Toledo city pools - catering to the 2%

The City of Toledo is considering moving the Recreation Department out of the embattled Department of Neighborhoods and into the Department of Public Service. They think it may save money.

Why the city is in the business of providing 'recreation' - or if it should be - is a question Toledo City Council members rarely consider.

Many, including my District Council rep, Lindsay Webb, truly believe that providing pools for kids to swim in and other types of recreation/entertainment are clearly a function of government.

I disagree - not only on principle as a believer in limited government - but also on a fiscal basis. Our city is constantly raising fees (red-light and speed cameras, trash tax, etc...) while facing deficits. We just don't have the money.

But on a principle basis, the claim is that these types of programs provide "quality of life" for residents. The problem is, they provide a certain benefit for some, at the expense of all. And simply saying that "all" have the "opportunity" to take advantage of them doesn't negate the fact that my quality of life is diminished by having to pay for recreation/entertainment I neither like nor want, but that is forced upon me by a significant few.

An analysis I did in 2008 showed that even under the best of scenarios, the city pools serve less than 7% of the youth population and, since we know that adults also visit the pools, less than 2% of the total population of the city.

Why are we spending money to serve less than 2% of the residents? And why would council members claim that the entire city's quality of life is enhanced by a 'service' that caters to less than 2%? Certainly the taxation of 100% in order to serve 2% isn't logical and doesn't enhance the 'quality of life' of the remaining 98%. As many of the same council members who promote this logic also supported the OccupyToledo group, you'd think they'd understand this concept.

These same council members also talk about how pools and other youth entertainment help reduce crime. However, I have yet to see a single one of them provide a single study or shred of evidence that such is the case anywhere, much less here in Toledo.

The bottom line is that they want to provide pools, so they do. That the vast majority of the public doesn't want our limited tax dollars so expended is countered by an emotional appeal to our 'quality of life.' Yet even that attempt at logic falls short with just a cursory examination.

My quality of life is negatively impacted so that council can - maybe - enhance the quality of life of the 2%. Sadly, Toledo city council members don't understand that providing a quality of life service for some means a lack of quality of life for most.

City pools are NOT necessities

The City of Toledo will spend about a half a million dollars this year to operate city pools. But that amount doesn't include the capital improvement costs that are also budgeted in order to open the various pool locations.

According to today's Blade, the city thinks the benefits outweigh the costs.

Kattie Bond, director of Toledo's department of neighborhoods, said the benefit of operating city pools outweighs the cost.

"It is important to provide recreational opportunities for citizens," Ms. Bond said. "We live in a city where we do get hot weather, so it's important we provide a place for kids to at least get wet and cool off."

Kids already have a place to get wet and cool off. It's called a yard. All that is needed is a hose, since I'm pretty sure that most homes have some sort of water available.

Last year, the pools served 25,151 entrants. The city did not keep track of how many of those 'entrants' were the same individual. They also charged $1 for entry.

In 2007, there were six pools open (one was a splash pad) compared to the 12 facilities opened in 2006. Despite the increased attendance at two of the pools, overall attendance at the six facilities declined 18.5% from 30,841 to 25,151. This clearly indicates that individuals who had access to a pool in 2006 did not travel to other locations in 2007 in order to "get wet and cool off." (I just can't imagine how they survived!)

As these numbers are visits and not visitors, it's hard to estimate just how important this cost is to the general public. For sake of argument, let's estimate that individuals likely to use the pool facilities will do so five times during the season. This seems a reasonable estimate considering the number of days the pools are open.

Using this assumption, the pools had about 5,000 unique visitors. The 2006 Census data shows that there are 74,896 children (under 18 years of age) in Toledo. Even if every visitor to the pools was a child, we would be serving less than 7% of the kids in the city. If we consider total population, those estimated 5,000 unique visitors represent less than 2% of the population.

Yet the city is planning to spend about $600,000 for this - which is about $120 per person served. It would be cheaper to buy every kid in the city a membership to the Boys and Girls Club ($5 per year for 16-18 year olds, but only $3 for 7-15 year olds) which would give them access to ALL activities, not just the pools.

District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski, who voted against this spending, believes the city has other, more important, items to fund in the budget. "In terms of what the [city] charter dictates, [pools] are not a necessity, but the quality-of-life argument will always be made."

Yes, whenever our government wants to justify funding items not mandated in the city's charter, they use the 'quality of life' argument. But they conveniently forget that they are lowering the standard of living for the majority of residents when they spend limited tax dollars to provide such 'quality of life' amenities for less than 2% of the population.

If they were really interested in improving the quality of life in Toledo, they'd reduce the size of government, thus reducing the cost, and give all of us some of our money back to spend as WE want on OUR OWN definition of 'quality of life.'

I won't hold my breath.

p.s. An afterthought...Remember when the city of Toledo passed their balanced budget? City Council members scrounged around eliminating dollars from various funds in order to add a police class ... in December. Think maybe the $500,000 for pools could have been put to better use in getting our police class several months sooner???

Toledo Free Press looks at Citifest

This week's Toledo Free Press has a terrific article on Citifest and the struggles they face with the City of Toledo in light of their management agreement to run the Erie Street Market.

Interestingly, the article says that Citifest did not want to do the Rallys by the River which lose money - but that Finkbeiner wanted them during the summer, so Citifest had to host them.

And then there is this, which I think says it all:

"(Citifest board chair Brian) Epstein refuted Schwartz's claim the market has a constant revenue stream that allows it to self-sustain.

“There isn't” a revenue stream, Epstein said. “Revenues aren't covering expenses. That's how you get an operational loss. If they can't understand that, how the hell are they running the finances of the city?”"

***

I'd also suggest that you read my column about 'quality of life' amenities...they're the result of economic development - not the cause of it.