I will vote no on the ARC/MPD. I will do so for several reasons:

1. It goes well beyond what we need. What we need is a pool to replace the one we apparently will lose when the Juanita Pool closes. We don’t need more meeting rooms, exercise rooms or a fitness center. The fitness center need has been well met by private clubs in the area. There have been no presentations showing that there is a need for meeting rooms, fitness club space or the other things thrown into this measure to get more votes. Unless, of course, you already intend to close the North Kirkland Community Center for some undisclosed reason.

2. The proponents are labeling people who have opinions contrary to theirs. They are throwing around words like “fear-mongering.” It has been my experience when people can’t debate the merits of an issue without name calling or personal attacks, they are frequently on the wrong side of the issue.

3. The proponents have hauled out “sacred cows” to make their case and accused all those against the measure of being against our children. I think a reasonable look at swimming usage is that people other than swim team members want to do it in the summer. Maybe we should research pool visit frequency during fall, winter and spring by non-swim team members. I would think it would be significantly less than summer visits. Logically, when school is going and sports teams and other activities, non-swim team visits fall.

And, we already have a summer pool – Peter Kirk Pool. It is not heated, and not so convenient to some residents. Maybe we should make one centrally located pool with a retractable roof, and heat the water and get to what we can all agree to. But, if the Juanita Pool is not self-supporting even after the closure of the Northshore Pool and the St. Edwards Pool, why would we think a new, more expensive one would do better?

4. I think the School District and City should be partnering on the issue of teaching all kids to swim.

5. If this were a bond issue just for a pool, I think there would be significantly more support for the pool, and if it were going to be paid off earlier, and the liability retired, I think there would be more support.

6. So, why can’t the City see a way to build a pool, and then come back with additions to the building or complex if they were warranted?

7. At least one councilperson uses the words “fear-mongering” about citizen skepticism and questioning the protections we would be giving up in voting for an MPD. Well, since Juanita was annexed, our taxes went up, while we were told they would be less. We’ve seen the Parks Department and other City Departments continue to grow both in personnel and budget. That doesn’t meet many citizens’ expectations of good government. So, councilman, you’re asking us to trust you with less oversight and controls than we currently have. You’re asking us also to trust the next 30 years of Councilpersons. Given that time period, I’d rather have a bond issue on a regular basis to consider than a blank check for an aquatic “Taj Mahal,” and whatever else the Parks Department can conjure up. For an example, look at how much they spent for consultants on the Edith Moulton Park project.

8. Other MPDs were written for just a pool and do not have all the language about whatever else the Park District might want to do without approval in the future. Why not word the measure in such a way that we could have more assurance for the future costs and control?

Roger Stone, Kirkland