bonds. I think people understand 20 Million dollars for P&R of which 12 million for swim center. I dont see in trickery there. That is just you thinking somone who disagrees with you MUST be ill informed.

The article and the quotes above show nothing but a succesful campaign strategy not a hidden agenda. The pool shoul have been included in Parks and Rec and passed some 9-10 years ago. Look where we would be now. A nice downtown pool, completed and bringing in visitors and a partnership with YMCA!

Tell me Allen, given your sudden support of a partnership.... what was your take when a partnership was a possibility? Did you endorse the pool the first time around?

No answer on the need vs want for the skate park huh? No answer on all parks, pools and marinas, etc having operating costs? Again, you have singled out the pool facility. But you have nothing against it and you do hope it succeeds. How nice of you.

No, I don't think Horse Pen Creek Road would have have made it on its own, but it would done better on its own than the swim center.
Road improvements, ultimately, are a necessity, not a choice.

The second part of your answer is pure conjecture.

Need or want?

Greenway? (you supported)
Skate Board park? (you supported)
Widening of an existing road? (you supported)
WMA 50 Million (you supported)

Do you think there might just be some "wants" tucked in with the needs in that 50 Million? Tell me how that is differant from the swim center and the P&R bond?

So just as with the "taxpayer wallet" malarkey this is demonstrably not really about needs vs wants for you. This is about your personal priorities.

Actually, I guess it was about the voters priorities.

I might also add that your comments on pool usage are BS and insulting. You see the P&R folks did extensive research on costs, times, rental rates, rental times, public swim, health and safety programs, etc. A couple of calls to our P&R or any area facility would have given you additional info in this regard. But you didnt bother. Forever, true ... everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own facts.

Mick,
Can we assume the last anonymous post was you?

The editorial came off to me as a little bit whiney and tasting of grapes gone bad, too.

But I can sure tell you this: I'm going to push hard to get some funding for War Memorial Stadium nested within the next P&R bond.

WMS is an existing and much neglected property and is the oldest P&R facility we have.

Once WMS gets nestled safely within the P&R bond's language I'm going to shut up about it and count on the fact that the people of Greensboro look at things differently when they know that our P&R department is in charge.

Then, hopefully, the N&R will write an editorial in opposition to the bond's passage. The trend is that such an editorial stance will result in passage

Yup. Sorry.

Lets all get together and grill up some "charettes", drink some beers and have a think on it! :)

Seriously, I am all for saving The Stadium. Public, Private, combo... whatever I'm IN! Same goes for Civil Rights Museum (with some caveats). WMA is my third but will need a better plan of attack.

Mick, on needs vs. wants:
The greenway comprised $7 million of a $134 million bond package.
Widening streets is nuts-and-bolts infrastructure upkeep that help ensure safety, growth and commerce.
War Memorial Auditorium already exists and already belongs to the city. We should feel an obligation to keep it viable.
The swim center, added at the last minute, fully comprised more than half of the entire parks bond package and wlll keep on needing tax money to operate.
We're comparing grapes to watermelons here.

"Road improvements, ultimately, are a necessity, not a choice."

Spoken like a true commuting suburbanite. Necessities are best defined as your choices. Luxuries are other people's choices.

While you're cruising in your (I'm guessing) Lexus from way out in the county to N&R world headquarters downtown on smooth and newly widened roads, thousands of upper middle-class kids will be cruising down a 50-meter pool putting the finishing touches on their butterfly kick. All of the bourgeosie wins!

Allen,

Nice try but NO. What does percentage of a project have to do with it? Nothing. Cost is cost. You are being quite disingenuous here. 7 million for 1/2 (or less) of greenway vs 12 million for a swim facility. Not so much difference to me.

Regardless of cost or percentages of the particular bundle. Greenway - need or want?
Please answer the question. Also, the 7 million is only the first phase with the total to be 26 million (apx 1/2 from state and fed/also our money). Where is your righteous indignation about THAT being "hidden" from the voting public? And, certainly you are not suggesting that the Greenway will be maintenance free?! C'mon Allen that is just plain silly.

Again, do you think (or know) there were ANY "wants" tucked into the 50 Million for WMA? Or was it purely 50 million bucks worth of things that absolutely had to be done. BTW... I voted in favor of the WMA. But I still doubt that was 50 mill of "needs". How about you?

