Archive for Thursday, July 12, 2007

Discrimination

July 12, 2007

Advertisement

To the editor:

I taught swimming for the Lawrence Recreation Commission for six years during the 1950s when, because of racial discrimination, children such as those pictured on the front page of the July 7 Journal-World were denied access to the only swimming pool in town open to the "public," the privately owned Jayhawk Plunge. I hope the City Commission doesn't choose, once again, to make our public pool unavailable to many of our children, this time because of economic discrimination.

I also have voiced my concern in writing to our city commissioners. The thought of depriving any child in Lawrence of the opportunity to enjoy the many wonderful benefits of swimming makes me feel heartsick. I hope they will find a more equitable means of raising additional revenue for city services.

Tudy Youngberg Haller,

Lawrence

Comments

Ragingbear 8 years ago

You played the race card in this argument? Weak. I mean that is really really weak. That is like comparing apples and gasoline. They have NOTHING to do with each other.

Should we lower the price? Yes. $4 is way too much to ask of kids to participate in some healthy activities and cool off. It should be $1, but that probably won't ever happen again. I just don't follow the logic of bringing up race here. Are we trying to charge certain races more?

stuckinthemiddle 8 years ago

Tudy You're right. Whether it's because of race or economics, kids shouldn't be kept from the use of a public facility.

Ragingbear You're playing the "race card" card.

TheLawrenceFox 8 years ago

Everyone take a deep breath... now let it out...

If you read the memo from the city manager you would see that toddlers 4 and under would still be free. And as a little insider tip for those of us that actually use the pool and not just complain about it... monthly passes are available for $16 a person unlimited. My kids and I swim for $32 a month (one is only 3 years old). We go every day after work and at least once on the weekend. I suppose in any given month we visit the pool 20 or more times. For us the membership is paid for after 5 visits and the rest of the month is "free." If I paid daily admission at todays prices we'd be kicking out $125 for the same number of visits.

Even IF the memberships were to DOUBLE, it would still be a BARGAIN to swim in our local pools.

Do the math.

SettingTheRecordStraight 8 years ago

Does our public pool pay for itself through user fees or do taxpayers shuck out for part of it?

mom_of_three 8 years ago

That is, to assume, some people would have $16 to spare at one time each month, perhaps more, if there were multiple children. It might be easier for them to pay the cheaper daily price a few times each month.
And you are also assuming the monthly prices will not go up, since the cost of the pool will go up.
I think the letter makes a good point and said it well.

Oracle_of_Rhode 8 years ago

The obese should pay more since they displace more water in the pool. I propose a 25-cent surcharge per each waistline inch above 36 inches.

Oracle_of_Rhode 8 years ago

right_thinker (Anonymous) says:

"What is wrong with the people running Lawrence?"

--

How progressive of you, RT! It seems as though you're finally coming around.

I agree, the People should run Lawrence!

Power to the People!

Linda Endicott 8 years ago

For all of you who think poor kids should get to use the pool just as much as anyone else, and they shouldn't have to suffer not being able to use it because of their income...

Do you believe the same way about health care?

Which do you think they need more? Pools or health care?

daddax98 8 years ago

no glockownr you do not understand the writer correctly and you grossly mistate the intent of the letter.

BTW ringing bear and Mr_R, only you that are complaining about the "race card" being played are bringing it up. It is called an analogy e.g. at one point in the history of the city certain people were prohibited from using the pool because of race now there are certain people that are prohibited from using the pool because of price. get over your racial paranoia

imastinker 8 years ago

Wow, $4 is too much when the pool loses money anyway? A kid can make $40 cutting a neighbor's grass in the morning, go to the pool in the after noon and have lots left over.

Isn't the pool already subsidized more heavily by the rich because they pay the taxes that keep it open?

daddax98 8 years ago

shhh defender stop looking at the problem logicly. this is a place for off the cuff remarks not thoughtful responses

imastinker 8 years ago

OK, a 2-9 year old will have a hard time mowing lawns to make more money. But we've solved the problem for half the kids already, the 12 year olds and up.

Regardless, why do you think it's fair for the fees to use the pool to not cover the cost of the pool? Do you think Lawrence taxpayers should pay for non residents to use their pool?

i_have_only_valid_opinions 8 years ago

Do not the people who make more money pay more taxes, thus paying for a larger % of the cost of our public pool? So, think of it as "publicly subsidized", fairly giving those that pay more taxes and can afford the rates to go to use it more often than those that cannot. Shoot, I'll personally support "swimming scholarships" for a few kids each year if someone can tell me who they are.

imastinker 8 years ago

There are always people that need lawns mowed. Even in poor neighborhoods there are elderly people or people who are disabled. I didn't live in a rich neighborhood growing up, and I never had to work hard to find lawns to mow. I charged $10 for a big yard, or $5 for a small one. I pushed the lawnmower quite a ways and made a lot of money, starting when I was about 10. I can remember making $500 a summer when in grade school. That was big money then.

But don't tell me there aren't ways to make money as a kid. There's painting, raking leaves, cleaning gutters, weeding gardens, helping clean garages or moving furniture, babysitting, house cleaning, etc....

