Proposal to Keep County Pools Open Emerges, Conservative Talk Show Hosts Reflexively Label Public Pools “Socialist”
A proposal from several County Supervisors is circulating which will not only keep County pools open, but actually improve upon them, deserves serious consideration:
Joined by dozens of frequent pool users at Pulaski Indoor Pool this morning, Milwaukee County Supervisors Marina Dimitrijevic, Johnny L. Thomas, John F. Weishan, Jr., and Chris Larson announced their long-term aquatic plan on behalf of Milwaukee County residents. The Supervisors developed the plan as an alternative to County Executive Scott Walker’s 2010 budget proposal, which calls for the permanent closure of the Pulaski and Noyes indoor pools, along with a number of outdoor deep-well pools.
“Earlier this year, when the County Executive tried to close these pools during the busy summer months, only to reverse his decision after massive public outcry, we said that we would develop more creative solutions for these pools in the 2010 Budget,” Supervisor Thomas said. “We fulfilled that promise by bringing forward this plan, which provides more aquatic options and greater flexibility for residents all across Milwaukee County.”
The plan, which will be introduced as a 2010 Budget Amendment later this month, restores funding for the Pulaski and Noyes indoor pools, as well as Holler, Jackson, Pelican Cove and Washington Park outdoor pools, cancels the proposed South Side Family Aquatic Center, and calls for the design and construction of two indoor water parks at Pulaski and Noyes. The plan also provides $1.5 million in capital funding for a number of deferred pool repairs.
In addition to Supervisors Larson, Thomas, Dimitrijevic and Weishan, I’ve also learned that at least two other Supervisors have signed on as co-sponsors of the proposal, bringing support up to at least a 1/3rd of the County Board.
Meanwhile, the usual suspects on conservative talk radio are using the debate about public swimming pools to bring up “socialism”, and yes, their argument is about as ridiculous as you can imagine. While pundits like Jay Weber use their microphone to whine that “the elderly and poor little brown skinned children” should just go find a bathtub to cool off in because your personal ideology prevents you from supporting any tax funded program that you personally don’t use may endear you to the “kill off Government” crowd, the simple fact is that tens of thousands of people use things like public pools and most rational people understand the benefit they provide to the community.
This is pretty much the same argument I hear from time to time from some conservatives that goes like this: “Well I don’t have kids that go to public schools, why should I pay property taxes for them”.
You can substitute pools and schools for all sorts of things if you follow that line of thought, buses, parks, roads, fire engines, but the fact is that as a society we’ve come to accept that services – some of which many people may not use themselves – are in fact beneficial to the community and society as a whole.
It’s always surprised me that some, like my pal Jay Weber, don’t see things the same way. I’ve never used the services of the Milwaukee fire department personally, and hope I never have to. Does that mean I should be proclaiming that since we all have to pay taxes for it but only a small percentage of the population DOES use that service, it’s a socialist program which I shouldn’t have to pay for?
Most people would say, “of course not” because they understand the value that services which they may never use themselves provide. Whether it’s pools, schools, highways or fire trucks, we’ve accepted that, and instead of trying to score political points or whip up faux outrage over “socialist Government programs” like the fire department, those on the right should work with us to make sure they’re delivered in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
It’s a long stretch to substitute schools for public pools and I doubt that you can find very many conservatives who advocate ending public education. You really don’t need to put so much of a spin on the argument. Rather than spinning disingenuous comparisons, why don’t you try addressing the point and answering real questions on the issue.
How many people use the public indoor pools? What are the taxpayers paying, per swim, for something that is clearly a luxury item…especially in a time of revenue shortage? Perhaps people should be paying the actual cost themselves instead of having a swimming pool subsidy. We have to cut something, I would think starting with luxuries would be the best idea.
Dan, I know you got my point. These pools are such an incredibe cost..to everyone…so that just a few people can take a cheap dip..that it’s silly.
We taxpayers pay for all sorts of things we never use, but do we have to be happy about really WASTEFUL uses of taxpayer money that almost NO ONE ever uses?
Jay, that’s a reason I’m calling you out on this. You seem to think that the only reason people use these pools are to “take a dip”, which is a statement that just doesn’t hold water nor does it show a full understanding what these pools are used for.
It’s more than just “the elderly and brown skinned kids” looking to cool off who use these two pools in particular. Noyes Pool is used by literally thousands of seniors not for the purpose of “taking a dip” but to rehab either from surgery or to alleviate the conditions they suffer.
For seniors on a fixed income, they can’t simply afford to join the Y or pay the membership fees for a private club. Nor can they just “use the local high school pool” like a few of your colleagues suggested today (which just show that they’re trying to be authoritative about a subject they clearly have no understanding about) because the “high school pool” doesn’t have ramps they can walk down or slide a special wheelchair in.
For many of these folks, our parents and grandparents, there is no other option to the kind of services that are provided at Noyes and Polaski pools.
