In a Nov 18 post, Andy Wang said:
> E*) Folks need to either trust that the CCBC is operating in good faith and assessing the options fairly and being able to separate out 'need' from 'want', or just assume that they never are, in which case you're not trusting them to do anything and you'd vote no regardless.
> *admittingly this one is a bit more subjective, though I believe it to be true."
I disagree with Andy on this and do not feel that the CCBC separated must-have needs from nice-to-have wants. The 2015 study included several items that strike me as big wants and not essential needs. These items include a sound room, a game room for playing pool and a kitchen that is big enough to accommodate cooking classes. These items were all carried forward and incorporated into both of the 2018 designs.
I attended a few of the charettes leading to the 2018 study and when I heard about the cooking classes I asked for justification. I was told that "someone asked for it." Why should we pay taxes to support this when there are businesses that offer cooking classes? I have heard more recently that the intent for the "cafe" in the proposed design is to offer complimentary beverages and light snacks and that it is not intended to compete with local businesses such as the Twisted Tree. I think a kitchen that can serve that purpose could be a lot more modest in equipment and space than one that accommodates cooking classes. As for senior lunches, why not get take-out/catered food and just reheat it? Why pay the capital cost for a full-blown kitchen to allow us to cook it all from scratch for the relatively few times when these meals are provided?
Not sure where the support for the sound room came from, but do we really need this? A town pool table?
Dennis Picker
