This was in response to this DaCola post about the SF Hockey Association building there own facility;

This is stupid… all we need is a decent icerink and so far we only have 1/2 of one. The expo ice was taken down because we didn’t have enough money to fix the huge hole in the ice. And the SFIRC is only .5 of an ice rink because we only get 45 min of icetime…we have bantam boys practicing at 11 at night! It’s rediculous!! Not only do we just want to play hockey, be we also want to host tournaments. The girls team had to take their Varsity tournament to Sioux Center Iowa because we didn’t have any ice! If you guys are so narrow-minded to think that we can take what we have…then you are people who hate little kids.

First off, call a whaaabulance. Secondly, what is wrong with a private facility? I am all for a new ice rink, but why are we constantly going to taxpayers for this stuff? Seriously?! I heard Michelle Erpenbach brag about Yankton Trail Park for the Soccer Association in her AL interview. But let’s tell the truth about that park. You are only allowed to use the park for sanctioned games, you must also pay an association fee that goes to the city. The only time this ‘publicly owned’ park can be used by the ‘public’ for free is Jazzfest, a music festival. If an ice rink is privately funded, the Hockey Association can do what they want with it, without the fascist grip of the city on them.

Now I want to address the crybaby above. Growing up, I never got to go anywhere unless it was part of HS sanctioned sport and I rode on the school district’s bus. My big ‘event’ of the year was spending a week in Huron at the state fair where I participated in 4-H and Open class competitions. If you have a problem with driving your kids to Sioux Center for a tournament, maybe you should pull your kids out of hockey. I get so sick and tired of whiney ass parents that think there kids’ club sports should be subsidized by me. Here’s the deal. I don’t have children, but I have no problem with funding the school district through my property taxes, it is an investment in the future. But if your kids do not participate in public school activities, tough shit, pay for it yourself.

8 Thoughts on “Funny Comment of the Day

  1. Costner on March 23, 2010 at 11:47 am said:

    I remember when the hockey players in Mitchell decided they needed a new indoor ice rink to play hockey on all year long. Their hockey association (Mitchell Skating and Hockey Association or MSHA) went out there and raised the money to build it. I’m sure there was some type of an agreement with the city since it sits near the middle school and the city owned ballfields, but the bottom line is they saw a need and they took it upon themselves to get it done.

    On the other hand, parents in Sioux Falls just seem to open up their hands and ask the city for money to build their dream facility. Why should the city subsidize every sport or activity we can come up with? What if I form a rock climbing club and it grows to 200 members between the ages of 12 and 17…. should the city build us an indoor climbing wall facility so we can climb fake rock walls in a nice climate controlled facility in the middle of December?

    I would have no doubt some kids would benefit from a hockey facility – but who decides which sports are worthy of the investment and maintenance costs?

    If the hockey parents want this facility they should work with the city or form a partnership… but if they want the city to do this alone I can promise you there will be battles over ice time and complaints when the city decides to hold open skate on the weekends when some random hockey team thinks they should be able to hold practice.

  2. I don’t think the guy (I agree he’s whiny) is saying “build us an Olympic quality rink”, he’s just saying that it’s asinine (and I agree with this as well) that a place like Sioux Center, IA outclasses us in this area.

    Costner is right, the parents & associated clubs should work together and put something on the table. I think the City should be in for half the costs and if that means donate a site or integrate it into a multi-use facility than by all means do it.

  3. l3wis on March 23, 2010 at 2:40 pm said:

    I am not totally against ‘support’ from the city. But that can take on many areas. A TIF, deregulation, land donation, etc. But I don’t think the city should be giving actual capital towards the facility, if they do then they will want to control it.

  4. John2 on March 23, 2010 at 4:41 pm said:

    I write yet again – all extra curricular activities should be removed from schools and not one taxpayer dollar should go for them. Then there will be enough money for schools and schools will focus on scholarly activities and not on extended adolescence.

  5. l3wis on March 23, 2010 at 4:44 pm said:

    I somewhat disagree. Sports teach kids about teamwork and about the importance of competition and exercise. They would never learn that in a classroom. While I think professional sports are disgusting, I think public school sports are a good thing.

  6. redhatterb on March 23, 2010 at 7:13 pm said:

    I’m being silly here, but I wonder if the city would be willing to fund a facility for Elvis impersonators. lol

  7. l3wis on March 23, 2010 at 9:00 pm said:

    Not silly at all, Kermit brings this up all the time, that he is a fan of Classical Ballet, maybe the taxpayers of SF should fund a Classical Ballet troupe? I am actually a huge fan of contemporary dance and served on the Civic Dance Association’s board (when they still existed) in SF. I think the arts and club sports are wonderful things in our community, but they are much better off when the beaurucrats keep their grubby hands out of them.

  8. The entitlement of people in this city is incredible. Every single rec group believes the city owes them facilities and money, and it all has to be top of the line.

Post Navigation