Argue Endorser ED Board uses extreme misinformation to endorse public indoor pool

No matter your thoughts on whether you support a public indoor pool or not, let’s at least be honest with voters. Those silly ‘facts’ seem to get in the way of the AL Ed board, and they do a little twisting and shouting of their own;

It’s unfortunate that the idea of an indoor pool has been tangled in such controversy in recent years.

What controversy? This statement puzzles me. So now it is controversial for a group of citizens to petition their government? The only controversy in this discussion is a newspaper that kowtows the city’s agenda to cram shit down our throats that we don’t want.

Two years later, the idea of an indoor pool replacing the old Drake Springs pool also was defeated in large part because of opposition from that central Sioux Falls neighborhood.

Bullshit! Last I checked the ENTIRE CITY got to vote on that issue, not just my neighborhood. There was also opposition from people who didn’t want an indoor pool in that neighborhood, there was even members of swim teams that were opposed to it because they couldn’t hold competitions there.

It seems so basic that a community such as Sioux Falls, in a climate like South Dakota’s where there is way more winter than summer in most years, should provide recreational opportunities year-round. To do that, you build an indoor swimming pool. Other cities have done so. It is not a radical concept.

Yes, other cities have done it, but those cities also lack private facilities. There is over 8 private indoor pools that you can PAY to swim at (just like a public facility) and unlike a public indoor pool, you can also partake in other physical activities at these places. There is also many indoor water parks at different hotels in Sioux Falls. The ED board makes it sound like there is absolutely NO PLACE to swim at in town over the winter.

A recent survey by the Parks Department reveals community interest in an indoor pool. Sixty percent of the respondents said the city needs indoor swimming opportunities.

Another partial fact the ED Board throws out there. If you look at the ratios of that survey, 1 in 7 of that 60% support an indoor pool subsidized by taxpayers, the other 6 want it paid for by user fees. We know how the city operates these facilities, they will NEVER be self-sustaning.

Community support and open lines of communication are essential.

Then why did you write such a misleading editorial? If this is such a crackerjack idea, it would of passed years ago.


#1 Angry Guy on 07.05.11 at 6:46 am

AL wouldn’t let me say it there, so I’ll say it here. If our egomaniac mayor pushes this down our throats and it comes to a public vote at the Spellerberg location, it won’t get the “neighborhood opposition” that Drake Springs received. It will be embraced by the locals, mostly because Park Ridge has less poor minorities living there. Middle class white kids might actually be able to afford the user fees that will be needed to fund this mess.

#2 l3wis on 07.05.11 at 6:59 am

Oh, it will get built, no doubt in my mind. It just irks me when our ONLY local paper twists facts or only gives half the story.

#3 Poly43 on 07.05.11 at 7:38 am

Editorials like that one are the reason I no longer have the Argus on my doorstep. Sad to say after having a subscription nearly my whole life.

#4 Scott on 07.05.11 at 8:17 am

I’m surprised there hasn’t been any commentary on the “old people are scared to visit downtown” silliness from this weekend.

#5 Angry Guy on 07.05.11 at 9:46 am

Scott, link us to the silliness!

#6 l3wis on 07.05.11 at 11:35 am

You didn’t read Lalley’s column (ironically wasn’t about one of his biking/running achievements):

#7 l3wis on 07.05.11 at 11:38 am

AG – You are right on about one thing. How are the poor kids that live in Whittier, Pettigrew and my hood going to get to the new indoor pool when it is bitter cold out? Ride the bus? Walk? You are right, the only people that will get to use the pool are the ones that have transportation and can afford it, which ironically are the same people using private indoor pools now. Dumb. I have often said that this should be built in a partnership with the school district and build it at Lincoln HS. This way the costs can be shared and we know for a fact it will be used. They could build two pools side by side, and while school is in session they could curtain off one of them for the kids and the other side for the public. And in non school hours they could open the whole thing.

#8 rufusx on 07.05.11 at 12:05 pm

Just drop the whole indoor pools at hotels thing gfrom your logic – okay. $120 a day to swim somewhere in an overgrown splash pool is NOT an option for 99% of the community.

#9 rufusx on 07.05.11 at 12:07 pm

And since the poor kids’ neighbors rejected an indoor pool in theoir neoighborhood – you’rre right – no matter where ELSE it gets buit, they won;t have the opportunity to use it. Now, if it were at Drake Springs…….

