I find it interesting that the group has propped up Margaret Sumption as one of their citizen spokes people. Who is Margaret? She is the partner in Sumption & Wyland, a strategic planning firm;
Margaret J. Sumption, MSED, LPC, SPHR, has over thirty years of experience as a teacher and counselor, nonprofit administrator, development officer, and volunteer board member serving a wide variety of organizations. She is a popular, dynamic, and effective speaker and trainer for nonprofit professionals, customers, and policy makers.
Members of Community Swim 365 say Spellerberg Park is the perfect place for an indoor swimming pool. Margaret Sumption, a longtime central Sioux Falls resident, says a year-round aquatic center would help draw more families into the area.
“I want very much for my neighborhood to remain vibrant. It is a beautiful community area. It is in the center of Sioux Falls and that center of Sioux Falls is changing,” Sumption said.
Small business owner Susie Patrick believes an indoor facility would preserve park green space and enhance access to the nearby sledding hill with more parking.
“We just like to swim. Taught our kids to swim at a really young age and think it’s really important for the community to have access to the same swimming lessons and have a pool for everyone to use,” Patrick said.
The stark irony of the group when compared to the Hockey or Indoor tennis folks is that CS365 doesn’t have any skin in the game (private/public partnership) but seemingly have found a way to raise money for professional marketing assistance, oh, and some t-shirts.
So let’s be honest here, are we dealing with a ‘grassroots’ organization, or a ‘professional special interests’ organization? Not sure. I would also like to point out the name of the organization is kind of odd. I doubt the pool will be open 365 days a year, but you never know? I can’t wait to get in my Christmas day swim.
Five Sioux Falls Park Board members attended Community Swim 365’s kick-off: Mike Crane, Sandra Pay, Kevin Nyberg, Lorrae Lundquist, and Patti Abdallah. (see KELOLAND.com, New Group Wants ‘NO’ Vote On Outdoor Pool)
Granted the Sioux Falls Park Board is an advisory board, but really how much “educating” do you think they are going to be doing on both the indoor and the outdoor options!!?!
So….. people who live in the city and have skills beyond pounding nails are “suspicious” in re: to their involvement and passion for a subject. Yeah – class envy.
By that same token L3wis, the anti-pool folks are being organized by people who mostly don’t live in the neighborhood either. Pretty sure if Mrs./Ms. Sumption was on their side they’d welcome her with open arms.
Also, there’s this group:
VeteransForTheVA.org
Which is organized by the same guy who manages Pritzker family’s dynasty trust located at 11th & Phillips. Happens to be a good buddy of mine, but all his reasons for opposing this plan are pure bunk.
When I go to the polls in April 2014, I will be basing my vote on these numbers.
All information has been taken directly from the consultant’s report (see siouxfalls.org).
Page 28: This is the scenario the consultant has recommended:
Option 5: Large Indoor 50 meter by 25 yard competition pool with springboard diving and a separate 3,750 sq. ft. indoor leisure pool with current channel, and waterslide.
Page 38: Capital Cost of a Large Indoor Pool
Project Cost $18,519,000 (this has increased to 19.4m per Director of Parks and Rec, Don Kearney-Council Work Session, July 17, 2013)
Attendance
80,104
Operating Costs:
2013
Revenue 355,823
Expense 1,048,552
Operating Cashflow -$692,729
2014
Revenue 364,598
Expense 1,074,766
Operating Cashflow -$710,168
2015
Revenue 373,483
Expense 1,101,635
Operating Cashflow -$728,152
2016
Revenue 382,477
Expense 1,129,176
Operating Cashflow -$746,699
2017
Revenue 391,582
Expense 1,157,405
Operating Cashflow -$765,824
The capital cost of the indoor pool ($19.4m) will require bonding.
According to the consultant’s numbers, the operating costs for the indoor pool for the first five years alone, will be $3,643,572.
As a way of illustrating this number, our community could have SEVEN new neighborhood parks for the $3.6m!!
Yep, those are the numbers I need for my decision!
Give credit to the pro indoor pool folks. If a “no” vote means yes, you know it will pass.
