Playground only for select groups

To the Editor:

A letter in last week’s Record was correct when it stated, “If my family spends $100 a week in Little Falls, we would only be paying 50 cents a week to have a beautiful recreational complex for our family.”

For those living close to the complex, like the mayor who lives 5/8 of a mile from the complex, it may be a good deal — but everyone who shops in Little Falls would pay the .5 percent tax.

Maintenance costs for the complex were projected at $25,000 – $30,000 annually. $25,000 is equivalent to one person working for $12 an hour, 40 hours, 52 weeks a year. Just to maintain the playground? Excessive.

How many months will the playground be used for? What’s included in “maintenance”?

In reality, those who use it should pay for it.

That $30,000 figure came from Councilman Zylka, who thought it was a reasonable amount. Of course, that “complex” is only a mile and a quarter from his front door.

In my opinion, this “complex” wasn’t meant to be used by all Little Falls residents, only select groups. Vote “no” to a sales tax that only supports select groups and hurts the elderly and others with low incomes. — Jake Wiherski, Little Falls

 

  • tmac

    “In reality, those who use it should pay for it.”
    How do you propose to do that?
    Charge kids at the gates?(Not sure there are any as of now, an added expense.)
    You really do want only the select few to use it it seems.
    Will there be a living wage payed to the person taking the money?(another added expense)
    Another question.
    How many other homes are located between a mile and a quarter and about one quarter of a mile away from this area? They can use this park too, right?
    One more question.
    Since this land was donated to the city, was there really much choice as to what land was available to use ?
    Those who make more tend to spend more therefore they will contribute a greater portion of total monies raised for this playground/complex, yet anyone will be able to use it.
    Sounds like a win/win situation to me.

    • Rick Witte

      tmac I was also a bit perplexed by the writers commentary concerning the select few who would be able to utilize the complex. While Little Falls may well be an older community as some seem to want to continually remind us of I would imagine that there still exist a fair number of young families within the playground age range.

      As to the locational comments in regard to the Mayor and Councilperson I can hardly imagine Cathy or Greg running rhythmically through the splashpad or engaging each other on the tetertoter. Would certainly be a site!

      No matter where the complex would be sited it would be close to some and a further distance for many. What suitable parkland within the Community would better fit this complex? Dont recall any park with enough vacant space.

      Does the writer also suggest that those that use other facilities within the Community also pay for their recreation. Shouldn’t golfers pay the full cost of operating the golf course. Why should non golfers pay for their recreation? This argument could/should also be extended to every amenity that is provided by the City.

up arrow