Pondering the Inevitable

Well, I believe we have pretty much exhausted the discussions regarding the YMCA – Scribner Place project, and hopefully everyone has had an opportunity to make their feelings and opinions known.
It is indeed a project that will undoubtedly reach fruition regardless of public sentiment about the financing. We will know a lot more after Thursday night’s Council meeting. Whatever the outcome, let’s hope it truly is what’s best for the city, not just what’s best for those who have a vested interest.
I think most people would agree that having a YMCA in New Albany is certainly not a bad thing. The reputation of the “Y” and the respect they garner will be an asset to our city, and to the county if it is able to attract adequate membership.
What I would like to see happen is a public meeting outlining the membership options and costs to users. Despite what another commenter said, I was at a workshop meeting when the Mayor said the water-plex usage would be a cost not included in a YMCA membership. I’m also curious how they came up with the estimated 6000 memberships.
Is that just for the “Y”? Or is it for both facilities?
I don’t have a great deal of faith in the “Build it and they will come” theory of economic growth, but I do have faith that the “Y” has a chance to be a long-term entity due to its past history of success. Still, Mr. LaRocca, Director of the “Y”, stated that it is a rarity these days for a YMCA facility to operate in a downtown district. I’m curious to know about the success rates of such facilities.
I’m also curious to know how many city administrations have become so intricately involved in the financing, development and extra amenities, such as the water-plex, as New Albany has.
If the “Y” agrees to unify the facilities and manage the entire project, it would be much easier to anticipate a good outcome than it would be if the city were to take on the management and operations of the pools. Yes, investing in economic development is a function of EDIT funds use, but that doesn't mean the city needs to actually run the businesses it helps create.
I would like to see a public meeting take place that would outline the costs of a membership and if the water-plex will be included in that membership.
Given the fact that almost 20% of all family households in the city with children under 18 are living in poverty, I am hopeful there is a way for everyone to be able to participate. It was very distressing to me to learn that the poverty level jumps to more than 45% for single mothers with children under 18 in the city. Will this development be accessable to everyone?
Comparatively, only a little more than 11% of families in the county with children under 18 are living in poverty. Who seems more likely to benefit from this development?
Additionally, as I looked over the differences between city dwellers and county dwellers I found that the median family income level is more than $10K greater in the county than in the city. That’s a pretty wide gap.
These circumstances brought back to mind the desperate need for a Code Enforcement Officer to help improve the quality of life and living in the inner city. With rentals being more than 40% of housing city-wide, and given the poverty levels, it is imperative that housing is inspected for safe conditions and clean surroundings. This, of course, is only a small portion of the work that needs to be done on ordinances.
The council passed approval of the position and set the salary back in September of 2004 by signing ordinance A-04-56. Why are we still waiting for the position to be filled?