“So….. people who live in the city and have skills beyond pounding nails are “suspicious—
Never said that, if you re-read my post, I said it was smart of them to have a strategy and have professionals working on it. What don’t want to see is dishonesty in their campaign. Sumption probably is volunteering her time, don’t know, that is why I asked the question. But if they want to sell themselves as a ‘grassroots’ effort, prove it. As for Sy’s comments, trust me, I am leery of anyone associating themselves with Joel Arends, but you also have to realize the Save Spellerberg ladies are the ones that collected the signatures and got it on the ballot, not the other way around, by all means, they need to have a professional campaign, otherwise their petition gathering would have been in vain. I suggested early on if the ‘indoorers’ wanted an indoor pool their, they should have done the same, and got it on the ballot also, so that it would have came down to one vote, over and done with, without pimping the mayor and council. But instead, they have drug their feet since Drake Springs, have done ZERO organizing or fundraising or petition gathering for an indoor pool.
Furthermore, if something is worthy or needed in our community, it will sell itself, no need for a campaign to sell the public on an indoor pool. If there really is a need, it would have built a decade ago.
Declaring none of the pro park/outdoor pool people live around the Spellerberg is as risky as P.Lalley proclaiming there are no veterans in the group.
Well, if you read CS365’s statement of organization, Sumption is a co-chair, I guess I would make the educated asSumption that she is volunteering her time, but I may be wrong. Wonder what the campaign rules are on chairing a group and paying consulting fees to a company that one of the chair’s own? Don’t know. Get on it Ruf.
http://www.siouxfalls.org/~/media/Documents/city_clerk/elections/2014/s-org/pac/Community-Swim-365.pdf
Stu Whitney, on Twitter, another grassroots citizen in support of a public indoor pool which we can use all year around.
Forward.
@cr/VT with the alternate being spending several million $$ to replace Spellerberg with the basically the same thing while forcing a new site for the project that even if it goes in at SSC will cost several more million $$. I don’t think a majority will find that option appealing, but I guess we’ll see. The City still hasn’t even “developed” (for lack of a better term) the park ground it already has, why would we go out do 7 new parks? What we lack are updates and amenities to fit the growing new & existing redeveloping neighborhoods.
@DL as I’ve said before, lots if not most sports groups have had facilities built without having to organize or raise funds. Soccer, football & basketball to name a few. Plus, the facility isn’t exclusively for them, anyone who swims or is related to people who swim will use the place. With the Y shutting down we also lose that option, so that’s another factor that makes this project worthwhile.
If this group can raise enough $$ to get some media exposure, they will get the same crowd that came out for the EC vote. Grab some popcorn.
Maybe a lot of the indoor private/public pools shutting down is a sign there really isn’t a demand?
DL: “The stark irony of the group when compared to the Hockey or Indoor tennis folks is that CS365 doesn’t have any skin in the game (private/public partnership) but seemingly have found a way to raise money for professional marketing assistance, oh, and some t-shirts.”
This is the part I still don’t understand. They have had what… six or seven years since the first indoor pool was voted down, and they haven’t offered so much as $3 towards the construction or operation of an indoor pool.
I will never play hockey and I haven’t played tennis in a decade, so even though I will never use either of those facilities i still respect the fact that they saw a need for something so they went out and raised money to make it happen.
The only thing the indoor pool proponents appear to be good at is holding their hands out and demanding the city pay for their hobbies.
We know there’s a demand for public pools/aquatic centers, as shown by the aforementioned consultants report and you can also ask the Y about the demand for swim lessons as it was heavy, if you didn’t sign up early you were screwed.
If there is so much demand for an indoor pool, a profit minded person or group would build it with their own money. There is not the demand in the town of Sioux Falls if the City is required to build it.
Ms. Sumption, MSED, LPC, SPHR, you claim to be the PR expert here, why don’t you organize a business, find investors and build the thing so you can make money from it. You could probably talk to the Park Board members who were at your announcement to get them to invest their own money into the grand business venture.
I would really like to have a 50 meter pool available in Sioux Falls. I spend money to be a member of one of the health ‘clubs’ in Sioux Falls. It has a 25 meter pool I use. The building likely could be expanded to house a 50 meter but the dollars are not there to make it pay.
Why should the City and its taxpayers be on the hook for a large special building in a small park, with no parking expansion, on a currently busy narrow street, with already over taxed infrastructure.
Many of us are tired of the City attempting to be the entertainment provider for special interests. Pickleball anyone?
