Writer doesn’t understand public infrastructure

All of Jan Richardson’s comments on SARC are excellent and correct (“Some perspectives on SARC clarified,” Letters to the Editor, Sequim Gazette, Aug. 6, page A-11).

All of Jan Richardson’s comments on SARC are excellent and correct (“Some perspectives on SARC clarified,” Letters to the Editor, Sequim Gazette, Aug. 6, page A-11).

Let’s look at SARC from yet another angle: Loren Howerter writes, “Taxpayers should not subsidize SARC” (Letters to the Editor, Sequim Gazette, July 30, page A-10), yet taxpayers made the decision to “pay for swimming” when they set up a special taxing district, like those which operate our schools, our libraries, our county hospital, our parks, our fire and police departments … and other essential public services. Were the voters of 1985 different from today’s?

Why did our citizens vote to tax themselves to build a swimming and exercise facility? I can only surmise, because I wasn’t here for the election, but I can imagine the argument went something like this: Swimming is the exercise that conduces best to all-round good health for virtually all age groups. When the big-muscle sports — baseball, basketball, football, even tennis — are not available to the average middle-aged person and beyond, nor to the tiny ones not yet ready for Little League, swimming is your sport. For the physically disadvantaged, there’s no exercise like moving those limbs in the water.

Also, it’s a good idea for every eighth-grader to learn to swim before moving on to high school. (I don’t think we could accommodate all those kids right now, but it’s a good argument for increasing SARC’s size.) The other exercise media at SARC contribute as well to healthy bodies and minds.

The biggest argument encompasses all these: A community with a swimming pool open to all is a first-class guarantee for a healthy community. These kinds of facilities in turn cut down our overall medical bills … and keeps us healthy taxpayers producing more revenue, longer, for other essentials.

If Mr. Howerter’s reasoning is correct, I know a lot of roads I don’t drive on; a survey might tell us which ones should be up for closure or privatization. And with elections we could try to agree on which ones to close, to save highway funds.

Are we a community or aren’t we?

James R. Huntley

Sequim

 

More in Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor — Feb. 6, 2019

Thanks to community for support at OCS Last week (Jan. 20-26) was… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Jan. 30, 2019

Border wall opposition is hurting the nation Is there something wrong with… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Dec. 19, 2018

Give yourself a gift Throw out the concept and phrase: “Just Move”… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Dec. 12, 2018

Column hits the mark I so appreciated Lorraine Loomis’ guest opinion in… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Nov. 21, 2018

Much thanks to a generous community Again, the community of Sequim was… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Nov. 14, 2018

Thanks for your support of Fire District 3 Clallam County Fire District… Continue reading

Letters to the Editor — Nov. 7, 2018

Reimbursements cuts run deep for OMC, locals The Centers for Medicare and… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Oct. 24, 2018

Back the levy lid lift We are writing to ask for support… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Oct. 17, 2018

Neupert, Benedict, Nichols The Clallam County justice system affects us more personally… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Oct. 10, 2018

Vote yes, twice This morning, my 3-year-old daughter was getting ready to… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Oct. 3, 2018

Vote yes on Props 1, 2 A library is an essential element… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Sept. 26, 2018

Photo smacks of agenda The picture on your editorial page today (Sequim… Continue reading