Ten years and all we have is an empty trash strewn lot. There is a sign that tells us that, "It takes a community to make it happen". To make what happen? To make a trash covered empty lot happen?
Guess I was wrong. Ten years and 500 thousand later we not only have this nifty trash strewn lot but lucky us, we also have a really cool place for appointed directors to place their campaign signs so that they can try and be actually elected. We have requested permission to put our signs on this property but as of yet have received no response.
They can put their campaign sign on the public's property but can't put trees or grass or a community garden on this property. Maybe some BBQ pits and picnic tables? I don't believe that the execution of little ideas means the exclusion of all other ideas.
I took this picture today and lo and behold the sign has been taken down. Could it be that using WECRD assets to try and get yourself elected isnt legal but they have to be told to take it down? Wonder why I haven't got a response to my email asking for permission to put our signs up?
It takes a community to pay $500,000 for a 20 acre parcel to display the directors' campaign sign.
ReplyDeleteAll it takes is ignorant Direcors ans self-absorbed people to think this is even a little bit okay. Our tax dollars working for us. I wonder how much of the taxpayers money is going into Marsha and Jana's election. Now we know they do not know right from wrong afetr the $725.00 photo.
ReplyDeleteSo just to make sure I understand. Marsha and Jana are now going to use community owned land to feed their own agenda (ie posting their sign)? I hope anyone else who runs for an office is also allowed to put their signs on that money pit (the WECRD site). That is our property not just theirs. Shows what kind of people they are. Vote recreation now Elmore County. Vote for Judy Mayne and Art Nelson. Stop the insanity of these 3 women. Enough is enough already.
ReplyDeleteI emailed a request to put our signs on that property on 10/19/10 at 3pm. No response yet.
ReplyDeleteArt
What about the $840.00 that the WECRD spent for pro-WECRD window clings after AFAD and just in time for their election? What about that abuse of power and taxpayer funds. Oh, and there are other things as well. More to come.
ReplyDeleteTracy Lauric
Nothing wrong with putting signs on public property. Did you ask if you could? Complain about something that really matters. Teri Smith
ReplyDeleteTeri,
ReplyDeleteDid you even bother to read the post or any of the responses? He says, no less than three times above, that he asked and stll hasn't received a response. Stll puzzling is why after he asked, they took theirs down. You should try thinking and reading before you go popping off like that. Or were you the one who put their sign up without asking?
Teri,
ReplyDeleteThe only way you could be dumber is if you were on the rec board. These people, unlike your hero's on the board, can think about multiple projects on multiple levels at the same time. Not just pools, pools, pools, pools.
Jana and Marsha take the time to put their sign on that property but they sure can't take the time to clean it up. They couldn't possibly soil the royal hands doing menial labor. They would have to hire some of the peasants to do it. Maybe the board can hire ANOTHER personal assistant to do cleanup. It's only taxpayer money after all.
Teri,
ReplyDeleteI'd be happy to explain the course of events if you would like to give me a call at 590-2727 or email me at art@RecreationNow.net. Thanks.
Art
I can't believe you would think this was OK, Teri. Does the school allow school board members' campaign signs on school district property? Does the county allow the commissioners to place campaign signs on county property? Does the city allow the mayor and council members to place their campaign signs on city property? Does the Governor have "Otter for Idaho" signs on the Statehouse grounds? Is the message getting through to you now? And answer the question, why is their sign taken down now?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTeri isn't going to answer so that's enough. Especially with the personal attacks. You are welcome to attack her comments but not her. It wont be posted.
ReplyDeleteArt
If no pool, I want a refund. We need a year-round pool to make this project a true community resource. We need capable candidates that can realize the dream that we voted for those many years ago. The smaller town of Jerome has a nice rec-district except pool is outdoors. I want to vote for those that will make things we want happen but boy am I confused.
ReplyDeleteOkay. In order to have a pool, we need at least 6.7 million dollars more (under the YMCA "plan"). In order to have a building, with no pool, we need 1.7 million dollars more (under the YMCA "plan"). For a pool, we would need to save EVERY dime for the next 13 years. For a building with no pool (under the Y "plan") we would need to save EVERY dime for the next 3.5 years. This means no office, no employees, no donations to this and that, no $725.00 portraits, no $840.00 in window clings---save ALL money.
ReplyDeleteWe did not vote on pools was back when. Why do the pro-pool people insist on stating that? That is a lie.
Why not try to build a facility, that is multi-purpose, start some programs, improve upon the ones we have, develope some of that land for sports and use what we have? Create something for the people who have paid all of these years.
We did not vote for pools. We also did not vote to build a building that will compete with local business and put what little local business we do have out of business.