If there was such a demand at the Y for swimming lessons, why did they close the pool? If there is such a demand for aquatic centers, why hasn’t private enterprise built some? Also tell me how many kids will ride their bikes 2-3 miles in the winter to this pool as these people claim?
Sumption lives in the neighborhood (On Hawthorn between 12th and 18th). If I remember correctly she was quoted in the Argus as being supportive of this when the idea first came up.
Again, the plan as designed isn’t for just the teams, it targets the same market as the other City owned and operated pools target, with the exception being it will be open & used year round.
There’s no “if”, there’s demand. Period. The Y’s problem was it’s old building, aging/declining membership and the new competition from all the newer facilities for sports like basketball. Private enterprise has built pools/waterparks in hotels and also places like Wild Water West, this plan isn’t supposed to compete with them any more than the Bus service is designed to compete with private limos or taxis.
The City didn’t need the Butterfly House or the Outdoor campus either, and I’d submit that neither of those make money for the City, as it costs us plenty to man and maintain them, plus they are both sited on a one lane street with only one way in and out and no room for any parking or retail expansion around it. Guess what? People use those places, kids enjoy them, and the neighborhood didn’t turn into an East Saint Louis type shithole because we built them. The City is a better place with them, than without them and the vast majority of Sioux Falls voters get that basic point.
The VA hospital is a critically important facility for veterans with service-connected injuries. Our VA hospital is staffed by over 900 personnel, has hundreds of volunteers and serves thousands of wounded veterans.
Mayor Huether’s plan did target the parking at the VA to be used by patrons of the proposed aquatic center. Mayor Huether invited me to meet with him and he is kind person. I disagree with Mayor Huether’s vision for the proposed aquatic center because the plan will hurt veterans’ access to the only facility we have to treat those members of the military who were injured in the line of duty. With only 203 spaces in the plan, the parking at the proposed aquatic center is not sufficient for large groups to use the indoor pool. It is undeniable that the city recognized the lack of parking in the proposed plan when they targeted the parking at the VA to be used by aquatic center patrons.
The proposed plan for an aquatics center at Spellerberg Park is short-sighted, has limited potential for additional development, will make it harder for veterans to access the VA, and it would be very expensive to build into the hillside of the park. Residents of Sioux Falls deserve a better plan that offers a higher return on our taxpayer investment and does not have a negative impact on veterans healthcare.
Please vote YES to KEEP the OUTDOOR POOL at Spellerberg Park.
Sincerely,
Tom Muenster
US Navy Veteran
605-360-7491
The outdoor people should name their campaign “Community Swim 70” as that is the number of days an outdoor pool would be of use. Yup, you won’t see that as their campaign and reasons as it would be dead in the water and they know it. (no pun intended)
In all do respect, Mr Muenster, and my dad is a Vietnam Vet, I disagree with you whole heartedly. You are one voice for the VA and I have spoken with many that do not agree with your analysis. This is where I have a very hard time, quite honestly, having respect for those that are wanting to keep an outdoor pool. There have been representatives of that group that have put false statements out there regarding parking and such. Everyone knows as well as I do that during the work day, the VA parking lot will not be needed whatsoever. I live within a BB gun shot of all of these parking lots, (of which they just added another lot on 26th street), and those lots and Vet’s appointments are all done and empty by 4:30/4:45 in the afternoon. I have no problem with a debate from both sides, but this facility will not inhibit Vet’s care, and in fact, the use of this facility by Vets in the Winter months when they cannot be outside would only enhance their health and mobility. I fully anticipate that if parking is going to be a hot button for this group, then when I see the parking lot on 22nd St being utilized starting at 4:30 for little kids soccer practice, or Jr Football practice, or families just going to the park or the sledding hill, that these will also be an issue as well?
Everyone knows that when this facility will be the busiest is evening for swimming lessons and select weekends when there may be a competition. Not during the weekday when the VA is seeing their patients. The parking lot they have proposed will be more than adequate during the day.
I live in this neighborhood and drive by the VA 2-3 times a day. I know when it’s busy and when it is not. This argument is crap.
Craig: “The only thing the indoor pool proponents appear to be good at is holding their hands out and demanding the city pay for their hobbies.”
