As long as the proposed swim center remains tied to the Ellis project, its future will remain uncertain, given the legal vulnerabilities and challenges that face the Ellis project.
Councilman Steve Abercrombie was right when he commented to the swim center advocates present at the meeting that, regardless of what actions the council takes with respect to Surland’s proposal, they would be subject to legal challenge and the swim center will not be built any time soon.
Given the legal challenges facing Ellis, the council wisely chose to consider other funding options for the construction of the swim center that are not necessarily tied to the Ellis project. At the end of the day, this would make Ellis just another development project, which is how it should have been treated all along.It is time to place a referendum on the ballot for the citizens of this town to decide whether they wish to have a swim center constructed as envisioned by the swim center advocates. If so, how do we fund both the construction and ongoing operating costs?
In light of Stockton’s recent filing for bankruptcy protection, and the fact that we continue to struggle with our ongoing budget shortfall, the overall impact of a swim center on the Tracy’s general fund needs to be known.
Only if the citizens of Tracy agree that the swim center is a priority and they are willing to pay for it, should it be considered. Then it would truly be community effort and could then be built sooner than if tied to the Ellis project.
If, on the other hand, the voters do not approve funding of both construction and operation of a swim center, there is no need to waste additional time and effort. The city could then turn its attention to focusing on the development and economic growth needed to balance the city budget, while maintaining public safety and services. The people will have spoken.
We need to provide our City Council with clear direction and a commitment to pay for this amenity in order to get this issue resolved. The proposal for a swim center has languished about for 20 years, with little to show for it other than studies, lawsuits and, in the end, nothing accomplished. The byproduct of which has been mistrust, accusations, personal attacks and the frustration that comes with having nothing to show for the considerable time and money spent.
In a democracy, voters decide what is best for them. It is time for the people to do just that with the swim center — get behind it, or put it aside and move forward with the important budget and quality of life issues confronting our city.
• Dave Helm is a retired police officer and local resident.
Ya don't really have ta wait fer Serpa or Ives or anyone else ta muster th strength ta put this issue on th ballot. But it's gonna require a little personal legwork an elbow grease ta get it on th ballot an perhaps people don't really care enough either way ta get that done.
Just get up a petition ta have th matter placed before th voters on th ballot an be done with th silly banter about who should do what, why an when.
This thang about a swimmin facility has gone on fer close ta two decades an it seems Tracy is no closer or further away from decidin th matter. How many more generations of children need ta grow inta adults before somethang as simple as a swim center is decided?
An we all know th main reason it's been on hold fer years now now don't we? An it has nothin what so ever ta do with traffic, aircraft or anythang else like that an everythang ta do with someone not bein able ta make a wad of cash with thair own personal aspirations by keepin it frum goin forward.
Would have been nice ta sit in a nice cool pool yesterday when it was 109.
Wouldn't you say that is a bit of a reach? I certainly will.
So... has there been a recent study on the financial viability of a pool/aquatic park? If it supports itself, then great... build away. If taxpayers are going to be asked to pony up, then I doubt it would pass a vote. Although I could be very wrong considering that people like the idea of a bullet train in this state. Of course that is a comment for another article.
That's right. Let the developer pay the legal fees. Why should I vote for a referendum if I would end up paying for it out of my pocket.
If the slow growth movement wants to fight two lawsuits then let them spin their wheels.
Even the judge will one day tell them to go jump in a lake.
Perhaps if you wordsmithed it to read more like this...
Do we want to finance it the way the Tracy Press said Stockton financed the parking garages.
I think the answer is clear, rayderfan. If you did not support Measure E this would be the icing on the cake.
Anytime the taxpayers do not have to pay for it they will vote appropriately.
Meaning, if you think a referendum will save the taxpayers money then the idea may get validated outside the coffee shops.
Otherwise, like I said, it simply wont hatch.
If it loses then how will Ives justify giving Les all of those RGA's, and how will Les justify all the campaign contributions he has made to help Ives get elected?
You see, putting it on the ballot is the only way to take it out of Ives' hands and finally get it built.
First. Nowhere did I trash anyone and it is certainly not fair to assume so.
Second. It's a fair question to ask someone if they care. But No. It's not fair to say I do not care either way.
When I said I do not care. I meant, that I do not care about a referendum. Why should I ? It solves nothing.
Tell me one thing. Who cares about a referendum, besides someone wanting someone else to do it?
It is a waste of time. And it certainly does not guarantee the lawsuits won't stop.
Now, tell me can you, or anyone else guarantee that the lawsuits will stop?
That is why the referendum NEver got off the ground. And never will.
But, if you author it, I will vote on it.
I did not say it was a good idea. I just said it is not a new idea.
A "referendum" can be put on the ballot by ANYONE.
I don't really care.
If you are agitated by a developer covering the cost, then be my guest.
It's not my problem.
Bird_Man has keyed in on something you missed. This should be more about the cost. In fact, it always was, until right before election season.
What happened is the idea of a pool costing the taxpayers sounded like polished talking points, until people were told the TP supported the Grand, and it's not doing so bad. And the TP conceded that people also want this ammenity too.
Then the talking points shifted, because nobody wants to be the one to pee in our public pool idea. Well, actually, there are a few people. But who is going to admit to being part of the pool killi g movement? Especially when the pool will replace the cost of the one we already have.
Then, there is the overthetop, rayderfan camp, that says let's get out of the parks/rec/pool business altogether.
Let's be honest. This is really about a lie told to us by pool opposition that the pool will hurt the airport.
The fact is, we've heard nothing but one convoluted argument after another. I just attempted to inject some sanity back into the mochas and lattees.
Let the people of Tracy decide, not the elected officials who obviously use this project as a carrot on a stick to get voters to elect them. Those elected officials who do so know who they are (Mayor Ives).