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 — May 27, 2020

Heartening to see lunch giveaway I feel fortunate to live in Sequim… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — May 20, 2020

Predictions fair poorly How can pundits be so spectacularly wrong in their… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — May 6, 2020

Local nonprofit hurt by funding policy While Payroll Protection Plan relaunched this… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — April 29, 2020

Don’t stop now During this critical time for our community with the… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — April 22, 2020

Consider alternative to roundabout In the April 15 edition of the Sequim… Continue reading

Letters to the Editor — April 15, 2020

Roundabout isn’t solution for intersection An April 8 Sequim Gazette article states… Continue reading

Letters to the Editor – March 25, 2020

For our safety’s sake, limit visits to peninsula I live on the… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — March 18, 2020

Time to ‘buck up’ Who came up with COVID-19? It originated in… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — March 4, 2020

Kudos to Crecelius I recently read your article about Eric Crecelius retiring… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Feb. 26, 2020

Thanks for the holiday cheer A quick thank you to the City… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Feb. 12, 2020

Reconsider location for MAT facility When I first moved to Sequim in… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Feb. 5, 2020

Clinic suggestion is ‘absurd and silly’ Robert Falk’s “Move the Mat?” (Letters… Continue reading