Assuming you’re not a molester, why don’t you take my kids for a week and shuttle them to soccer, basketball, swim lessons & tae kwan do, then come back and explain to me how that’s a “hobby”. BTW, I pay the freight on all those sports/activities just like the swim team parents do, I all ask for is suitable and safe places for them to do their thing and compete. Did we only build half court basketball facilities in parks and at schools and say “hey kids this was cheaper, so live with it”?
and Tom, buddy, you’re making me thirsty and it’s not even 11am. I’ll ask you here to, how is 203 spaces too few when that’s significantly more spaces than were built at Laurel Oaks and Drake, the two most heavily used pools currently?
Sy: “There’s no “ifâ€, there’s demand. Period.”
You’re right – the very same aquatics consultants we paid to teach us all about indoors pools determined usage of an indoor pool during the winter months was a mere fraction of the overall usage (as little as 5%). Those very same consultants also stated that summer usage at an indoor facility is reduced simply because people prefer outdoor pools.
I know you have balked at the numbers in the past, but that is what the experts say… and we paid for their advice. So you’re right there is no “if” in demand… the demand clearly isn’t there.
Is it really that surprising that most people don’t want to swim when it is cold outside or that they don’t want a roof over their head blocking the sun during the months they prefer to swim?
But wait… there’s more!
“Research from communities across Minnesota also shows there is 93 percent usage [of indoor pools] in summer countered with 7 percent usage in winter which is when some of the large operating expenses are incurred, such as ventilation, heating, water and chemical damage in an indoor facility.”
http://www.sospoolcampaign.com/faq.html
And to steal a quote from one of the last times this was discussed:
Randy Mendioroz of Aquatic Design Group states “The 50-meter, Olympic-size pool, which is a passionate rallying point for competitive swimming advocates, is a notorious drain on an annual operating budget. Furthermore, the reality is that a 50-meter pool is only used for competitive purposes by an average of about 5% of the local population.â€
You build an outdoor waterpark with some slides and a lazy river and the public will use it – A LOT. And indoor olympic size pool is nothing more than a gift to special interests.
BTW, the Pritzker/Muenster Family Aquatic Center has a really nice ring to it. Just sayin’
Karma is correct. Another option for their group could be: “BOWWHIP”
Bitter Old Women Who Hate Indoor Pools
What do you mean an indoor pool is a gift to special interests? Do you realize the number of people that swim to be healthy? It is arguably the finest form of exercise with ease to your joints yet extremely healthy. You do, however, have to exercise or swim to know this.
Craig, that same consultants report clearly recommends we build the large indoor aquatics facility at Spellerberg, along with the west side outdoor replacement for Kuehn and the splash park at Frank Olson. It concludes that plan will best serve the needs of the entire community now and well into the future and it’s an investment this City can easily afford.
I know you hate that part of their findings, but that’s the reality of what they are saying.
& have you been to Drake in July? The plain old, 6 ft deep rectangular section opposite the diving boards is typically packed with kids just splashing & frolicking in the water. That same phenomenom will occur with regularity in the 50 M pool in December, trust me.
Karma: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and also for the military service of your father. I only speak for myself and other vets that feel the way I do. I use my name in public forums because I do not want anyone to think I represent the VA or all vets. I encourage everyone to join this debate and let their voices be heard.
The VA does a lot of great work for people who have made some significant sacrifices for public service. The facility operates 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. My hope is we can find ways to make it easier for vets to receive healthcare at the VA, not make it harder. In my opinion, targeting the VA’s parking to be used by the aquatic center patrons is moving in the wrong direction. Maybe there are some other solutions but I have not heard them.
I understand why residents are passionate about the proposed aquatic center. Sioux Falls has some really outstanding parks but we deserve a better plan than what is being proposed for an indoor pool at Spellerberg Park.
build it in my neighborhood and i’ll quit bitching.
Oh I see DL – the highly organized, experie3nced from having done this before so many times on so many issues semi-professional group opposing the indoor pool is “grass roots”, while the disorganized folks just getting their feet wet are a “phony” front for the mayor or “someone”?? Sure – Your logic kills me.
Sy it has been a while since I read the report, but I recall the recommendations being more along the lines of if we must build an indoor pool Spellerberg was one of the better options. I don’t recall where it said building an indoor facility was the only way to go.
“That same phenomenom will occur with regularity in the 50 M pool in December, trust me.”
So let’s ignore all the studies that show that only 5-7% of the usage comes in the winter and just pretend that Sy has his finger on the pulse of Sioux Falls (and thus knows better than any old consultant on how much utilization an indoor pool will get).