#10 Poly43 on 07.05.11 at 12:43 pm

It costs a lot of money to maintain an indoor pool, especially of the size that would satisfy the wants and needs of organized swim teams. It will naturally have to be olympic sized… you know… kinda like our McArena .That’s all this is about. More playgrounds for those who can afford such things, but financed by those who can’t.

Heating, ventilation, and chemicals go up expontentially for a indoor versus outdoor pool. No…little johhny is not going to use this pool. Of course, if he were on a swim team, then maybe. Otherwise little johhny might get in when the clubs don’t need it, but at a price. A price out of his parents “disposeable” income range.

#11 l3wis on 07.05.11 at 1:16 pm

Ruf – This is why it makes sense to do it with the school district. If we build it at it’s own location, as opposed to an adjoining school, who will be using it during the day, in the winter? Retired people and toddlers, maybe. If you make it a part of the physical training and PE classes it will get some usage, and be worth the subsidy.

#12 rufusx on 07.05.11 at 6:27 pm

Sorry Poly – you are misinforming and misinforming. Initial cost of an indoor pool is higher to an outdoor pool. Day to day operating and maintenance costs are lower. Heating an indoor pool (for example) is LOWER to heating an outdoor pool (unless of course you don’t heat an outdoor pool). Chemical and cleaning costs for an out door pool are higher (due to evaporation rates and exposure to air-borne contaminants).

Ask any architect about the thermal efficiency of indoor pools. You will learn that (again, for example) the West Side YMCA pool is probably the most energy efficient building in this entire city.

But it’s the long-term maintenanmce costs whert the indoor pool really shines. Because…… they are not subject to the detsructive actions of the freeze/thaw cycle.

I do agree with attachment to a school. In fact, I’d like to see indoor pools ate EACH of the city’s public HS’s (since your central neighborhood decided they didn’t want it at the MOST BROADLY ACCESSIBLE location in the city already.)

#13 Scott on 07.05.11 at 10:01 pm

I thought the entire city voted against it. My mistake.

#14 l3wis on 07.06.11 at 2:08 am

Scott – something I have pointed out on several occasions. The AL would like us to believe that one little neighborhood stopped this thing, when in fact the entire city voted on this. There was several opposition groups. Many of the ‘upper crust’ in SF were against it because they didn’t like the neighborhood it would be built in. The swim teams didn’t like the final plan either because it wouldn’t accomodate them. But it was easy for ‘some’ elected officials and the AL to use Stehly as a scapegoat for it’s failure because of sour grapes. It’s time to fucking get over it already and move on.

Ruf – I told the council last night during public input they should build it with the school district. But all they are worried about is hats in buildings, so I’m sure it went in one ear and out the other.

#15 dj59 on 07.06.11 at 6:40 am

The easy solution is to build it right into the new EC – I mean, the fact that it is a destination hub with plenty of foot traffic, accessibility and loads of other fun things to do makes it the natural location! 😉

#16 Alice15 on 07.06.11 at 8:30 am

I voted for it the first time and I will vote for it again. As long as it is kept centrally located – ie the Drake Springs option or the Spellerberg option, I am all for it. People need to realize that there will always be a portion of the population of the kids that will not get to these facilities no matter what is constructed. Will there be options for kids to get there ie the bus?, I hope so. I do believe they should place it at Spellerberg and require the swimming groups to get their behinds going fundraising – just like the tennis and ice facility groups. There is plenty of land, it is centrally located, and the bus system does go by there several times a day. As long as there is a private funding component – I think this can be a very nice asset to our city.

#17 Scott on 07.06.11 at 8:34 am

Good luck with the busing idea.

#18 Alice15 on 07.06.11 at 1:50 pm

Just an idea.

#19 l3wis on 07.06.11 at 2:00 pm

If you did it with the school district YOU COULD have a busing program using their buses. So it isn’t a bad idea, but using SAM would be next to impossible.

#20 So how long will it take the SF media to manipulate this survey? — South DaCola on 01.15.13 at 10:58 am

[…] I pointed out the last time the city did a survey, the media and the city council used the results to go on a campaign of half-truths to […]

Leave a Comment