Los Altos Measure A – feeling conflicted? vote YES, NO, or Maybe?
Voting Advice
I can certainly understand why many people will vote YES on Measure A.
Ironically, the YES on Measure A is being lead by former Mayor King Lear, even though the current $85M project is probably too sumptuous, and not frugal enough for him. [See his thoughts two years ago on a frugal community center. … Very much like Lalah’s “simple alternative” above.] The reasoning of YES supporters seems to be “better now than never,” and “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,”and “we can make everyone happy with the TBD final plan, so don’t worry about the neighbors.”
I can certainly understand why many people will vote NO on Measure A.
At $85 million there will be a lot of “no new taxes” no votes. With the planned expansion of City Recreation programming to add even more courses to fill up a 55,000 sq. ft. building, coupled with new pool courses, there will a lot of no votes from the “small government” crowd. Small government folks like to point out that non-profits and associations like the YMCA, CSMA, Taube Koret Center, country clubs…provide a lot of recreation locally.
Are voters to reward the “tricky” bond consultants who advise our elected officials to be less than transparent when floating bond?
And finally locating all the above EXPANSION of activity, traffic, noise, light pollution right next to neighbors is pretty harsh. Some of the neighbors who live by the civic center are thrilled there could be a pool in walking distance, but plenty feel it is the worst new neighbor possible. And tax-payers in South Los Altos don’t get a heck of a lot out of this Measure A project.
Here is why I am still stuck on MAYBE.
As a swimmer Lalahpolitico is reluctant to jettison the pool complex, thereby postponing the return of summer swimming lessons for kids in N. Los Altos. S. Los Altos has the YMCA. However, the pool(s) could find neighbors who want them. The Blach and Egan junior highs are often cited as desireable locations for city managed pools which could be next to the city managed gyms already at those junior highs.
I am reluctant to make even a few residential neighbors’ homes worse off, 1) just so the recreation department can expand into services where maybe it should not, 2) just so some residents can swim downtown once a week in a shared pool closer by their home than the University Club, YMCA, Taube Koret, or country club, 3) just so civic and social rooms are more inviting. The later feels ever so much like welfare for the affluent, like paying taxes to feather our own nest, or at least the nest of the minority of us particpating in civic engagement. However, I am susceptible to “now or never” arguments.