So fine maybe it will be packed with kids between the hours of 4PM and 9PM weekdays or on the weekends. Except for the 33 hours a week that the swimfox swim club needs to practice – none of which can occur during school hours because those same kids are expected to be learning things like Algebra.
Then of course swimfox isn’t the only swim team that will want access right? Plus they will probably want a competitive swim meet or two – so scratch the bulk of at least one Saturday off the calendar.
See what I mean about special interests? I just have my doubts this is designed for the kids who just want to do some “frolicking”.
Craig, as mentioned…I walk the walk. I go to Drake Springs with the kids, I go to Laurel Oaks & I don’t live near either place. We have a membership at the Y and we go there too. I go the SSC and I travel around to places like Omaha, Des Moines etc. with my kids. In doing so I’m running across lots of parents doing the same thing. The SSC is projecting 900K visits a year to that facility, and I can tell you they are well on the way, despite the fact there’s lots of other places you can play football, soccer & basketball around town. There’s something to be said about having a nicely designed, modern facility that wasn’t built as cheaply as possible, people gravitate there. The more kids out using these places, the less you will have to yell at them for walking across your lawn.
BTW, the place will have a 50M plus second rec pool with water slide as noted above, so the place won’t be off limits when there’s a meet or a practice scheduled.
Keep reaching though, sooner or later you might grab something that actually makes some sense.
@ Tom, the problem is voting “yes” means we spend several million $$ to get basically what we have now. Doing so means delaying the indoor pool for several more years and finding (ie buying) another site. Sioux Falls has had enough of the “two steps back, one step forward” mindset when it comes to facilities IMHO.
Tom – you did not answer any of the issues I addressed. You know as well as I do that parking will not be an issue during the day and if you’re going to have a beef with this facility, are you and whoever else going to complain about all of the other activities that utilize those parking lots? If this were to remain an outdoor water wonderland, how are you going to manage parking those 10 weeks because that is when there will really be a problem as far as day time hours.
Now if your beef is with someone or something else, I suggest you address that, but this parking issue holds absolutely no water and if I have to begin filming these parking lots after the hour of 4:30, so be it.
Karma,
I appreciate your perspective as a person who lives close to the VA. The VA parking lots are heavily used at times and less so at other times so in that regard we can agree. My point is the VA hospital is facility that serves veterans 24 hours/365 days a year. Parking is always needed and not just from 8 to 5. I do not support any use of the VA parking lots except for the care and treatment of veterans- that is the mission of the VA and I think they are doing a great job.
Also, I agree with you that I do not speak for the VA, your father, or every veteran. However, there are several vets that are very concerned the proposed citywide aquatic center at Spellerberg will have a negative impact on the VA. We intend to continue to express our concerns and we encourage everyone to voice their opinions. Free speech is something near and dear to a lot of veterans. We know the price that was paid to have that right.
Please vote YES to KEEP the OUTDOOR Pool at Spellerberg Park.
Thanks,
Tom
The p
Sy you likely do walk the walk, but I dare say you are in the minority. Seven years since the original vote on the indoor pool at Drake Springs and how much cash have the organized swim teams raised towards the purchase price or operation of their dream facility? Are they really walking the walk, or are they just printing t-shirts demanding a publicly funded training facility?
Why can the tennis club and hockey association see a demand and actually get it done, but the swim clubs cannot?
I really don’t have to reach too far to find something that makes sense Sy. Over $700k in operating expenses and wintertime demand hovering in the 5 to 7% range is more than enough sense for me – and a lot of other people as well.
As to the SSC I agree it will be successful and I’ve never denied that. I like the idea of a destination that includes multiple uses as it is more efficient. However, with all the activity out there I have to wonder why nobody suggests building a year round aquatics center there, or why an organization hasn’t ponied up the funds to make it happen?
Are we really to believe a pool should be centrally located whereas tennis courts, hockey rinks, football fields, basketball courts etc. are ok being on the edge of town? If that is true – why are pools so different? (What am I missing?)
Sy,
Your post regarding a mindset of “two steps back, one step forward” is a very keen observation. I believe you have touched on a larger issue in our community. We need leadership with real vision rather than a “get it done quick and we want it now” attitude. We should be planning for a city of 300,000 residents. Our city facilities should be high quality and placed in locations where we can maximize the return on our tax dollars.
