Jury Pool / Park Renovation (Guest Editorial)
Recently the superintendent of the New Haven-Adams Township Parks Department presented a second proposal for a Jury Park
So why a new proposal already, and why still consider a costly project despite a downturn in the economy? The current Jury Pool is in disrepair and may not even last through this season. This is not because it wasn’t maintained well, but because the pool is over forty years old, has an outdated filtration system, and has already been in operation many more years than expected. It is also not accessible to people with physical disabilities. An update cannot wait unless we don’t want there to be any pool at all. While some think this is a fine idea and a cheap solution, what then do we have to offer for the people that can’t afford to go on vacations due to the high cost of fuel and travel? More and more people than ever before will likely stay closer to home making a day at the pool a relatively low-cost getaway. And if we choose not to add innovative new things to our city, what will be the incentive for new families and businesses to move toNew Haven
Left without much direction from the council, and a pool and bathhouse literally falling apart, the park board turned to an outside company to help conduct a scientific survey of the community this spring. The independent firm chose random recipients and of the surveys sent out, 1322 were returned. This was three times as many needed to make the survey statistically valid. From respondents that had an opinion on what to do with Jury Pool, 80% (940 of 1166 who answered the question) wanted it replaced with a similar pool or a larger pool with added features, versus removing the pool altogether or having something smaller in its place. This was even with a preface to the question explicitly making people aware of the tax burden. The majority also wanted a new pool in the same location and would be willing to pay more for admission to a pool with added features. Even then, some people still want to complain that this scientific survey was unfair and inaccurate.
Yes, the newest proposal for aJury Park New Haven High School tennis teams to actually have practice and matches in its own city instead of at Kreager Park in Fort Wayne
The people ofNew Haven
So why a new proposal already, and why still consider a costly project despite a downturn in the economy? The current Jury Pool is in disrepair and may not even last through this season. This is not because it wasn’t maintained well, but because the pool is over forty years old, has an outdated filtration system, and has already been in operation many more years than expected. It is also not accessible to people with physical disabilities. An update cannot wait unless we don’t want there to be any pool at all. While some think this is a fine idea and a cheap solution, what then do we have to offer for the people that can’t afford to go on vacations due to the high cost of fuel and travel? More and more people than ever before will likely stay closer to home making a day at the pool a relatively low-cost getaway. And if we choose not to add innovative new things to our city, what will be the incentive for new families and businesses to move to
Left without much direction from the council, and a pool and bathhouse literally falling apart, the park board turned to an outside company to help conduct a scientific survey of the community this spring. The independent firm chose random recipients and of the surveys sent out, 1322 were returned. This was three times as many needed to make the survey statistically valid. From respondents that had an opinion on what to do with Jury Pool, 80% (940 of 1166 who answered the question) wanted it replaced with a similar pool or a larger pool with added features, versus removing the pool altogether or having something smaller in its place. This was even with a preface to the question explicitly making people aware of the tax burden. The majority also wanted a new pool in the same location and would be willing to pay more for admission to a pool with added features. Even then, some people still want to complain that this scientific survey was unfair and inaccurate.
Yes, the newest proposal for a
The people of
I don't object to the added cost to construct the pool. My objection is in the (historical) lack of planning by those who are elected & appointed to manage the communities assets. Specifically, tax dollars are used to construct the project, and then user fees should be charged to maintain them. Some will complain of having to pay twice (taxes + user fees), but this is the only fair way to handle it. I accept the fact I have to pay taxes to create a nice space that will attract visitors and new homeowners and businesses. BUT...I object to having to pay to maintain it with 100% tax dollars. Those who use it are the ones who create the wear-and-tear, so user fees are a must. Those fees must be placed into a trust account and used solely for maintenance and repair, and not placed into the park or city's general funds to be siphoned off for other purposes.
Reply to this
Thanks for commenting Rob.
You are absolutely right about planning and designing the park to help pay for itself. Currently Jury Pool is costing about $70,000 a year over the income generated by admissions to cover maintenance and operating expenses. The goal of the new project is to build a facility that not only will pay for 100% of it's daily operating costs, but to make a "profit" to save for future major maintenance and improvements. The word profit is causing a lot of grief with this project. A lot of people think that the park should make enough money to pay for both the operating expenses and the debt payments. That's just not going to happen. Cities build parks and recreational areas for their citizens to enjoy, not to profit off of them. Sure - they could charge $10.00 per person to visit the park, but that would reduce the attendance and enjoyment of the community that it was designed to serve. The Park Board survey proved that people would be willing to pay $3.00 or $3.50 for the added features of the new pool, but they weren't willing to pay over $2.00 if the pool was kept as it is. We have a chance to greatlyl enhance our community with this project. I hope everyone comes to the Public Input and Public Hearing meetings on May 27th and June 10th to give their support.
