HELP! The chat room has been shut off, and I am drowning in questions.
I waited a few days before posting about this. (100 Eyes show 1/30/14) I was pretty hot at the time, I have cooled a bit since Wednesday. A nice brisk walk in the February weather probably helped.
For full disclosure, I like Pat Lalley, like myself, Pat has an opinion and likes to share it. Good for him. In fact I met Pat when he worked at the lowly (but always entertaining) TEMPEST magazine. Heck, I have known him longer then my dog.
But sometimes, like myself, he can be tragically hypocritical. Snowgates come to mind (he hires a contractor to clean out his driveway).
While his employer launches lawsuit after lawsuit for open government, he certainly doesn’t like to practice what he preaches.
On Thursday, for instance, he had the pool ‘Indoorers’ on his show, 100 Eyes. The program is simple, you tune in, and you can leave questions for the guests. In fact, Pat started the chat by saying ‘Fire Away’. I will admit, I recruited many people who support an outdoor pool at Spellerberg to ask questions. Good questions. We fired away like machine guns.
Not one single question was asked (or at least in OUR context), heck they were not even posted in the chat room. We were CENSORED. That’s fine, the Argus is a private news organization, they can do what they want. The obvious bias towards the ‘Indoorers’ was clear.
So what’s my beef? Don’t talk about transparency and sunshine in government, and shut the lights off.
To say I am disappointed is putting it mildly.
Here’s a list of questions I helped compile that were never posted in the chat:
• The SF Hockey Association and Indoor Tennis Association was able to raise money privately to go towards a public/private partnership with the city. It has been over 6 years since the Drake Springs vote. Why hasn’t Community Swim raised any money to go towards a similar partnership?
• Unlike Rapid City’s Indoor public pool, if an indoor public pool is built at Spellerberg, it will not be able to be expandable in the future. Isn’t this an issue, or more of a bigger plan by SF Parks and Rec to build more indoor pools?
• How much will the public be able to use the 50-meter pool if the special interest swim teams have it tied up?
• If an indoor public pool is truly NEEDED, why will it have to subsidized up to $700,000 a year? Will the swim teams be willing to close that gap through putting club memberships towards that subsidy?
• What are your feelings on the city using taxdollars to ‘educate’ the public on a citizen driven ballot initiative, like the indoor pool, which clearly leans towards an indoor facility? The city attorney claims it is not against state law, but it certainly comes close.
• Why hasn’t the indoor pool supporters done their own petition drive to have citizens approve an indoor pool? If the outdoor pool vote fails at Spellerberg, the council still has to approve the Indoor pool budget and bonds to build it. So a NO vote doesn’t make the indoor pool a done deal but a ballot initiative would have.
• I support an indoor pool but through a public/private partnership with the school district. Your feelings?
I have also heard that Sanford really wanted a public pool at the Sports Complex, and they are not happy about the Spellerberg plan. Don’t know how much of that is true, but it makes sense, especially since EVERYTHING else is there and there would be room for expansion. Hopefully Sanford will come out against an indoor pool at Spellerberg. But I’m not holding my breath, unless of course I am choking on a Papa John’s pizza slice.