tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753500464136402496.post8691760632025281768..comments2023-06-19T09:26:54.856-05:00Comments on Arlington District 1: Hugh Smith or Senior Center (2014 Bond Issue)Arlington District 1http://www.blogger.com/profile/15573436805597108562noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753500464136402496.post-36788337388575257632014-08-01T16:36:04.253-05:002014-08-01T16:36:04.253-05:00I just served on an aging focus group through UTA....I just served on an aging focus group through UTA. One of the things we discussed was how much the seniors need an inexpensive center besides the Parks & Recreation Center on Edna. A new Recreation Center for Adults (or add services to Odem also) would be fantastic. As our aging census increases there is more and more need. Also this could be a central clearing house where seniors could find out what is available to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5753500464136402496.post-57228202988647231402014-07-31T20:03:52.514-05:002014-07-31T20:03:52.514-05:00I think only fair that retirees who have frozen pr...I think only fair that retirees who have frozen property taxes and voted FOR the billion-dollar AISD bond issue should be exempted from any membership discounts. Since they voted to increase property taxes for the rest of us, they should bear ALL costs associated with any senior center that might be constructed.<br /><br />If the current market will support the YMCA at $30.00/month, why the plan to charge only $5.00 for members at a city-owned facility? Operating costs alone will FAR exceed membership revenues, and thus this facility will become another unsustainable liability for the rest of taxpayers.<br /><br />What do the other suburbs you mention charge for membership/usage fees? Exactly what do you mean when you state "we 'allow' the YMCA to accommodate" seniors? The Y is a stand-alone business that exists because it provides a community need. Is the city of Arlington trying to compete with or close down the YMCA? <br /><br />By my math, using your estimate of 5,000 members at $5.00/month, it will cost 83 YEARS to pay off this facility, not including interest. This figure also does not include a single operating expense. Assuming a 35 - 40 year lifespan of the facility, as that seems to be about the age the city deems an existing building to be eligible for demolition and replacement, (Re: main library and council chambers... gotta keep up with everyone else!) this senior center will probably become a future council's 'eyesore' and be targeted for demolition by 2050. And it won't have been paid off.<br /><br />Also, what is the 'dead end' road project? If the street lights can be retrofitted to save utility costs and savings can be reaped immediately, why delay this project?<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me, I think a senior center would be a very nice amenity to have... but there is only so much money to go 'round and a great many seniors voted FOR the school bond issue simply because they wouldn't have to pay for it. People should not be allowed to vote for taxpayer-sponsored benefits if they will be exempted from paying for them. Because we have a mayor who has a perverted fascination with filling the city with people who pay NO taxes at all, the burden grows heavier on those of us who ARE taxed, taxed, taxed. Maybe if he were more concerned with attracting a higher demographic instead of attracting a majority of people who 'qualify' for federal subsidies, we'd have a larger, more diversified tax base, and more citizens able to pay for these amenities.<br /><br />Something to think about when the next apartment complex project crosses the council's desk.Tired Taxpayernoreply@blogger.com