Fort Scott Tribune

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Dive In

Posted Wednesday, May 30, 2007, at 10:57 AM
<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>

Driving home yesterday I saw signs in yards encouraging people to "Vote No" on June 5 to increasing taxes, an obvious campaign against the proposed aquatic center.

I am all for the freedom of speech, obviously. But it amazes me how some people seem to have nothing better to do than to work against people that are trying to do something good.

I personally think this is an ignorant and selfish attitude.

I hate to break it to the people who don't want a tax increase -- if you want anything in Fort Scott to improve, you are going to have to pay for it in some capacity. Having watched other community pass a quality of life sales tax increase, it seems the best choice.

Not only do current citizens pay for the quality of life improvements, but as the sales tax exists over a number of years, all younger and new citizens that grow into our community will reap the benefits of it, in this case, the aquatic center and economic development, and will also pay for it with the increased sales tax. Not to mention the people that pass through and visit will also pay for the improvements through the sales tax. And it is a sales tax -- not a property tax.

Or I guess we could all just have the mindset to do nothing. Let's stay stagnant and let Fort Scott continue as it is or slowly die off. Let's not have the courage and ambition to do anything new to promote growth and attraction and -- economic development -- for our community and our upcoming generations.

This is also not to say that the City of Fort Scott cannot find better or more creative ways to control its budget and search out avenues to improve areas throughout the community. But the City of Fort Scott also cannot do everything itself, nor should it. That is what the grassroots effort of the Fort Scott Community Visioning, in which the AquaVision action team is a part of, is all about. This is OUR community. Let's act like it. If we want Fort Scott to be a better place to live, work and play -- we should show our support, even it if is from our checkbooks. So I challenge those who create, promote and display the "Vote No" signs -- What are you doing to improve Fort Scott? I'd be interested to know.

This blog isn't about being pro-aquatic center -- although I, as an individual and a member of the Fort Scott Community Visioning Steering Committee, am in favor of it. It is about being pro-Fort Scott. Think of the possibilities of how great our community can be if everyone put their efforts into improving it instead of fighting against it.

If you are for the proposed aquatic center, I urge you to get out and vote. This is YOUR community. Let your voice be heard.

Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

I think one needs to look around town and see just who has been putting up "NO" signs before deciding that they all share a common ground of working against the good of Fort Scott. One in particular has given more to Fort Scott than most could ever think of. To consider her ignorant or selfish would be crazy. But of course that is only one person. There are business owners and people who have lived here for a long time included in this. This possible tax increase will affect ALL of us. Why only have the "yes" signs up? You are right- we have the freedom of speech. So why is it when someone believes something else, you can't let them just own their opinion and you yours? A person's vote on Tuesday does not determine whether you are for/ against Fort Scott, just that you do/ do not want to pay 8.3% on the dollar here.

-- Posted by staceya on Sat, Jun 2, 2007, at 2:34 PM

I did not prove your point anymore than you disproved my point.

Their projections being off by 10% is not pessimistic it is realistic, why is it being ignored?

Obviously I would actually love to be wrong, I have everything to win and nothing to lose by being so.

You are saying that we should not look at the possible downsides, be blindly optimistic and keep our collective heads in the sand.

I am not a pessimist,I'm a realist and believe we should look at the whole picture,realistic,optimistic and pessimistic so we can make an informed and balanced decision.

The very real risks should be open to discussion and not avoided and or covered up.

When I am discredited,insulted and personally attacked for pointing out obvious risks out of genuine concern instead of simply addressing said concerns it raises the question of credibility with the proponants of this project.

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Fri, Jun 1, 2007, at 3:49 PM

You proved my point when you said "if" they are wrong by just 10 percent. Well, what IF they are wrong in a good way? What if the aquatic center is more successful than anyone imagines? Then what? If you want to be a pessimist, then go ahead. But don't say you "know" it will be a disaster when you have to say "if" something goes wrong here or there. We will never know how successful it will be unless we get it.

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Fri, Jun 1, 2007, at 2:15 PM

With all due respect I would like to present a very simple fact concerning the financial numbers.

I dare say, it is so easy to figure out a "caveman" can do it.

Revenues are projected to be $530,000. and on that revenue the projected loss is $56,000.

No one can predict with 100% certainty(but that is what they not me are doing) that our revenues will actually be $530,000. So, if they are wrong by just 10% which is not unrealistic our yearly loss will not be just $56,000. it will be $56,000 plus $53,000 more to equal $109,000 a year loss.

Expenses will not go down exponentially if sales fall 10% short of projections because of the fixed costs associated with this center.