Mayor Huether’s plan for an aquatic center at Spellerberg Park may satisfy some who are desperate for an indoor pool but the plan is short sighted and very expensive. A better plan would include area surrounding an aquatic center for additional development, space and parking to hold major swimming events, and the aquatic center should be accessible by multiple lane roads rather than neighborhood streets. In short, we need to think big.
We can do better than the proposed aquatic center at Spellerberg Park. Please vote YES to KEEP the OUTDOOR POOL at Spellerberg.
Call me about that beer, Sy!
Tom
Les have sub prime Mike pay for it.
I as always, I do respect the commitment of all those who have served
With all do respect, using veterans as a political pawn is issue is distasteful. Please stop using this tactic as a platform
This is a poor placement for a size of a facility, but this will not interfere with the care of our most cherished citizens, the veterans.
Oh man we need an edit feature.
A lot has been posted here in a short time. What makes the most sense to me?
I just have my doubts this is designed for the kids who just want to do some “frolickingâ€.
Poly43,
Tack a 20 million dollar price tag onto those doubts of yours and mine with $700,000+ in ANNUAL operating costs and my vote in April will be ‘YES’ for an outdoor pool at Spellerberg.
In that vein Sanford or other “out by the freeway” location promoters. Please add a couple million for land acquisition, utilities construction, and then factor in the additional transportation costs for all the “inner city” kids or “South-siders” to drive to the other side of town – and NO bus service options. Tell me how your “plan” is of benefit to the taxpayer or the ordinary user. No 0- your plan is even MORE slanted to the “elite” – AND more expensive.
LJL said “using veterans as a political pawn issue is distasteful. Please stop using this tactic as a platform” The veteran issue started with the city when they produced their architect drawings at the first public meeting May 2012. On the overview of the proposed facility which included the east side of the VA parking lots, Sioux Falls Park and Rec and TSP Architects printed over a VA parking lot “potential VA parking access”. The 2 bullets to the left of the drawing under the title Site Advantages stated “parking for everyday use†and “secondary parking nearby”. During the first public meeting, the question was asked about the VA parking and a TSP representative said there wasn’t sufficient land at the park for the parking needed for the indoor pool facility. When asked what the VA director’s response was to giving access to VA land, the answer was, no one from the city had talked to the Director, public affairs officer or any VA official.
City leaders made the first move on taking veteran parking for city use not veterans. City leaders have tried to make veterans the pawn by implying they will trade their parking space when going to their doctor appointments for a spin around an indoor pool. Maybe the indoor pool facility could be built next to one of the many Avera or Sanford facilities and when the city pool users need more parking they can use Avera’s or Sanford’s parking lots. Their parking lots are virtually empty by 4 and equally empty on weekends.
SO far I have seen no plans for this facility. Can someone produce a proposed map?
I am not in favor of building this facility in this area, but I have heard this horse s#*t about taking the VA parking lot too many times with no proof.
If they city is proposing taking land from the VA facility, I want the details. If people are spinning the truth to aid their defense, it’s a whole new low in citizen advocacy.
Is the city currently proposing to reduce the VA parking?
LJL,
Please visit VeteransForTheVA.org and you will find a map indicating the VA’s parking was targeted for use by the patrons of the proposed aquatic center. I would also be happy to email you a copy of the map. My email address is Muenster@NavCraft.com or you can call me for a copy 360-7491 and I will deliver it to you.
I do not believe anyone has suggested the city will take land from the VA facility. It is federal ground. The issue relates to a plan produced by the city that suggested VA parking could potentially be used for the aquatic center.
I agree with your statement that veterans should not be used as political pawns. I have received health care at the Sioux Falls VA for over thirteen year and I never raised a single issue with the city as a vet. It changed for me and other vets when we saw the proof that the city was targeting VA parking for the aquatic center. I wish this issue with Spellerberg Park never existed. It would be best to just leave the veterans alone to receive the health care they have earned at the VA. Veterans shouldn’t have to complete for parking with people who want to go swimming.
While I would never suggest that I speak for every veteran or the VA, I am a real veteran who receives health care at the Sioux Falls VA. I do not question the sincerity of those promoting the indoor pool. They love our parks and I know they deeply respect veterans. I love our parks and appreciate those who serve the public. However, there can be serious differences of opinion about the impact the proposed aquatic center would have on the VA.