Actually agreed on the widening of HP Creek but my point was some folks might see the widening of an existing road as actually a want or preference not a need. We are not truly in disagreement on this one.

Your opinions and arguments are full of holes. You didnt want a pool and your bias is glaring yet you refuse to admit it. Your research into the opinion piece was far to shallow for me. I respect the very legitimate want vs need argument (always have) but you devalue the core of your logic by supporting the greenway and skate board parks and/or just about every single bond issue over the past several years except any pool project.

Agreed pools have higher operating costs than most parks. But parks and greenways are not maintenance free by any stretch! Pools also bring in more visitors (and their money) than many city parks. Pools also have to run a little more like a business than most parks to help offset these higher costs. The balancing act perormed by P&R there will be a key issue.

grapes vs watermelons ... Sheesh ... weak.

Yup, Allen lives in the privelidged NW area. The Horse Penn Creek widening will be very useful to him.

The bottom line is that $12 million is $5 million more than $7 million.
But to be fair, both projects will involve ongoing upkeep and operating costs.

True fairness would be in admitting that the initial 7 million is only about 1/4 of the total estimated cost of the Greenway. That is the real bottom line.

AGAIN! Greenway.... NEED OR WANT?

To All, great arguments.

But it all comes down to Allen Johnson failing to write with facts. All it would take is a phone call to the MAC center in Charlotte to be given the participation numbers. Participation numbers and breath of participant groups and ages..ie use far exceeds the numbers he assumed in his defense of another project. Oh dear, please do not pit us against other cherish projects! But a project that cost 4 times as much! That has always been my gripe with Mr. Johnson. He writes with assumptions and graps from the air. Mr. Johnson, please do not quote or assume Mr. Hoggard had anything to do with the P&R bond promotion or projects. He bowed out in a flame of glory while trying to take the boat down with him.

The Swim Center will bring big benefits to all the citizens of the city. The programs and services will be modeled after the very successful facilities of Mecklenburg County Aquatic Center and Pullen Park Aquatic Center in Raleigh. Seniors and retirees will be the beneficiaries in addition to the youth. Every family will have a member that will use this facility. It may not be the competitive swimmer, but it may be the parent who had the heart attack, or the grandparent recovering from an operation, or the 4 year old learning how to swim.

As an opponent of the project stated before the City Council, "I don't support it because it will be filled with teenagers". Let us hope all youth will use this facility. It sure beats cruising High Point Road or hanging out at the mall.

Much argument has been presented. I am thankful the N&R opened this issue up to public criticism. The problem is not free speech, but access to venues of free speech. "Leaders in the community" and in particular honest journalists should be supporters of accurate and factual editorials. This has been very shallow in the past.

One last point, a competitive swimmer does not start off as a competitive swimmer, but a child splashing in the pool wanting to learn to swim and learning the joy of water. Most users of this facility will not be competitive swimmers, but many will be youth and seniors pursuing health and exercise. This is not elitism, but acknowledgment of swimming being the number one recreation in the country. As I asked my friend who is a competitive swimmer last week, what is your age group? He replied, " I am in the 75 to 80 year bracket", to which I replied "oh my gosh!"

Two other pieces of information to add to this discussion. Does everyone remember how huge swimming was in the Olympics? It was the most popular event. Never before were people more exposed to the positive aspects of swimming. Also, Brian444 is right on target. US Swimming told me that any time a pool is by itself on a ballot, it has an 80% failure rate. So, bundling works, single items, most likely will not.

Why do you think that is, Ted?

Lets put the second 1/2 of the 26 million dollar greenway on its own next time and test the theory. You up for it?

The greenway is a "want", was "hidden" in a bundled bond, is only 1/2 the project (assuming we get the matching funds from NC and Fed) and has unspecified maintenance costs.

My only question.... Is there room in the taxpayer wallet for such an extravagant and unnecessary luxury. You know given the current economy.

If I could spell hypocrite I would!

I've written before that all big-ticket items should be unbundled, including the greenway.

All of them? Even Horsepen Creek road? Even Eastern High (or any other school project costing, say, more than 10 mil)?