Prove me wrong, and I will joyfully stand corrected!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Fri, Jun 1, 2007, at 1:54 PM

How do you know the aquatic center will be a financial disaster for Fort Scott? Who are you to say that you know exactly what impact it will have on this town? The only real fact here is that too many people in this town are too afraid to try anything that may involve a little risk. News flash: risk is involved in anything that happens. Putting a Wal Mart Supercenter in town had risk. Building a Walgreens involves risk. If you want to say you are against an increased sales tax, fine. At least that is a concrete argument. But don't try to say you know that the new pool would be a financial disaster. You don't know what the impact will be. Neither do I. Neither does Kale Nelson or Dave Martin or anyone else on that committee. But at least they are trying. They aren't content with passing on anything that may help this small town because of the risk it might not go well. I would imagine that many towns or any projects that eventually die do so because too many people are too afraid to try something new. Another fact is that Fort Scott needs a new pool. So why doesn't this town rally behind this effort and support something that just might turn out to be a good thing for this town. The aquatic center will for sure fail if nobody gives it a chance. Maybe that is what people want. Maybe they want this to fail. I'd venture to say the kids don't, though. I'd venture to say that a high number of people are looking forward to finally having something fun to do here. You say the pool will fail. But with the attitude of too many people in Fort Scott, what new project wouldn't fail? You can't succeed if you never try.

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Fri, Jun 1, 2007, at 1:45 PM

I love the idea of a new aquatic center!

I too appreciate it whenever people volunteer their time for the betterment of their town.

Research has shown the financial numbers are not do-able, and when I point out this concern I am labeled as negative and unprogressive rather than one who has a sincere interest in the ultimate welfare of this community too.

I am sincere about what I believe is good for the community as well as you or anybody.

You say there should not be "all this negative talk about something that will be so positive for this town."

The facts are this aquatic center will itself not be "positive for this town" if it creates a financial disaster for us. That is a very real risk that the proponants of this refuse to address.

I can understand why people meet resistance when they claim conspiracy theories and use emotions to argue against this proposal but why are people attacked for presenting facts concerning the real financial risks associated with this venture?

The originator of this blog personally did this with her letter when she claimed that all the people against this proposal "have nothing better to do", and have "an ignorant and selfish attitude." How is this positive, and where is the substance in these baseless and insulting attacks?

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Fri, Jun 1, 2007, at 1:28 PM

Talk all you want about the streets in this town. The fact is that the streets have been bad for 20 years, and nothing has ever been done to fix them. At least these people on the Aqua Vision Committee are trying to do something to help keep Fort Scott as a place people would want to come. Change is needed in many places in this town. The pool is one of those places. So instead of all this negative talk about something that will be so positive for this town, maybe people should be embracing and thanking the people that have worked so hard for so long to finally get something done in this town.

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Fri, Jun 1, 2007, at 8:38 AM

pegles,

I sure wish you would apply your argument concerning constantly deteriorating facilities to the conditions of the city streets.

Your comments about repairing facilities such as a pool will be relevant to a new pool as well, and sooner than you may think. You see once something is built and starts getting used by the general public it deteriorates much more rapidly than a home, eg of a couple with no children. This is especially true when highly chlorinated water which is very caustic is in abundance, eg a city pool.

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Thu, May 31, 2007, at 10:01 PM

OK - you're right. I'm sorry. My intention was not a personal attack on anyone, and its obviously been taken that way. That was my purpose in my clarification, but again that was misinterpreted - probably by my own words.

I agree, pool repairs should not take precedence over your assigned report. And I am thrilled that the swim team received a wonderful photo in the paper. I thought the irony of pool repairs being performed while kids were swimming would have also made an interesting photo. However, obviously, that would have created a skewed news report in your opinion. Again - no offense was intended. My comment about "what's wrong with this picture?" was not directed at you personally or the paper as a business - it was directed at the current state of the pool and our city being forced to throw money into repairing a constantly deteriorating facility instead of building toward our future. It was the safety and irony of the situation - not you and not the paper.

-- Posted by pegles on Thu, May 31, 2007, at 7:46 PM

Why does everybody think that they know what a reporter should do or not do? Unless you have ever worked in that profession, how can you even begin to tell someone how he or she should do his or her job? I'd venture to guess that reporters don't tell doctors how to examine a patient, or tell a teacher what subject they should teach on any given day. If the guy was there to take photos of the swim team, then that's what he was there to do. Why should he have to do something somebody suggests, especially when that person probably has his or her own agenda or interest in the matter?