Please Vote YES to KEEP the OUTDOOR POOL at Spellerberg Park.
Very respectfully,
Tom Muenster
U.S. Navy Veteran
Visited your website, I’m interested in your explanation of this statement.
The additional traffic from the proposed aquatics center on 22nd Street, Western Avenue and 26th Street would also impede veterans from getting to the VA facilities.
Also I am not asking for your address but do you own property near this facility?
LJL,
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in learning more about our group’s point of view.
The traffic on 22nd, 26th and Western Ave is already heavy at times. The website shows a picture of an accident at 22nd and Western that involved a veteran last fall. Another consideration is ambulance traffic. The VA is a 24/7 hospital that receives patients via ambulance. Sanford Hospital is nearby and also a consideration. Drivers in Sioux Falls are very good about pulling out of the way of emergency vehicles but the added congestion is unnecessary since other sites are available for an aquatic center. A citywide facility and more traffic in the Spellerberg area will make it more difficult, or impede, the ability of vets to get to the only place they have for health care. I do not believe veterans should have to compete for parking with patrons of an aquatic center. In my opinion, adding more congestion to the area is moving in the wrong direction.
I do not own property on 22nd Street, Western Ave, or 26th Street or any streets adjacent to the VA. I do live near the VA but I do not feel my property will be directly impacted either way.
My concerns about the proposed aquatic center for Spellerberg Park are based on two main factors:
1) Veterans deserve the best access to the VA as possible.
2) Sioux Falls taxpayers deserve a plan that offers the best overall return on the dollars we invest as a city.
I believe an unbiased review of all of the facts surrounding the proposed aquatics center plan will lead reasonable people to vote yes to keep the outdoor pool at Spellerberg.
Thanks again,
Tom
There’s traffic everywhere – so – solution is to build it where there is no traffic then? There are people, properties, businesses etc. everywhere – so…. solution is then to build it where there are no people, no businesses, no activities…. Sheesh. Grow up people – you live in a CITY.
Don’t think it is a good plan.
1. The locale is not right.
2. The projected financials look distressing.
3. I want a quilting center in Sioux Falls for all the citizens that quilt—which has to be 100 times the number of people that will participate in indoor swimming.
P.S. Before you get too excited, I don’t quilt. Get the picture.
Wow, everyone needs to come up for air.
Sy, I find it interesting and have read your comments in the past. Sometimes appears that you speak out without knowing or checking the facts.
You just said, “the anti-pool folks are being organized by people who mostly don’t live in the neighborhood.” You are blowing in the wind!
I happen to know many of those people involved in the GRASS ROOTS CAMPAIGN. These people are well researched, mostly college educated with careers, knowledgeable, interested, alert, active voters. Four of them can step outside and see the park from the edge of their lawns. A majority of them live 2, 3, and 4 blocks from the park. They see all that happens at the park and the VA, traffic issues, traffic accidents, parking issues, VA parking problems, and all the wonderful outdoor park activities which the city wants to curtail with plans to cement 121,000 sq ft of their park. None of them live in other neighborhoods as do all of the park board and Swim(Spend)365 group.
As for Ms. Sumption, I believe she lives about 8 blocks from the park and North of 18th St., according to the map. She might need economic stimulus where she lives, but the immediate area of Spellerberg Park needs no additional traffic or parking issues .
And one more thing, the city does not have clear title to the land at Spellerberg. Would you personally invest $20 m. on a piece of land without clear title? I doubt informed investors would do so! Tax payers should not be asked to assume such a risk either!
Socialism really does begin to suck when nobody wants to pay their share but expect everyone else too. When I was a kid we swam at drake springs and terrace park they were Hugh pools with little concrete and lots of deep water,no rest breaks and we all ran and had a great time. Now we are all going to drown if there are not enough life guards and the right pools that only govt can supply come on people I took a quick inventory of indoor pools and there are a lot in the area The snow fox can go to many pools for practice. At some point we are going to run out of money and huether knows it. We all do. This indoor pool is crap
take a Lamaze child birthing classes for healthy breathing
A quilting center would bring in a lot of money to Sioux Falls. Most people have no idea how much quilting activity goes on: “something” of the month, tours, classes on design/techniques, you name it!! Maybe we could make it include other arts that don’t have a nice home. Like photography, pottery. (The Pavillion probably suffices as nexus for some of that.) Anyway…….(the Ellen Degeneres anyway).