Craig Dellinger
Reply to this
I will agree that the current condition of Jury pool is unacceptable and warrants considerable upgrades. My concern is the location. Doesn't the Park dept. own property on Werling Rd and also just received property on US 24? Why not use one of those properties to start from scratch the desired community pool? I am past the age of using the pools, but I am sympathetic to the needs of the community. My greatest concern is the lack of parking available currently at Jury. The location also requires all the traffic to travel through a residential neighborhood. The other choices could be made safe for bicycle or foot traffic, while enhancing vehicle parking . the other locations would make it far easier for attracting visitors from outside Adams Township. Rather than be stuck on remodeling the current pool, let's plan it right and make it better without being extravagant.
Also, is there any possibility to publish the board's proposal here on this blog? Perhaps an artist's rendering also?
in the spirit of disclosure, my son works as a lifeguard at Jury Pool.
Reply to this
Yes, the Park Department does own property on Werling Road, but it's not as large as the Jury Park property. It's not suitable for this project. They also own property farther out on Hartzell Road, but there are issues with that property including not being convenient to the neighborhoods. The property next to Parker on 24 was donated for the express purpose of building a community center. It's not large enough for both a community center and an outdoor pool. The community center is still in planning stages, but it will most likely include some kind of smaller indoor pool.
As far as parking, the proposed plan will greatly expand the current parking. As far as access to the park, there are several possibilities that are being worked on. One is building a road to access the park from behind New Haven Plaza. As far as planning it right, there has been extensive planning involved in this project. A recent community survey (which drew 1400 responses) showed overwhelming approval to replace the pool where it is. 91% of the respondents want the pool to remain in Jury Park or didn't care. Only 9% wanted it moved.
Craig Dellinger
Reply to this
Does New Haven want to grow and prosper, or does it want to continue to live in the shadow of Fort Wayne?
Do you want to have a mediocre pool for residents and their families, or do you want to have something that you can be proud of when out of town guests visit?
New Haven boasts a family atmosphere, but it does not seem too family-friendly.
There is always pain through gain, so we can either pay higher taxes and move forward or stay the same and grow stagnant. Business will not grow if community opportunities don't grow.
If you invest, you will digest more of the perks.
I am unable to attend this evening's meeting, due to a conflict, but I fervently hope that those in favor of the pool outnumber by far those naysayers.
New Haven, it's time to move out of your comfort zone and make New Haven the community you purport you want it to be.
Reply to this
Growing and prospering are two totally different things. Maybe that is part of the problem with this entire project. Many people have no problem with the city prospering. Would it be wiser to make the city of New Haven more attractive by fixing up what we have rather than building monstrous water parks we can't afford while rolling the dice as to whether it will prosper or not? Check out the Troy rates at http://www.ci.troy.mi.us/parksrec/tfac/Rates.asp
before you decide if it will help us to prosper. I would like to see improvements to the area up Lincoln Highway going west to 930 and on up. It is not very appealing to drive into New Haven from Fort Wayne because there is very little landscaping, etc. Let's face it, it's just not very pretty. I don't mean we have to go to the extent of downtown, but I believe the labor could be done by the citizens and the funds possibly provided by the businesses. It's just an idea, and I'm sure someone will disagree with me.
Basically, I'm saying that we moved to New Haven to get away from Fort Wayne. Why would we want, in turn, to grow into Fort Wayne with it's murders, many low, low income areas, etc.? No, I don't want New Haven stagnant. I want to make it my hometown....one that I can remain proud of.
Reply to this
I think some of the comments by some city council members and others on this site are inaccurate. Do not believe for one moment that those who oppose the pool project as it is are opposed to replacing Jury Pool. It's funny how the survey results can be interpreted any way you want. Only 13% of respondents did not want Jury Pool replaced. Those who oppose the project, as it is, are opposed to spending up to 2 million dollars more for amenities that have not been proven to return anything on our investment. Residents have seen pretty architectural drawings and Powerpoint surveys, but what we have not seen is a solid business plan with proven results. We have been led to believe that building the bigger pool project will generate revenue and draw businesses and citizens to New Haven. Really?? What business is going to move to New Haven because we have an aquatic center? Why would that benefit a business? Those of us in business are drawn to communities by tax abatements, not pools. Similar projects in other cities have proven to be bad investments, and it appears that New Haven leaders seem to be just as short-sighted. Tipp City, Ohio had the same idea, not profitable. Troy, Ohio modeled theirs after Tipp City's, not profitable. Rolla, Missouri the same thing. The fact that New Haven City Council nor the Park Board has presented a solid business plan with proven results shows that we should not be venturing on this business venture. Jury Pool is 40 years old. Replace it, but don't build a big, pie-in-the-sky project just because the swim team or park board employees want it. Only 38% of respondents wanted a water park. See, I can use Powerpoint presentations also.
Reply to this