The last school bond was a classic exercise in bundling. Dozens of sketchy projects were included to spread the "wealth" and attract votes. That and the Democratic primary (a natural magnet for the tax-and-spend crowd) accounted for its passage.

Why did the swim center fail as a stand-alone. Two reasons. Nobody bought that it wouldn't cost money. And competitive swimming has broad constituency, ranging all the way from middle-class whites up to upper-middle-class whites. Allen, who views with deep suspicion any gathering (of athletes, worshippers, homeowners, students) that doesn't look like a Benetton ad, will naturally be suspicious.

Allen,
I try to make claims that there is evidence for. I really can't say why it is that single items usually fail and bundled items are more likely to pass. I can speculate or theorize but, that doesn't really mean anything because I am not an expert on elections.
Would you let a reporter speculate about reasons or motives? I know you would require that person to research the issue and provide evidence for their assertions.
Related to this, you really do not know if the pool passed because people didn't know it was included in the bond. It is only unsubstantiated speculation. Maybe you talked to some people who agreed with you but, that is not as good a sample as over 100,000 voters.
There is certain evidence that the voters of Greensboro want a pool and support P&R running it. No matter how anyone tries to spin the results, the voters instructed the city to build a pool.

The only way a news paper can be sold successfully is to have a broad base of readers, each seeking to read about their particular area of interest.

If a paper just wrote about music events do you think it would be successful? If every park had their own bond do you think they would be successful. Allen thinks all big projects should stand on their own. Do you think Barber Park would ever have been built, a park that will end up costing the tax payers far more than 12mm? Would Wendover Blvd. ever have been built?

Does Allen believe all the other successful cities are full of num chunks or what? Is Allen a wise person is a better question.

Whether one likes it or not, we now have a successful model of bundling "wants" in with "needs." What's going to be bundled next?

Now have??? This isnt exactly a new policy or practice.

I stand by my assertion that a pool should be and should have been under a Parks and Rec Bond all along.

Whether or not you like the idea of a swim center and greenway, you have to admit that the lobbying for both was done with quite a bit of political finesse. I'm not passing judgment on those people. I'm simply making an observation.

In the past, "wants" were lobbied for pretty heavily. This model changes that. These "wants" came in under the radar, on purpose. That's good or bad this time, depending on your point of view.

I personally think this sets a significant precedent that even swim center and greenway advocates may come to regret. Voting should be done with some knowledge of the subject. I'm not convinced that was the case this year--for the swim center, the greenway or the judges. But, I'm also not impressed when people vote a straight Democrat or Republican ticket, for the same reasons.

I tend to agree. Then again, the voters are just as culpable (if not more so) for being so uninformed.

And I honestly believe they weren't informed.

Do I have statistical proof? No, only circumstantial evidence in the results of thee last two standalone swim center bonds.

You're right Allen. Bottom line--voters voted for these items, whether they meant to or not. I'm not sure a lot of people realize what they voted for...even now. This should be interesting.

Typical... if you disagree with AJ ... YOU are uninformed and ignorant. You obviously dont read the N&R, Yes! Weakly, Rhino Times or watch local news at all... ever. Extensive reporting and all negative in print media! Still passed by a HUGE margin. True enough some folks probably didnt know what they were voting for. Is this new? The percentage swing seems too large for the ignorant to have won the day so handily.

How about having the support of local muckity mucks, the swim community including the thousands of CSA families, The Council, THE Mayor as well as other political machines, sports commission, Park and Rec, etc? All seem important factors to me. You?

BUT NOOOOOO! It can ONLY be explained as the ignorance of the voters coupled with trickery and sneakery. Hiding the words Twelve and Million amongst a short mono-syllabic description. Thousands upon thousands of the ill informed masses pulling levers and pushing buttons just willy-nilly. THAT, is the only way a pool passed and my precious WMA failed. Riiiiight. Say to yourself what you must Allen. You underestimate the public. Which is sad.

Good night Greensboro!

OK, Mick, you have the last word. Neither one of us can prove our points.

Let's see what happens.

I agree with Allen. Even as I was in line voting and talking to the people around me, they had
no idea that there was a swim center in the Parks and Rec bond.

It's just politics as usual. I am not surprised.
It will happen again with something else down the road.