Some perspectives on SARC clarified

A rebuttal to Mr. Howerter’s letter, “Taxpayers should not subsidize SARC” (Letters to the Editor, Sequim Gazette, July 30, page A-10)

A rebuttal to Mr. Howerter’s letter, “Taxpayers should not subsidize SARC” (Letters to the Editor, Sequim Gazette, July 30, page A-10): “ … special interest group claiming they deserve a subsidy from the population at large.” Sequim Aquatic Recreation Center was formed for and by that “population at large.” Bowling alleys, movie theaters and restaurants that go out of business are private enterprises and therefore not subsidized with public funds, as Mr. Howerter implies.

Question of demonstration: Mr. Howerter wrote, “A facility used by only a minority of the community should ‘pay its own way.’” Does that include the library, fire department and OMC?

Mr. Howerter goes on, “SARC should be required to operate by the same (company) standard.” Distinction: Private businesses provide the ability to gain personal wealth. SARC is a taxing entity formed to provide monetary support for the population at large swimming pool!

“Operating standards”: SARC is governed by state statutes and held to a higher financial and legal standard than most private citizens.

Mr. Howerter’s last comment was, “If SARC can’t remain solvent without taxpayer’s subsidy, it should close and sell its facilities to a private company.” To be sold, Sequim would have to be four times its present population to be profitable for a national franchiser to acquire.

Most importantly and often forgotten, Sequim Aquatic Recreation Center was known, as are 99 percent of all other public swimming pools, not to be self-supporting. That was true in 1985 and remains true to this day.

If more people had attended SARC’s seminar on July 23, maybe the population at large would better understand the difference between Business and Government!

Jan Richardson

Sequim

(Richardson is a SARC board member.)

 

More in Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor — Aug. 8, 2018

‘Resounding no’ on Carlsborg proposal This is a letter referring to an… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Aug. 1, 2018

Get out the vote, and vote for Wilke I want to encourage… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — July 25, 2018

Fireworks restrictions make sense Presently Clallam County has no restrictions on the… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — July 18, 2018

Keep fireworks tradition alive in Clallam I am a resident of Sequim… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — July 11, 2018

Law-breakers should be ‘shown the door’ Ah, good old Bertha Cooper never… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — July 4, 2018

No true consensus on Sequim fireworks ban Well, if the city councilors… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — June 27, 2018

Politics, poorly played The present events at our southern border causes one… Continue reading

Letters to the editor

Fireworks ban is a wise move We are writing to let you… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — June 13, 2018

A vote for Neupert Dave Neupert needs your vote in the August… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — June 6, 2018

Showing victims may change discourse It is time we show photos of… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — May 23, 2018

Another traffic solution Instead of Clallam County spending tens of thousands of… Continue reading

Developer looks to bring 103 homes to Brownfield Road

Plans are tentatively coming before City of Sequim officials to consider a… Continue reading