An indoor pool at Spellerberg park just doesn’t make sense

I will go on the record and say that I am not opposed to an indoor public pool, a few years ago I would have said no way, but with the construction of the Sanford Sports Complex and with the SF School District paying out millions in salaries to ‘administrators’. I have no doubt the city is ready for such a facility, and the school district can afford to pony up (even though several private ones already exist that you can pay a fee to use, just like a public pool).

There are two things that I would like to see explored first before building an indoor public pool at Spellerberg;

1) A possible partnership with the Sanford Sports Complex and building the facility there attached to one of the other entities (Like the Pentagon or the Hockey facility).

2) A partnership with the School District to build an indoor pool at either one or all of the high schools.

Recently, all knowing, and all wise, city councilor Erpenbach said in an Argus Leader interview we couldn’t build at the high schools because of ‘liability issues’. You mean like the liability public schools have to risk with other sports like football, wrestling, basketball, volleyball and even cheerleading, because, you know, they are all less dangerous then swimming. Nice try Michelle, but I am not buying your excuse.

The facility could easily be split up during school hours so that city staff would monitor one side and the school district would monitor the other side. This isn’t rocket science and I’m sure former law partner with Davenport-Evans, Sue Simons, Vice-Super, could draw up a plan.

What concerns me even more is the vendetta the Argus Leader, or at least it’s publisher has with the Drake Springs outdoor pool advocates. Calling their petition drive and election a ‘fiasco’. So much for democracy and the fourth estate protecting that democracy.

All I have ever asked from elected officials is to be honest and to use common sense. The stand alone public pool at Spellerberg makes no sense, and our elected officials, and even our local newspaper are not being honest about the cost. Looks like another ‘fiasco’ will have to occur to put this on the right course.


#1 Jo on 08.29.12 at 8:10 pm

Agree geothermal would be smart since they’ll be digging 40 feet for footings and certainly for anything that is to be around 40 years from now.

#2 Alice15 on 08.30.12 at 10:42 am

DL – MAybe the kids you know are fat and lazy – but there many of us that still shut the TV off and remain active with our kids and woud like the facilities when it is 10 below out to remain as such. Man do I get sick of people grouping all people together!

As I have done further research as it seems I am the only one that is doing this before saying screw you to this project, I found out that on average, there are 300 athletes over the course of a weekend that will participate in a swim meet. Now I am not saying 300 different families will attend as kids and families tend to pool their resources, but lets say there are 225 families that come to SF and spend an average of $400(which is on the low end) on a weekend. That is $90,000 extra that creates sales tax revenue. Take this times 5 extra meets over the course of a year and that is almost half a million dollars coming into our city. All for a stand alone facility – and that is just swim meets.

And one more question to those of you that are against this project – do you do anything to remain physically active? Not just swimming which is by far one of the best things you can do for your physical well-being, but anything at all?

#3 Detroit Lewis on 08.30.12 at 11:07 am

Alice – I think I have stated several times that I am not against an indoor pool, I just don’t agree with the location.

#4 Sy on 08.30.12 at 11:51 am

Got another one in mind DL?

Preferably one that doesn’t add $4 million or more to the cost?

#5 Alice15 on 08.30.12 at 1:47 pm

SO we don’t want to add cost to the project but we don’t want it at a location where it is slated to be renovated, is in the CIP budget, and the city already owns the land? Sorry – can’t have it both ways and the school district is not going to do this. They supposively do not have the funds to sanction the sport of soccer which literally hundreds of kids are involved in in SF, so they certainly aren’t going to add a pool.

#6 cr on 08.30.12 at 2:05 pm

For all those who were not at the Council’s work session yesterday…….

The issue of the indoor pool has been referred to the Council’s Land Use Committee.*

Parks and Rec and the Council will be developing a long-term aquatics study, INSTEAD OF choosing a location by “default” for a 20 million dollar ++ taxpayer funded facility.

*Spellerberg has not been taken “off the table”.

Leave a Comment