Will pools be THE issue?

Every municipal election season is eventually dominated by some issue that, by way of some alchemy, becomes what pols latch onto as their driving force.

This year, “the budget” is clearly the main focus of the campaign, but as an amorphous issue, it’s not tangible enough to be easily defined and handled by candidates.

But with the pools effort, candidates may have found their issue—a divisive issue that directly effects and resonates with voters; and one that it’s easy to define a position on.

Today, Rick Rushton proposed a three-pool plan; that comes a few weeks after Mayoral candidate Joe O’Brien decried the lack of action in building pools.  (The other mayoral candidates don’t quite see it the same way: Kate Toomey has said she wants more discussion, while Konnie Lukes said on Tuesday she didn’t like the idea of spending so much taxpayer money without more thought).

Either way, pools activists – who have been effective at getting the issue into the media over the past several months –  have been gathering up supporters over the past few days, and are expected to have a large presence at next week’s City Council meeting where, it is almost a certainty, they will be pandered to by at least a few councilors and candidates.



Filed under Uncategorized

4 responses to “Will pools be THE issue?

  1. mike a

    how about using some of the $2.5 mill to get back some of the police or teachers that have been terminated lately. Rushton needs to stop pandering to pool crowd and realize that in a economic crisis what really needed is to sure basic community services, not building three new pools….city council is such a joke.

  2. Scott, I’m wondering what other concrete issues are out there that have a shot at being THE issue. Also wondering what you thought was THE issue of the last campaign. (Darfur?)

  3. Kevin Ksen

    Rushton’s proposal focuses on the $2.5 million that has already been alocated. It’s not a 3 pool plan.

  4. Last year it was the hot dog vendor debacle. This year it’s $2.5 million of taxpayer’s money being spent to entertain a handful of kids for a couple months? Or is it really to get themselves reelected on the taxpayer’s dime (extending a few pathetic political careers) those councilors are prepared to give away taxpayer’s money. How disgustingly irresponsible?

    And that group of activists – all 5 of them – who claim to represent a socially disenfranchised population that makes up less than 7% (dogs and cats included) of the city’s population, couldn’t be more misguided in thinking it’ll make a real difference to the existence of those already dying and decrepit neighborhoods. If this is the socially responsible thing to do, then they should have no problem convincing the electorate, whose money they want to spend. Put it on the November ballot. It’s the democratic thing to do!

    Umm… here’s an idea. Why don’t they solicit donations from the local non-profits? There’s about a billion dollars of endowments out there. What’s $2.5 million among friends? Should be pretty easy to find it huh? All they have to say, it’s for the kids.

    Better still. Why don’t those councilors donate their campaign chests to this worthy cause?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s