Maybe Bill, You missed the meeting where many board members including the President said that: the reason that they had started working out the plans for the rebuilding was to include a new front ramp for wheel chairs. They insisted that it was beyond anyone's control.
I wrote about such things in the Swim Club listserve but as Kyle has done just recently, my comments were often censored off by the people maintaining that mailing list. The rear (H/C) entrance is a rather poor substitute, and an extreme inconvenience, particularly for someone with a handicap, as it is unwatched and using it means you are stuck waiting until someone answers the bell - which several people have told me does not always even happen. It may be better than nothing, but only just. This may be something you were unaware of during the pertinent deliberations, but it is most definitely not the first time you have heard this issue referred to Bill. Your statement about the life expectancy of the repairs is now mute; as repairs were not attempted, instead a complete and hugely expensive almost total rebuilding took place. I estimated repairs as being more than 98% cheaper and quite doable. Turns out I was wrong on my costs savings estimate, it should have been more like 99.9%. At one point during a membership meeting a false claim was stated that next to nothing was holding the pool back from an imminent structural collapse which could expose the area to an explosion of flooding water and harm small children. I was not allowed to rebut this claim even though the laws of physics were clearly being savagely assailed! Oh, and I'll never forget saying the number of guards would need to go up considerably with the changed configuration, and being told I was absolutely wrong. Mind you I was a Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. We got a lap pool which was the 'working group's' obvious larger 'need' and spent a veritable fortune which came from the members of the club, not the ones who wanted the lap pool, not the ones who misrepresented the issues, or signed the contracts or lied about the repairs being impossible. I asked about a heater (which long ago we had) and was told the heater was definitely in the plans. Those who wanted the money spent on adding temperature control were a sizable number based on the one straw vote given the issue, but those people while they were promised equal access in the planning, found out that it would not be discussed at the next meeting, and then the subject was buried. We lost over a year of use, wasted more money than made any sense, and many members dropped out. No heater, no front ramp for handicapped access... just a lovely new lap pool. A very lovely lap pool at more than five times what it should have cost... On May 5, 2011, at 2:18 PM, William H. Magill wrote: > > On May 5, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Richard Conrad wrote: > >> Good responses here Glenn. Perhaps the reason they did not let my email >> through yet is the inclusion there of this list's subscription info. Even >> Linda Lee did not (dare?) mention it before when I asked, I had to google it >> and then hunt it down like a detective... Clark Park now looks like a lot >> like Tony West, about the same, but with a fancy tie and well-pressed suit. >> It is all so much like the debacle that occurred involving the Swim Club... >> where they said "we need to redesign the club because the City said we need >> a H/C ramp in front". Then they spend tons of unneeded $ rebuilding, we >> lost use of it (but not the cost of it for more than a year) and they don't >> even put in the H/C ramp which my mother could now really use. Rick Conrad > > I must say, this is the first I've heard that the reason for "rebuilding" the > UC Swim Club was the need for a H/C ramp, which in-fact was included and is > used regularly by several members. > > The "re-design" was because the pool had, quite literally, reached its life > expectancy and was falling apart. The cost of repairs was projected as > expensive and would not be guaranteed for more than three years. > > The fiasco of the extended closing was because, like virtually all > contractors, the contractor selected had several other much more lucrative > contracts to complete at the same time -- two of which had serious political > muscle behind them -- and successfully predicted that the UC SwimClub > would/could not prosecute them for "non-compliance," whereas the other > contracts (with municipal governments) could have and would have gotten them > black-listed. The lawsuit was quite ugly. And was still not settled when I > dropped membership in the Swim Club. > > The sad part of this issue is the fact that less than 50% of the Members > (families) of the Swim Club participated in ANY of the debates or votes on > the issue. In the several years I was Swim Club Secretary (surrounding the > renovation) we NEVER had a 50% turn out for any membership meeting or vote. > Yes, those who did participate were vocal, and the discussions quite > animated, but the majority of the members present at the various meetings > still approved the proposed changes. > > T.T.F.N. > William H. Magill > [email protected] > [email protected] > [email protected] > > > > > ---- > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see > <http://www.purple.com/list.html>. ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
