By TOM HARRISLos Alamos
Many have weighed in with their opinions on the Recreation Bond Proposal since I published my last letter April 21.
Until recently, most LA Daily Post letters on this topic have been authored by those strongly favoring the proposal. Only recently have we started to see contributions from those of us that oppose the bond proposal.
As alluded to in my earlier letter, it appears that those backing the recreational pool proposal which was soundly defeated several years ago have adopted a new strategy to achieve their goals.
Specifically, a broader-reaching recreational bond proposal has been put forth that includes other niche recreational activities (golf, softball/baseball, hockey) in a quid pro quo effort to secure enough votes to move forward on the bond issue. (I do not know if this approach was purposeful but it is, nonetheless, a wise strategy; look how well it works in securing pork barrel funding in the federal budget!)
The themes espoused in the many letters from proponents are similar: Los Alamos is wealthy and we can afford it, our community needs more recreational facilities, the new facilities will increase tourism, etc. We are not hearing from the proponents of the bond proposal, however, any answers as to how these new facilities–if approved and constructed–will be supported in years to come. Nor have we seen (well, I have not seen…) defensible analyses showing projected use and associated revenue to support the facilities.
Hence, I am compelled to restate my objections to the recreation bond proposal:
- Yes, my “fixed income” can support a modest increase in my property taxes. That said, it seems as if there is another school bond proposal every year that also gets tacked onto my property tax bill. When will it stop? Do we have to wait until Los Alamos is no longer the benefactor of the gross receipts tax revenue from the LANL contract and our infrastructure crumbles further?
- No, we don’t need more recreational facilities. Instead, we need to maintain existing recreational facilities. Do we really need (and how many will use) an indoor ice rink? I think not; let’s put the roof over the LA Canyon outdoor rink to extend the season. Do we need what is now called a “multi-generational” pool, whatever that name is supposed to mean? I think not. Instead, let’s adequately fund the Larry R. Walkup Aquatic Center and let the community pools support the communities in which they are located. Since I don’t golf, the only evidence I have that the golf course irrigation system needs to be upgraded is that I get a free car wash as I drive down Diamond Drive in the early morning hours. Let those that use the golf course support the irrigation system upgrades (and I will then start washing my car in my driveway).
- Other than the occasional tournament bringing in a few bucks to the local restaurants during the hockey season, what evidence is there to support the claims that Los Alamos will see a demonstrable increase in tourism revenue if/when the new facilities are built? I’m not thinking this is a “build it and they will come” scenario. How many Los Alamos residents (other than those that golf, play hockey, or play softball/baseball) travel to other communities specifically to partake in recreational opportunities?
I could go on but will spare the bandwidth. I hope that the those of us that do not participate in these niche recreational activities (most likely the majority of Los Alamos voters) and/or those of us concerned about indiscriminate, thoughtless, and parochial spending of other peoples’ money will VOTE NO on the recreational bond proposal.
All this said, give me a call should anyone be interested in putting together a bond proposal that would contribute to infrastructure improvements at Pajarito Mountain, improve existing and build new bike lanes in the county, and maybe even build a whitewater park at Ashley Pond!
