A South DaCola foot soldier told me that when they went to renew their individual membership they learned that they no longer offer an individual membership.  They have to purchase a “dual membership” or two memberships. Apparently they no longer welcome “singles”.
This is discriminatory for the following reasons:
This person is a single individual.
This person often enjoy going to events as a single person.
They do not need to be part of a “couple”
This “new membership policy” is discriminatory against single persons.
This policy could be a form of “financial elder abuse” by forcing seniors, widows and widowers to purchase two membership where only one is needed.
It is also discriminatory against students and young persons who may not be able to afford two memberships.
The Washington Pavilion already has a reputation of being elitist and now they don’t want singles? Does this enhance their reputation as an inclusive facility?
I also find it strange that a dual membership costs $60 ($30 each) but a pals (5 people) membership costs $100 ($20 each). So why not just charge $30-40 for an individual membership? Why eliminate it?
I have often felt that this city is very anti-single people, young and old, I just never seen such blatant discrimination from a publicly funded facility. But no surprise from a money pit that continues to do the wrong thing most of the time.
If you’re not schizo or bipolar, then sign up you & Sodapop.
If something doesn’t make sense, it must be city policy.
Dumb idea, again (sigh). What about the couples where only one of the spouses wants to go to the Bazillion and the other wouldn’t set foot in the place? Why should they pay for two memberships?
I agree, and I’m also upset that they now discriminate against larger families too. We have 5 kids and used to have a membership for $80 (for any size family). Now it would cost us $140, since there’s a limit of 3 kids before you have to pay extra. That’s completely out of our price range so we’ve had to drop our membership.
I have a friend who has adopted several special needs children in addition to her own, so her family is now over their family limit too and she can no longer afford membership.
There’s no reason it’s not okay to have many different types of memberships to meet many needs, including individual memberships (and low income memberships, for that matter). There’s also no reason to penalize large families by making membership out of reach. I suspect that the pavilion will lose a lot of members because of these changes. It shouldn’t be a resource just for the wealthy.