NOW, our local media tells us about another location for an indoor pool, only a few weeks after the election;
Brown also has reached out to neighboring property owners, the Sioux Falls School District and the city. She had visions of an indoor swimming pool on her land, similar to how the schools, park, community center and library are co-located nearby.
“The city has not showed any interest in that even though they’re looking for an indoor facility and the people who live around me would not be unhappy,” Brown said.
Maybe our local paper got this story after the election? Not sure. I never heard a peep about the Lacey family proposal before the election, not even a rumor, and I know several politicos who know Brown. I would have thought I would have at least heard an inkling of this proposal.
It’s no secret, my idea for an indoor pool would be either to build it where it can be expanded with a private/public partnership or in conjunction with the school district. The crazy part about the proposal was it was sitting in front of our faces all this time. I’m curious as to who Brown is talking about when she says ‘the city showed no interest’. Who with the city or either the school district told her they were not interested? I have never seen this presented to the city council or school board. So was it the planning office? Parks and recreation or the mayor’s office that said NO? It is also very curious that this proposal wasn’t mentioned until after the election. While I find Schwan’s article intriguing I am wondering how this got buried.
In answer to your question, Is the Pope Catholic?
I’m not really in favor of an indoor pool built by anything like taxpayer money. Let the people that want it do fund raising to build it. That being said, why would anybody want to ruin a really nice park with a monstrosity like that. IF it has to be built build it someplace where there is plenty of room for the building and parking. build it out by the Pentagon, the Event Center, or out where WalMart wants to build.
This isn’t new news. Brown tried to sell this as a pool site a couple of years ago. City didn’t even consider it. It’s not even close to being a central location.
If my memory serves me right, she also tried to pitch it as a urban farming learning center or some shit.
the land might be worth a millim, but the house and barn on that property sure aren’t. also from the street anyway, it looks like its kind of narrow. If people think Spellerburg is too small, they’d really complain about this place. I’d like to see the pool in the corner of Madison street and powder house road, because then it would be close to me!
Yet more positive community advocacy I suppose.
But the answer to your question is – Spellerberg – no cost for land – utilities/infrastructure already in place. Lacey property $1MM + no infrastructiure (add another $1 MM) = $2MM worth of disinterest. Pretty simple math really.
I think having multiple site options for an indoor pool is a very positive thing. But of course, we had a mayor who blew a gasket because we had 2 site choices for the EC, so he quickly buried the RR relocation project so the DT site would fail.
I’m one who feels no need for a pool, indoor or outdoor. There wasn’t this option on the ballot. Citizens haven’t realized they’re being force fed this project. It will be where & how much the mayor is spending. He’s only got another 4 years to perpetuate his noncompetitive bid contractor skim and leave this city a billion dollars indebted.
400 million the first term & 600 the second = a cool billion. There should be a digital sign with a rolling count. I was worried before but nobody seems to care so watching is entertaining. At some point there will be a bankruptcy. We’ll move to low tax responsible suburb cities with new Walmarts. I feel sorry for city employees when they’re benefits & retirements are forfeited.
There have been many suggestions for where an aquatic facility should be built. All have been dismissed. I think one can ascertain that Councilman-Hunsacker consultants were told by (you guess?) that Spellerberg was the spot they should pick. MMM wants it voted on right away, May 13th, before new council members are sworn in on May 20th, so nothing else can be considered. A no vote on the ballot issue meant no outdoor pool at Spellerberg, period.
Citizens then believed they could have input as to where it should be placed. But the mayor declared that the no vote meant they agreed with the Spellerberg location. Not so! But with a mayor like we currently have, options and decisions are only looked at when they agree with his opinion. How unfortunate honest dialogue between the citizens and this mayor can’t happen. His “Listen and Learn” sessions are really “I will listen to you if you agree with me” sessions.
Everybody keeps talking about Spellerberg being a central location, but the thing is no matter where the stupid pool is built it won’t be central to all parts of SF. At Spellerbert, there will be serious traffic problems when they are hosting their wonderful swim meets. I don’t have anything against swim meets, BUT they should be held where they won’t affect parking for the people that work in that area, or make the traffic more congested than it is at times now.
I just watched the city council informational. They are full steam ahead on building an indoor pool at Spellerberg. Erpenbach pulled some BS number out of her butt that polling showed that 70% of the people who voted against the outdoor pool did so because they want an INDOOR pool at Spellerberg (who was doing exit polling?). I guess the only last resort here, IMO, is to force the city to have outside counsel look at the deed with the VA. There has been rumblings the VA wants to build a nursing home at that site, and they would need some room for it. I think it would be wise for the City to have a sit down with the Veterans Administration and draw up an agreement before they move forward. I have no issues with an indoor pool or designating a funding source this month, but the location needs to be truly vetted through negotiations with the VA.
It’s unusual for the federal government to give up land. The present pool was meant as a temporary offering until the VA needed expansion. There’s more than just talk about replacing Hot Springs with a new nursing home in Sioux Falls. It would make sense to locate near the VA hospital.
We’re the city attorney experienced he’d realize negotiations with the feds is 10 years. Keep talking Spellerburg indoor pool and Huether should be blocked.
Besides, we don’t need another something named Sanford or Huether. Time to hire another 6 figures naming consultant. Hey, how about Enron
The indoor pool should have been built at 10th and Cliff. It’s a shame that the “Water Park” there is used only three months a year. If you figure the cost of the facility divided by the number of days used you have a VERY expensive venue sitting empty for 8/9 months. An indoor pool there would have made more sense. The “children” would be using it year ’round AND would be happy doing so.
BH,
The voters spoke on this issue in April 2007.
That was seven YEARS ago, don’t you think it’s time to let it go?!
DL – as I understand it – one floor of the existing building is a nursing home now. It used to be several floors, but with expansion of local in-situ services (vs. sending folks to Minneapolis) – the elderly care part has been reduced.
BH – that water park never gets a full three months of use. 80 days – at MOST. It’s far closer to empty 10 months of the year than to 8.
TV – I would agree, seven years ago, there was no support for an indoor pool, NOW there is. I get so tired of everyone blaming Stehly for not having indoor facilities. Stu Dipshitney even blamed Sthely on the 100 eyes show for our lack of indoor facilities. Last I checked the SSC has provided us a lot of indoor facilities, the difference is, they are private/public partnerships, something else the public supports.