HomeMy WebLinkAbout112223 email Aquatic centerALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Commissioners,
I wasn't planning on submitting an opinion about this issue until I was encouraged to do so from a recent email from the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition.
Thank you for your thorough approach to this issue. After looking through the Healthier Together proposal, it is clear to me that whatever the economic feasibility study is will be focused
on serving the "Primary User Group". Isn't it ironic that they can't do it without the "Secondary User Group"? If a large part of the funding will be coming from outside the primary
user group area, why should it be harder for them to use it? Where is the incentive for the "Secondary User Group" to support a project that doesn't even have them in mind as anything
other than "Secondary"?
I have a dual perspective as a person who works in Port Townsend and lives in Quilcene. I moved here in 2008 and realize that the Growth Management Act was driving a lot of the land
use issues and that the Port Hadlock (tri-area) is where the future density was be planned for. Now with the sewer coming, those plans are unfolding and will be attracting more density.
As Commissioners, in an un-incorporated area such as the tri-area, how will you help that community look like what its people want? Wouldn't it be amazing to see a community center that
draws folks in for healthy living? I would definitely rather see that than seeing chain stores and corporate conveniences. If fast food is coming, wouldn't a blend of the corporate
and community be a nice balance? Please help our services reflect the values of the community.
Yes, the current density is in Port Townsend. Although the plans for density in the tri-area didn't match the timeline of reality, there are places you could consider (the county park
by the tri-area community center, Chimacum Creek Primary...the consolidated school could reabsorb those grades, what is the area north of the County Library going to be used for?) Since
a County project like this should serve the county, think about what the benefits to non-traditionally served populations would be.
Also, if entities like the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition want to support swimming, they can be doing a lot more than investing all of their time and money to this aquatic center. They
could do more to support the YMCA in providing services now. They could also be more true to their origin, when people were swimming in outdoor locations.
Speaking of the YMCA, they have offered a "Safety Around Water" class at the Quilcene Yacht Club and could be doing more of that kind of thing. Yes, open water lessons require a higher
level of lifeguard training, but many county residents could greatly benefit from programs like that to support water safety as well as swimming opportunities.
If the city of Port Townsend wants an aquatic center, that's great! Let them figure out how to build it in a way that makes sense. If they want county users to pay a higher entrance
fee to offset that cost, that seems reasonable. However, because the driving distance is roughly the same from Quilcene to Sequim or Silverdale as it is to Port Townsend, what will
the draw be to encourage county users to make the drive into Port Townsend?
It's sad to see the way the community has decided that outside firms know better how to build things here than people here. Our community is creative and sentimental and ready to make
old things keep working. We don't always have to tear everything down to make something better. If structures are unsound, yes fine, but re-use what you can to make things beautiful.
We don't have to go corporate and make everything cost $30-50 million.
Kingdoms need palaces, communities need things that work for them. Please keep our community working for its people and avoid becoming a kingdom.
Thanks,
Dana Nixon