As far as the Jerome recreation center goes, here are the facts on that.
http://www.jeromerecreationdistrict.com/rec.html
Please check out their membership costs on this web page. It would be very interesting to know if they pay membership fees and taxes for this facility, like we would do here (under the Y "plan"). For a pool here, we could also look forward to a 3% tax increase each and every year for the next 25 years (the term of the proposed loan). Jerome built their facility before the economy took a dive as well. There are a lot of factors that make our situation here in MH different than other areas.
We do need "capable candidates." That certainly does not include the people who currently sit on the WECRD Board given current events and the events of the last 10 years.
If you want higher taxes, keep the people we have. If you want recreation and things for your kids to do and lower taxes, give these 2 people a try. I am sure they will do better than the current dream team.
To Teri:
ReplyDelete"I took this picture today and lo and behold the sign has been taken down. Could it be that using WECRD assets to try and get yourself elected isnt legal but they have to be told to take it down? Wonder why I haven't got a response to my email asking for permission to put our signs up?"
Read Teri. Do not just look at pictures.
If I cannot have a pool, I want a refund? What are you 2? We did not vote for pools or a bunch of debt. We also did not vote to have our taxes raised like the WECRD Board did. We voted for recreation as opposed to 10 years of nothing. Anything at this point has to be better than what we have (or should I say do not have).
ReplyDeleteIf there is a pool, I want a refund so that I can afford to pay my taxes. Who builds a facility to lose money? Well, I guess our current WECRD Board. How do you even get a loan for something that is going to operate at a loss. Maybe AIG will finance the WECRD.
ReplyDeleteArt or Judy, I have a question. Why was not 1 single option for this thing an option that included only what we have in the bank? Why does everything include a bond and a loan and higher taxes. Certainly a nice building could be built that serves many purposes (for the many and not the few) for under $500,000 which would leave money in the bank for staff, equipment, programs and so on. Why does this always go back to pools when that is not what we can pay for and still say we are debt free?
ReplyDeleteI am tired of the debate. I am tired of talking about this topic. But I am even more tired of looking at a big empty peace of land that could be do something. Gosh knows we have sure paid for it for long enough.
What time do you plan to hold your meetings when you are elected? If you want public input, please no meetings in the middle of a work day.
How do you plan to cut expenses? Do you plan to cut expenses?
Thank you.
Can someone please provide me with a copy of the Hiddleston/Duro whatever email. I would like to know why the CLDC or YMCA put a article in the paper which made it seem like this new plan was a new idea. I have been told the email was sent out nearly a month before. Is this true? I have also been told that the email was between Mark Hiddleston, Duro and some other Y person. Why was it not sent to all CLDC members?
ReplyDeleteWhy the big secret? I read that this was to be an open and honest process. How can that be when the many are excluded?
People keep saying that you plan to put up a tent. Is this true? Are you looking at a big CoverAll type building or what? Marsha and Jana told me you plan to buld a tent. What is the truth or facts on this issue? They also told me that you do not plan to have new programs and will only build on those already here? Is that true? They also told me that both of you were on the CLDC. If you were on the CLDC and preach affordable and lowe taxes then why do all options include higher taxes and loans?
ReplyDeleteHow much money has been saved to date? How much total is available for construction?
They have been asked numerous times to consider only building what we can currently afford without taking on debt or raising taxes. They have never even considered it. I was on the Programs and Facilities sub commitee. When David Duro brought the building costs to us the first time there were only three options. Option 1 for 4 million and some, Option 2 for 6 million and some, and Option 3 or 8 million and some. I asked where sub Option 1 was, where is the option for building with the money that we have. David said that I needn't worry about it because there was plenty of money in this community. Jana spoke up and said that her family wouldn't join anything but the option with the pool and that she wanted to see the Cadillac option. None of the fifty thousand to the Y or the twenty thousand of the survey money was spent exploring an lesser option than a 5 million dollar building. It was the reason that I quit the CLDC and the reason that Judy voted against the recommendation of pursuing Option 3. The responsilbe position of only spending what we have and lowering taxes in tough economic times was NEVER even talked about. This is elitist thinking to get a building that the elite want. Nothing more, nothing less. What WILL happen is that they will say they are going to build in phases and then at some point say sorry we just realized that a building with a pool is impossible to support so we are stuck with option one that virtually no one will use. The CLDC is a fantasy wrapped in a dream about soaking the tax payers for what 10% of the population might use.
ReplyDeleteI was answering the post from three up when the last two posts came in. I'll answer them now but anyone is welcome to call me 590-2727 or email me art@RecreationNow.net as well. The David Duro undermine email turned into a formal presentation to 6,(of 20) of the CLDC members. A certain faction of the CLDC is intent on hijacking the process and so forwarded it and hand carried to a selected few. The email was dated September 24, so yes it was about a month before it was presented. I'll get the email online but the presentation is here http://www.docshare.com/doc/243137/Part-1 and here http://www.docshare.com/doc/243138/Part-2.
