FOTP Letter To The Editor 8/9/2023

[Fun CH]

The last paragraph of the above reply letter discusses bond debt that tax payers with be paying off with interest should proposition one pass

The law that covers how tax payers will owe an enormous amount money (debt with interest) as the Metropolitan Park District issues bonds to construct the Mega Spa is covered in the link below.

https://pasayten.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p ... be7#p10680

[Fun CH]

This reply was sent to MVN editor Don Nelson who indicated that he would not publish it as he doesn't want a back and forth debate and he only publishes one letter per month from any one person.

This letter was sent to me to post here.

"Dear Editor: I was very disappointed in Friend of the Pool’s (FOP) rebuttal of Steve Oulman’s August 2nd letter to the editor. I re-read the letter and think Mr. Oulman made some good points (points that the rebuttal did not address). Rather than address those points, FOP chose to make ill-thought-out inferences of what Mr. Oulman actually said. For example, “Mr. Oulman implies that buildings that support the public good are extravagant.” Really, he said that? What does that even mean? Bullying good people like Steve will not help FOP’s campaign. I appreciate and thank the FOP board members who did not sign that rebuttal letter.

The proposition on this fall’s ballot does not address the issue of whether or not a new pool is a necessity. Almost all of us, including Mr. Oulman, believe a replacement for the aging Wagner pool is necessary. One look at the happy out-of-school children playing in the pool on a 90 degree day would convince almost everybody of that.

The real issues are twofold. First, why was a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) chosen as the means to run and fund the pool? FOP stated in the rebuttal letter that “The District will be beholden to the taxpayers and will conduct business with transparency and accountability.” If that is true, let us vote on a type of recreation district that will ensure accountability.

The second issue is cost, of which all of the people in the valley should be able to have some say. The FOP in their rebuttal letter wrote, “Mr. Oulman implies that we are asking the public to foot the bill of building the pool. Not so!” Really? How many people know that FOP’s own Feasibility Study states “..it is likely that debt issued by the MPD will be a prominent source of capital.” Isn’t that asking the public to foot the bill for building the pool? Is this an example of FOP transparency?"

[pasayten]

Here is your chance to respond to the FOTP Letter to the Editor in Methow Valley News 8/9/2023

A community asset

Dear Editor:

There are two things in Steve Oulman’s letter to the editor last week that we agree on: Vote in November, and learn about the details of the Methow

Aquatics District.

Mr. Oulman implies that buildings that support the public good are extravagant. He questions the need for an indoor pool and asks “is this a priority for our community?” There is a clear answer to this question.

Public swimming pools are not an extravagant luxury, they are a public necessity.

Like schools and libraries, public pools are a critical part of a social infrastructure that build community and protect public health. Public pools are democratic because they exist for everyone: children, adults, seniors, athletes, people with disabilities, wealthy people and low-income people. Public pools support play, health, well-being, community, and, most importantly, safety. They are a refuge from heat and smoke. Public pools are preventative health care in action.

Over years of public input, Friends of the Pool consistently heard that the community wanted year-round swimming. The concept has not spun out of control, as Mr. Oulman suggests, but was developed with careful consideration and expert advice.

This desire for year-round swimming emerges from the experience of lost summers to smoke and a climate that prevents swimming the remaining nine months of the year. An enclosed space to keep out the cold and smoke will benefit more people in our community, more of the time.

While we advocate for a year-round option, voting yes won’t guarantee it. Mr Oulman implies that we are asking the public to foot the bill of building the pool. Not so! Voting yes on the aquatics district will create the public entity necessary to carry this important work forward. The district will be beholden to the taxpayers, and will conduct business with transparency and accountability. The district will hold public hearings, conduct more studies, and gather more information to make final decisions regarding what the future Methow Aquatics Center will be.

If you believe in a vibrant valley that invests in their own well-being, then vote yes to approve the Methow Aquatics District and let’s grow in health together.

Jessica Kuzma, Sarah Schrock, Ken Malloch, Alisa Malloch, Miles Milken, Kellie Zahn, Ray Johnston, Justin Porter