This seems like a no-brainer. I think it is fantastic that during the worst economy since the great depression that we have private companies willing to pony-up for public rec centers. But of course our mayor and the AL ed board seem to think that taxpayers should pony up to, because golly gee, we just should;
Since our public facilities require financial investments, there’s only one difference between those venues and the ones we still lack: The ones we need now are indoor facilities.
In a cold-weather state, it’s difficult to understand why some residents fail to see the legitimacy of public indoor recreation.
First off, we don’t lack indoor recreation. We have several health clubs and even a sports dome in Sioux Falls that are being used during the winter by people who want to use them. I am still baffled why the city thinks it needs to compete with these facilities. Taxpayers have made it clear on several occasions – they don’t want to pay for them. If you want to use these facilities, you go to them and pay a fee to use them. What a simple concept, Huh?
Huether seems to understand that it is shortsighted to think that the private sector is solely responsible for bringing indoor venues to Sioux Falls.
Like I said, if Sanford and Avera want to build these facilities for us and plaster their names all over them, let them. I think it is shortsighted to get in their way by saying, “Oh, you don’t have to pay for all of it, we want to give you some taxpayer money to, even though you will receive all the marketing benefits from the partnership.” Let’s just say ‘thank you’ and move along already.
Sioux Falls already is well behind where it should be,
According to who? The AL ed board? For once, I would like to see the ED board backup their generalized statements with actual proof. Poppycock.
Gee I suggest this and I must be crazy. The AL ed board is a joke and the notion that taxpayers should pay for everything is a joke. If there is a need and money can be made, private business will step in and do it (most times). We need a nice indoor ice rink and the various groups are discussing funding, not complaining about tax payers not funding it. Our city council is a joke (with a few exceptions) and to be honest the voters are getting what they asked for.
Actually the AL board is dead on correct.
We are at a competitive disadvantage nationally due to our weather patterns, among other things. A City can and should support arts, sports, entertainment & recreation and there’s no reason that support can’t coexist alongside private enterprise. We have City owned golf courses that make us money. We also have private courses that feed off the expansion of the sport locally. Either one can exist on their own, but together they compliment each other. Same deal with pools vs. Wild Water West.
By the same token, the City could get into Credit Cards or Fast Food and make money, but should they? Of course not. There’s a balance and simply wanting private industry to finance ALL sporting and recreation isn’t it.
The government should not be in the recreation business when and where the private sector filled the need. Period.
Governments should get out of the golf course, swimming pool, liquor store businesses, etc.
There are times and places for government to take a role in the market place, like the state cement plant in the 1930s, rural electrification – but when the government’s role is supplanted by the market then government needs to bow out.
John, I agree with you. Wanting to get the government involved in indoor recreation kind of smacks like when the Heartland House had the lights at Yankton Trail Park as a fund raiser, then the wonderful city decided to spend thousands of dollars to light up Falls Park and not charge admission, thus hurting Heartland House’s fundraiser. Shame on them for wanting to stick their nose in everything.
You are dead wrong Sy. If private industry in SF wants to help build these projects w/o public money, we should roll out the red carpet, create tifs, relax zoning, etc., but keep actual public money out of the deal.
It isn’t needful, its a luxury. Even if we were meeting all our actual needs – police, firemen, streets, sewers – recreation would still be a luxury and the gov’t shouldn’t be involved in it at all.
We are cutting the police department, the roads need repair and the sewers are inadequate, but we STILL have people going on about Rec Centers?
I think the City Council et al are “Castle Builders”. They like building monuments to their egos.
The fact is when groups get together and raise funds, they end up with a better result in the end and they don’t need to cater to the city’s interests.
Just look at what Mitchell did when they needed an indoor hockey rink. They didn’t go to the city and ask for a handout, they raised the funds – built the facility, and now they operate it the way they want to. They don’t have to worry about scheduling around other groups, they don’t need to fight for space – they just use it as it was intended.
Why is this so hard?
As to those golf courses “making money” I suspect that is a little inaccurate. I have no doubt their revenues exceed their expenses, but it is doubtful the revenue could ever have made loan payments on the real estate had the city no ponied up the funds to buy the land in the first place.
I’m not suggesting the city should sell off all of the public courses and swimming pools or anything, but it isn’t exactly a true comparison to private business when they are handed the facilities and the only measure of success is their yearly ability to break even. It isn’t very hard to make a business financially profitable when someone hands you the property and inventory for free and then says “run this and try not to lose any money”.
Show me a metro area that doesn’t invest in Quality of Life projects and I’ll show you one that’s going backwards.
I don’t think anyone has suggested cutting all quality of life projects, but there has to be a balance. We can’t fund every single project under the guise of “quality of life” and ignore basic infrastructure needs and the present economy.
Some people would probably love it if we had four city owned indoor pool complexes, five sheets of year round ice, a dozen indoor tennis courts, and a dome large enough to have indoor Pheasants games… but it isn’t exactly feasible even in the best of economic times.
hot chick in the pool
I thought the hockey players were cute.
Outdoor rec facilities are woefully worse “investments” to any indoor facility. AT BEST they get 6 mos a year use. The most expensive of all are outdoor pools – 3 million + for 6 useable weeks a year.
Yeah, because subsidizing an indoor pool all year long is cheaper? We have plenty of private facilities in SF that take care of the need in SF.