There is traffic everywhere – at times. I also know that CCHS utilizes part of the parking at the VA off of 26th St. Is that ok, or is it ok because there is a check received for that use? I really don’t care – and I really don’t care about a debate for different concerns, but the parking argument needs to be debunked. I also utilize the credit union on campus at the VA at all times of the day. Not once have I faced “traffic” issues or getting a parking spot.
Vote “NO” in April!
I can’t imagine anyone driving around the VA regularly and not seeing the cars parked on both sides of 22d and 26th streets by the VA daily, for the last 15 years or more. If you’re talking about the lack of cars on 22d and 26th from the west edge of the park to Western Ave, that is city directed no parking. As for Children’s Care leasing parking space from the VA, that is merely a good neighbor gesture and again have you seen the lack of parking around Bethany Nursing Home and Children’s Care for two decades? You can debunk any issue you’re uncomfortable with but the reality is Sioux Falls Park and Rec Director Kearney knows there isn’t enough land at Spellerberg for the indoor facility as does the city-hired architect and the city hired Counsilman Hunsaker Aquatic consultants. After hearing from residents at the listening and learning sessions that city facilities around town lack sufficient parking, the mayor said, “we don’t always think about parking.†When Kearney states, they could set up some security and shuttles for the indoor pool, that is nothing short of blowing the problem off. The city’s Indoor Ice Skating and Recreation Center on 51st was also knowingly built without sufficient parking. The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) building across the street dealt with people parking in their parking lot almost daily and it took months before the city would get their patrons off DAV’s private property. Why does the city leadership do this? One of the last things a commercial building project would cheap out on is parking if they want to be successful. And I doubt any of them would lean on veterans going to their VA doctor to fix their self-induced problem.
Sioux Falls can use an indoor pool, no argument from anyone on either side of this issue.
But for the following reasons I believe Spellerberg is not the right place:
-there are parking issues ALREADY with the park being landlocked on 3 sides by facilities all in need of large amounts of parking.
-I see that the park IS utilized often by company and church picnics, family reunions, track, football and tennis activities. As I walk the winding streets of Columbia and Riverview Heights. I see the cars that are parked on the winding side streets north of 22nd as people struggle to find a place to park.
-western, 22nd and 26th are all busy 2 lane streets now, how can it handle the amount of traffic swim meets bring? If you’ve seen the parking issues around Frank Olson pool or another facility when there is a swim meet, you know to what I am referring.
-the contingencies on this land should make everyone concerned! In November of 1955 when the VA granted the ability to use it’s land for a park, the contingency states:”the premises are to be continuously used only as and for park and recreation purposes in a manner which will not interfere, with the care and treatment of patients in the VA Hospital”. If not used for those purposes, the U.S. Government can take back immediate possession of the park. The fact that the city does not have clear title to this land should be of grave concern when considering a facility of this size and cost.
-let’s build an easily accessible aquatic facility with adequate parking,with room for expansion and with all the amenities (hotels, restaurants etc.) that the citizens of Sioux Falls deserve and about which out of town visitors can say “WOW”! Putting a facility of this size at Spellerberg is like putting a square peg in a round hole.
– the financial cost of this endeavor (see comment#4) is immense to S.F. taxpayers. Many have spoken to it already, so I won’t. But if we do build an aquatic facility it should be a facility we can both afford and is well thought out.
-this issue is not only troubling to people who live near the park, but to many across our city, particularly those who struggle to find a place to park when they come to the VA. But many find the greenspace view from Western looking up the hill to the VA as one of the prettiest and historic views in the city. That would be changed forever.
– my hope is that we can keep that view intact by voting “yes” to the outdoor pool in April!
Jace – obviously you did not read any of my comments as I have stated quadruple amount of times that when the use for this facility will be highest is when parking is not an issue. Yup – I drive down 22nd and 26th every day of my life multiple times. 26th is utilized by CCHS employees. 22nd St. does have some VA employees parking there, but once again for the hundredth time, by 4:30/4:45 – parking is not an issue. That is why this parking thing needs to be debunked and was “created” as an issue that truly does not exist which has done nothing but discredit the “yes” people.
Vote “No” in April!