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Thu, May 31, 2007, at 4:58 PM

OK..I don't want this to go on forever, because this whole thing will be over in less than a week (hopefully) but don't you think, Pegles, that you might have an agenda behind repairs being done at the swimming pool, since it's quite obvious that you are an avid supporter of the new aquatic center? First off, when I talked to a pool official there, that person said that repairs are routine there every spring, which I agree is not a good thing and probably warrants the need for a new pool. Considering myself a decent reporter, I routinely try to seek out and report the important news in our community, although I haven't been following the aquatic center avidly, because other Tribune reporters have been covering that issue. On your notion of covering local events, if I go to take a photo or write a story about a giant watermelon that someone in the area is growing, and a fatal car accident takes place, I will go cover the car wreck since that is obviously more important. However, in this situation, I don't think typical routine repairs to the pool took precedence over my assignment, which was to nab a photo for the paper that day. Now granted, I did return to the newsroom later that day and reported my findings to the other reporter who has written numerous articles about the aquatic center. But it just seems kind of obvious why someone who is Pro-aquatic center to want negative publicity for the pool, be it a "news" story or not, which I really don't think it was since they are typical yearly repairs. Maybe it's just bad timing that these repairs are going on during a time when a new aquatic center is being discussed and proposed. So, place your agenda aside for a moment and consider this: Is it worth giving a legitimate business negative publicity to possibly earn a few more "yes" votes next Tuesday? If you feel that strongly about a new aquatic center, write a letter to the editor stating your opinion, which is your right, but don't criticize me for not reporting the important "news."

-- Posted by scsa316 on Thu, May 31, 2007, at 4:55 PM

First, let me state that I realize you were not there to report on the pool repairs but were there to take photos of the swim team (as I indicated in my original blog). However, isn't the responsibility of a reporter to report the news and activities of our local community??? I guess my point is that if a reporter sees a story develop while along their journey for one article/photo they should pursue both stories, even if one of them is potentially controversial.

-- Posted by pegles on Thu, May 31, 2007, at 4:32 PM

Pegles- Just so you know (and you already might) I was the member of the Tribune staff who took the photos of the Fort Scott swim team on Thursday morning. I was assigned to take photos this morning for the front page of our paper, and I had to search in the community for a photo. I knew the pool opened this week so I headed down to take photos of kids practicing, swim lessons, etc. I had no prior information that city workers would be present working on the pool. My sole intention was to take photos of kids in the pool, regardless of what repairs were taking place. What irritates me I guess is all this hubbub about the aquatic center, because I cannot lean one way or the other, and because I'm a journalist, if I did that, it would appear that the newspaper is biased one way or another towards construction of the center, and we obviously don't want that (although many people in the community have already formed their own opinions about us regarding this and other issues). Now I'm not saying it's not newsworthy that the old pool is undergoing repairs, and it's true that we possibly need a new pool (I know many kids say we do) but I just wanted to clarify that that wasn't my intent that particular morning. But maybe repairs at the pool is a whole different story altogether. I guess we'll find out next week whether the whole mess this thing created was really worth it, and even then, will it really die there, even if the idea for the center doesn't pass? I guess I'm just saddened by the amount of negativity the aquatic center issue has generated in our community. Another thing I've noticed is that many people criticize Tribune reporters (myself included) for being biased, for not reporting the whole story or all of the facts in a story, or for being one-sided. I firmly believe that if these people did this job even for one day, they would understand the things that journalists go through, in what is often a thankless profession. I know there are a chosen few out there who appreciate the service we provide our community. And don't criticize someone's else's job performance if they are not criticizing yours, it's simply unfair. If you don't fully understand a person's job duties and what our job as a newspaper is, please keep your comments to yourself. Thank you.

-- Posted by scsa316 on Thu, May 31, 2007, at 11:10 AM

Very well said Tabatha . . . and appropriate to the community mindedness that we need to have in order for our town to grow, heck to even survive. It is sad to think of what we used to have in Fort Scott and where it is now.

Now for my perspective on the pool itself. My daughter is on the swim team and this morning at 8am she was at the pool and ready for team practice. Shortly after, several city workers showed up to begin working on a water leak under the pool deck. Concrete saws and jackhammers in hand working on repairing the water lines that go along with a deteriorating older pool. Shortly later, a member of the Tribune staff arrived to take some photos of the swim team for the paper. I was disappointed to learn that he would not take pictures of the ironic reality of a city worker working on the pool deck with a concrete saw while the swim team was in the water practicing. Some people were afraid it would stir controversy about the proposed auqatic center . . . I think it showcases the sad state of our mindset that we're afraid to speak out and say "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE???"

It's time to stop throwing money into repairing a constantly deteriorating facility and start building toward our future.

Another noticeable issue this summer is the complete absence of ALL diving boards and notices that NO DIVING is allowed at the pool. These are also the result of an older pool which does not meet current insurance standards for safety. The pool is not deep enough for safe diving off a board, and the ledges around the edge make diving off the edge unsafe according to insurance standards.

Please get out and vote anytime between now and Tuesday June 5. It is important for our future.

-- Posted by pegles on Thu, May 31, 2007, at 10:37 AM

My thoughts exactly. Well written. I hope with all my might this thing passes on Tuesday, and I'm not even from here.

-- Posted by The Union Forever on Thu, May 31, 2007, at 8:23 AM

You've surely put enough bait in this article to provoke a response from somebody besides myself.

Unfortunately that is all the substance there is to this blog.

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, May 30, 2007, at 8:06 PM