Dear Editor, I read with interest The Times
’ recent editorial about building the library first with RDA
money, and then columnist Wes Rolley echoed much the same sentiment
a week later. Now I would like to add my two cents.
Dear Editor,
I read with interest The Times’ recent editorial about building the library first with RDA money, and then columnist Wes Rolley echoed much the same sentiment a week later. Now I would like to add my two cents.
A year ago we were in Menlo Park one Saturday for a water polo tournament, and since we had some time between games, I wanted to see the city park where they have their city hall, police department, library, community theater, recreation center, etc. It was such a lovely setting, and so convenient with all the city buildings close together (and close to town).
We visited their newly expanded library that had such a wonderful atmosphere and was teeming with people. We then walked next door to the recreation center. The place was empty, and when I spoke with the man behind the desk, he told me it was usually like that on the weekends. They had a wide range of activities offered, but few people came independently of the activities.
My concern is that the proposed $23 million indoor recreation center that Morgan Hill wants to build is duplicating many of our existing facilities and will end up being too expensive to run unless they charge such high usage fees that they become unaffordable for the most needy citizens, and other residents seek better deals.
We are already blessed with a wonderful Aquatic Center, and both of our high schools will have new large pools – how many pools does a town of 33,000 need? Instead of building an indoor pool complex, wouldn’t it make more sense to maximize the use of the existing Aquatic Center and put a bubble over the instructional pool during the winter, so water aerobics and tiny tot classes can be held in it during the cold months?
Furthermore, why do we want facilities spread all over town? Having services co-located with other facilities benefits the residents and are likely to cost less to manage.
At one point, the council was thinking of eliminating the gymnasium in the indoor rec center, so I went to the city council meeting to argue that a gymnasium is what is needed most, especially for residents who cannot afford club sports. They agreed to keep the gymnasium in the plans, but they will probably have to charge such high usage fees. The kids who really need to go there will not be able to, so what’s the point?
A library, on the other hand, is a free facility to its users and costs the city nothing to maintain. It is the perfect facility to put close to a youth center and senior center because it attracts all ages. Why not convert our old library for youth uses? The location is perfect because it is so close to Britton, St. Catherine’s, and P.A. Walsh (no schools are in the vicinity of the other site) and near enough for hundreds of children to walk to after school.
In these difficult financial times, creative ideas of how to make the most of what we already have are more important than spending tens of millions on new facilities that may or may not bring in the revenue necessary to keep them going.
I hope the city council rethinks the indoor rec center (postpones building it or at least modifying it for more effective usage) and makes building the library a priority.
Brooke Bailey, Morgan Hill