The same goes for the pool at Holler Park, which you’re also lumping in as one of the pools which should be closed because they “don’t make money”. If you knew that Holler Park pool, run by Milwaukee County, was one of the few pools in the state that is accessible to those with disabilities (it’s ADA complaint) and primarily serves those with cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy because it’s specially built for those with disabilities, I wonder if your tune might change.
Would you be the first out there telling them to pony up out of the pocket to benefit from the therapy the pool provides? Would you be telling their parents, “There will be no smiles on your kids faces today because I want to save SIXTY SEVEN CENTS on my property taxes this year!”
As I’ve said before, that’s the difference between us I guess. I see the way that the $0.67 of my property tax bill that goes to Noyes and Pulaski pools can benefit thousands of people who I’ll never meet, many of whom are dealing with the kind of disabilities that if my family were ever unfortunate enough to have to deal with, I’d hope that other people would see it the same way I do.
So that’s the question I have for you guys I guess, and I hope it explains my position a bit more clearly. I have no problem paying such a small amount of money in taxes to support a service that brings a small amount of joy to such a large number of people.
Dan, you are spinning again. No smiles on your kids faces… just shameless. The Y offers low cost to free programs for seniors on fixed incomes… as well as classes and therapy to help them. Spin. Only .67? Perhaps the county should buy everyone an ice cream cone while they are at the pool. That would bring additional smiles for only .25. Isn’t that worth it too? How about a clown and a magician… just a few more dollars a day. Maybe a pony ride? Spread out over the whole county, it would cost just another dime per taxpayer… isn’t it worth it for the smiles on the kids faces? No? Why do you hate the children so much?
Do you get my drift, Dan? The nickels and dimes you keep adding result in dollars and hundreds of dollars per person. That money comes right out the pocket of the senior on a fixed income, and gets added in to the rent that a low income family pays. Sorry kids, the rent went up again. Christmas will be a bit bare this year, but at least a few people got to go to that luxury indoor pool in January.
Stop parading the sickly seniors and sad children. That liberal tactic is a bit old and a bit beneath you.
The money that comes to support Pulaski and Noyes park comes out of all property tax payers pockets, the seniors on fixed incomes included, you’re right.
The the amount of money that comes out of their pockets to support those pools is two quarters, a dime, a nickel, and two pennies. Per year.
It’s not about a “bare Christmas” or “luxury pools” either.
So like I said, we disagree. I’m willing to pay 67 cents a year to give disabled kids and seniors a place to swim. I think most people, yourself and Jay apparently excluded, don’t have a problem with that either.
If we follow the line of reasoning you are using, Dan, then we can NEVER cut anything from the budget. Every cut will affect someone, and the people that advocate for those things will use the same dishonest tactic that you seem to favor… it’s for the elderly, the disabled, the nuns, the orphans… why do you want to deny the needy their entitlement?
We need to cut things. We need to give taxpayers a break. We need to rid ourselves of duplicated services, and privatize things that the government should not provide… like luxury indoor heated pools and water parks, and many many other things.
How does your willingness to pay for all this garbage turn into my requirement to pay for it? We don’t all have endless paychecks…
“Joined by dozens of frequent pool users at Pulaski Indoor Pool . . .”. So does this mean that 36 people showed up to support this? 48?
You stated that (some) “services . . . are in fact beneficial to the community and society as a whole.” I also agree that the pools are beneficial to our county, but the question to ask in these trouble economic times is ‘are they essential’?
To compare the benefits received by swimming pools to those of fire departments is patently unfair. I too have never used a fire dept’s service, however I don’t want to live without them and am willing to pay taxes for them. I’ve have also never used our county’s Medical Center, but I don’t want to live without that either and am willing to pay for it. Now I have used the pools when our children were younger. Then, like now, I realize that these aren’t essential services. Closing a few pools would be like cutting one dinner out per month to help balance the monthly family budget. I certainly wouldn’t spend the money earmarked for my electric bill just so I could go out for dinner that one extra time.
I have to assume that your answer to balancing the county budget while saving the pools would be to “raise taxes”. We have unemployment nudging 10%, taxes and fees at all levels of government are going up, if health care passes, our taxes will go up to pay for that, if Cap & Trade passes our energy bills will go up (and kill even more jobs), our auto insurance rates in WI just went up thanks to new legislation coming out of Madison.
At some point, we have to be responsible as a society and say “no new taxes” and start making some sacrifices. I would be very interested in hearing what your answers are to balancing the county budget.
Your arguing over pocket change when the missed opportunities really add up. We could share the county wide information systems and communications networks, like they do in Marathon County. We could have one emergency call center. We could get rid of separate county highway and municipal public works departments.
Walker could have done all this from day one through cooperation and good faith negotiations with labor and the municipalities rather than his bully tactics of cutting services to the needy and bashing unions.