ReplyDeleteDo we plan to build a tent. No. We have looked at the coverall buildings. We have looked at steel building and we have looked at existing buildings. We plan on building what we can afford to build. Not dream an impossible dream and build nothing. I find it hilarious that people that haven't provided any recreation and gave numbers to the CLDC that show a 3% tax increase every year til 2023 to try and prop up their options and make them look they might be able to work have the audacity to even talk about recreation.
ReplyDeleteDo we only plan to help the programs that currently exist. No. Judy and I have consistently said that we are against duplication of services. We are not only against forcing the fitness places to provide tax money to fill Option whatever with fitness equipment to help put themselves out of business, but we would like to see an indoor running/walking track, a program to help sponsor people that cant afford to get into exiting programs, sports, and sports and programs that experts advise we start. We are for programs that take into account the kids and adults that aren't sports inclined and find activities that interest them and would get them involved in recreation. Remember that their Options take every last dime of what has been saved, every last dime of the tax dollars collected every year, every last dime of the $70 dollar fee that your charged to enter the building that you bought, every last dime of donations they can beg for, and every last dime of a bond that won't pass. Whats wrong with starting small and building on success? If they would've done that years ago we'd be way ahead of where we are now.
The CLDC. The CLDC was from the beginning slanted towards pools. We went from hearing that, "there might not even be a building", to "don't worry about a 5 million dollar building there's plenty of money". The CLDC took a year and a half to come up with a recommendation and Duro from the Y didnt say anything about starting small then. Why would the professional wait until after the recommendation had been given and accepted to open his mouth/email? Is he that poor of a leader or did they realize when Judy and I filed that the BS course had to be changed and that the sitting WECRD directors need something other than, "stay the course" to run on. Now they are preaching that they will dissolve the WERCD or ween off of it. For one if they would read the code they would know that they CAN'T dissolve the WECRD. It takes a petition. They are not as all powerful as they think and act. That just brought to mind that someone asked a question about the meetings. Not only will our meetings be at 7pm at night but we will consistently invite people to speak and encourage a dialog with the community. The WECRD board has got exactly what they want. That's why for the last year there are fewer than five people in the gallery and most times it was just Judy and I. Ask them a question and see if you get a response. Call them up. Go to their website and leave a question. Good luck with that. In the last CLDC meeting Judy asked why the numbers that show a 3% tax increase for the next thirteen years weren't questioned. She was told that once everything was settled that those things would be looked into. The CLDC process has been corrupted. It is not transparent and is as far from unbiased as can be. One of the reasons that Judy and I ran was that we wanted to give everyone a chance for a different direction.
Art, thank you for your very candid responses. I appreciate your honesty and the thought, time and effort that you have both put into all of this. My family will of course vote for you and Judy. It is my opinion that you 2 may be the only hope for recreation in my life time. 10 years has proved what this group and those before them can do. Nothing. But we do have higher taxes and a trash filled lot with a sign. Nothing like setting high goals. Good luck to both of you. I hope the person counting ballots does not pull anything.
ReplyDeleteThat has been the problem all along - the goals WERE set too high. My hope, though, is that, if elected, you will truly listen to what the people want and modify your ideas along the way if necessary. If enough people tell you they want a facility with exercise equipment in it, so they don't have to go to all these different places to get their desired exercises in, I hope you will consider it. There is nothing wrong with competition, IMO. There is nothing in the Mtn Home rulebook that says that just because someone decides to open a gym they should be protected from any competition as long as they keep their doors open. Other communities don't work that way. This "no competition" theme runs through this town and has for so long. Maybe that's why Mtn Home is stagnant and never has much offerings for people. Indeed, if the two little existing gyms in town you're so worried about had satisfied the community's recreational needs, there would never been a push to create a recreation district in the first place.
ReplyDeleteCommunity input is vital to having a successful rec center. I'm one of the community that has repeatedly asked the current board to spend SOME money on recreation over the last couple years. So I am hyper aware of how frustrating the inaction and blank stares of the sitting directors are.
ReplyDeleteI agree that competition is good. However I disagree with your premise that building a building with exercise equipment in it is competition. Competition is when people or businesses compete on a level playing field. To use money from the community and from a business to fund the demise of that very business is NOT competition. I'm not worried at all about the existing gyms. They make it or don't on their own. I am worried about government tax dollars funding competition with private business. But the bigger issue is why would we duplicate services? There is a point of diminishing returns where for every additional tax dollar spent on exercise equipment you include less and less additional people. There isn't a big need for additional exercise equipment or more than 15% in the survey would have said they would join. Which brings up another point that I am opposed to. Providing access to only 15% of the people that pay taxes towards this thing and making them pay for access. I believe that although someone may not want to walk on a walking track that providing the access to it still serves the intent of a rec district. I would like to see very diverse recreation opportunities, so as to not only make it available to everyone but also to interest as many people as possible.