He is playing to the crowd that puts personal greed above social justice. It is not leadership, its demagoguery. His followers can’t see the forest from the trees, they are blinded by self-interest.
The Whiskey Rebellion is over. Government requires taxes. Stop playing with over sized pencils and stamps and work together on making government efficient rather than trying to drowned it in a bathtub.
The Walker “movement” is nothing but a bunch of selfish tax-cutting anarchist, some whose attitudes border on insurrection.
And not just borders on sociopathy but is living well with in it.
How has Reaganomics been working out for ya, which is in essence the floor to the Walker philosophy. Cut taxes for the wealthy, take the short falls out of the poor. It is not only immoral but has yielded nothing for the whole of this country.
It also goes to serve the disabled, who don’t get breaks from the private facilities and are on even more of a limited budget.
Dan,
What would you cut to make up a budget shortfall?
The number to make the overall budget whole is not going to be all cuts or all new taxes. It will be a combination of both. So, if not some indoor pools, what would you propose to be cut?
What are your ideas?
You are correct Dan, it is only a “cup of coffee”. There is alot that can be done with a simple cup of coffee. Just look at Cranky Al’s Bakery, which I am sure you are familiar with. Lots of people buy lots of cups of coffee from his business (sales tax revenue for the county). In turn, he employs people (who pay taxes), pays income and property taxes, renovated a nice old building (which also employed people–who paid taxes) and provides a gathering spot that enriches the community (I haven’t figure out a way to tax that yet…but I am sure you will figure something out). He also rents out part of his building to people who operate their own business who also have customers who pay sales taxes to the county….and the cycle continues………
A cup of coffee does go a long way, Dan…if you don’t pour it into an little-used swimming pool.
Dan, lets get innovative, how can we save some tax dollars for more cups of coffee AND help the disabled? Let’s think outside the box on this.
Well the cup of coffee going to Cranky Al’s and the $0.67 per YEAR paying for two indoor pools aren’t mutually exclusive Brian. That is to say, they both coexsited last year, and I’d like them to both be able to going forward.
You could use the same example for the people who work in the pools and parks. They also pay income and property taxes and contribute to the economic “cycle” in the community.
The bigger picture is of course “jobs”. More people working is more cups of coffee as well as more people chipping in to the coffers of local government.
Except that government jobs are not growth producing. It is the private sector that creates growth and production. Every government job or program is created by taking away a dollar that would have been spent by a consumer for goods and services in the private sector. It may create a job, but that job is not self sustaining.
Let’s take back all those $0.67 wasted on thousands of different items and give them back to the people who earned them. Then they can pay for a private pool, or a coffee, or a new car… it’s their choice (or it should be).
TFG: there’s a difference between creating “growth” and contributing to the economic system. That line of argument from the more conservative side is one I’ve never been able to get.
Everyone in this Country is a “consumer” that contributes to the economy. Just like everyone is a “taxpayer”. Just because someone works for the Government doesn’t exclude them from either group.
Cranky Al’s doesn’t care that the money I gave them for the “cup of coffee” metaphor above is from a job as a Gov. employee, nor did it matter when I bought a car or a TV or gave a contribution to charity.
They don’t keep separate records or cash registers for “private sector” and “public sector” customers.
It makes me laugh a bit when I hear about “taxpayer rallies”, because it’s the same line of logic. Only those are are against “taxes” can be “taxpayers” and only those who are in the private sector contribute to the economy.
It’s wrong on both counts.
Your blog is simply not big enough for the basic economics lesson to explain to the unbeliever how government stifles economic activity and growth. The end game of your line of reasoning would be that government running all production should be equally successful, but in every case, that idea has failed miserably.
I’ll offer three points though.
1) Cranky coffee income is the result of discretionary spending. Higher taxes come directly from the discretionary pool leaving less money for coffee. Taxes also have a cumulatively chilling effect on spending as consumers begin to feel economically besieged and hunker down with the fistful of dollars they have left. It all comes right out of Al’s till.
B) If you apply taxation to an activity you will get less of it in proportion to the tax charged. Taxes rise, spending decreases, overhead increases, cost increases, profit decreases, businesses respond by raising prices if possible further reducing activity, going bankrupt, or, if possible, moving to a less costly economic climate. Taxes do nothing good for jobs, other than that one pool guy.
Lastly) Government is extremely wasteful with money when providing services. Any non-essential services would be more cheaply provided by private enterprise that seeks to make profit rather than seeks to spend their whole budget allotment to avoid getting less next year. If services are desired by a significant number of people, then the volume will make privatization worthwhile to the entrepreneur. If there are only a few customers for the non-essential service, then it is not needed and should be cut.
Government does few things better than private industry, mostly protective services and regulation. Public schools often no longer make that list, as they have become very bloated and wasteful in many cases, but that is a WHOLE new discussion.