Whip101 8 years ago

Firstly "Tudys" original comments are as follows: "To the editor:

I taught swimming for the Lawrence Recreation Commission for six years during the 1950s when, because of racial discrimination, children such as those pictured on the front page of the July 7 Journal-World were denied access to the only swimming pool in town open to the "public," the privately owned Jayhawk Plunge. I hope the City Commission doesn't choose, once again, to make our public pool unavailable to many of our children, this time because of economic discrimination.

I also have voiced my concern in writing to our city commissioners. The thought of depriving any child in Lawrence of the opportunity to enjoy the many wonderful benefits of swimming makes me feel heartsick. I hope they will find a more equitable means of raising additional revenue for city services.

Tudy Youngberg Haller,"

And to Tudy I would like to say that this is not the 1950's any longer. As a fact, 50 years have come and gone since then. Why do you now bemoan a perceived transgression 50 years to late? If you felt a wrong was being put upon a certain group of people, (and you were principled) then why did you not act/speak out at the time? Instead, did you swallow your integrity in favor of a pay check? Seems to me that " the privately owned Jayhawk Plunge", was just that - PRIVATELY OWNED. Therefore it's owners had a RIGHT to allow or deny access to its premises. Go figure. Sort of like our homes. Privately owned.

Secondly: If one cannot afford a Cadillac, then one has no Cadillac; If one cannot afford $4.00 to go swimming, then one does not go swimming. How do we teach children that there is a cost if they do not have to pay it? "Want to go swimming, kid? Here's 4 bucks, mow my lawn."

This country was not built on Charity and free passes to swimming pools - it was built on a work ethic. Basically, if you want something, get your butt out there and earn the money to get it! Simple non-communist, non-liberal, non-neoconservative, non-weakling, logic. My mother use to say, "Nobody owes you a living - earn it yourself." Again, go figure.

imastinker 8 years ago

"Do not the people who make more money pay more taxes, thus paying for a larger % of the cost of our public pool? So, think of it as "publicly subsidized", fairly giving those that pay more taxes and can afford the rates to go to use it more often than those that cannot."

I mentioned this earlier. It seems irrelevant to some of these people that pools lose money and cost taxpayers money. I still fail to see how $4 is restricting people from going, or what is so bad about Clinton Lake. I was there last weekend and had a great time. The beach at Bloomington is beautiful.

i_have_only_valid_opinions 8 years ago

stinker...i don't get why people don't understand the fundamentals of the universe we live in. Some people have more money than others due to family, education or whatever reason. We all pay taxes proportionate to what we earn, which proportionately goes towards all of our public facilities. Those are supplemented to that extent and then they set the price at whatever they need to keep it open. If everyone can't afford it, that is life. It all washes out in the end. I pay a huge amount of taxes, lots of which goes towards public schools. I have no kids though. Is that fair? Yes, it's called living in a community where we all come together to support the infrastructure. If someone can't afford to go to the public pool, I'm sorry, but enjoy the education I helped to pay for for your child. You can thank me later...after I get home from the pool.

sfjayhawk 8 years ago

pub*lic [puhb-lik] 1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole 2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution. 3. open to all person

Everyone, regardless of income should have equal opportunity to use public services and a public pool. The argument that 'I pay more taxes so I pay more ultimately' is the argument of rich people that have no understanding and dont care about the poor. The argument that poor kids should have to mow lawns to be able to use the pool is pretty harsh, and not realistic.

i_have_only_valid_opinions 8 years ago

I am by no means rich. So, what if these are the options the city gives us:

1) Everyone pays $4 for admission, except for babies and seniors 2) We close the pool because even with tax dollars we can't afford to keep it open 3) We start cutting city employee jobs and street repairs so we can further subsidize the pool, so every kid can go swim in the piss infested public pool water

Those are virtually the options. If the money is not there, you ask for more or you close it. I don't suggest a welfare system for the public pool. But, it appears maybe you do, sfjayhawk.

Linda Aikins 8 years ago

Tudy, start a fund! I know you can do it!

ranger73 8 years ago

wow!!! For $40 I'LL come mow your lawn! Isown the street that the going rate now? Too bad for the kid down the street I pay $5...

classclown 8 years ago

max1 (Anonymous) says:

"what is so bad about Clinton Lake" -imastinker

No wonder you're a stinker! I guess if your desperate or haven't known anything better, you might think Clinton Reservoir is "just beautiful", but after I moved here I took my kayak out from one end of the stinkin' lake to the other and didn't like the smell or looks of the water.

======================================================

That's from Wakfest. Takes forever to get that out. Nature could actually take care of the job in 13 to 14 months, but unfortunately they come back every 12.

But hey, they bring money and culture to Lawrence. Nature be damned! So if you don't like it too bad.

oneflewover 8 years ago

Parents who cannot afford the $16 per month membership charge or $4 per use: Quit smoking 2 or more packs a day at $4.50ea.

What are those statistics?

wildcat86 8 years ago

First of all, the price isn't $4 dollars for a kid to go swimming. For toddlers 4 and under it's free, children 5-12 it's $1.75, teens 13-17 it's $2.50, adults 18-59 it's $3.75, and seniors 60+ it's $2.50. The first Friday of every month, everyone swims for $1 after 5pm. Kids don't pay $4 to go swim at the pool AND there are 4 pools in Lawrence, not just one, that are open to the public; the Indoor pool next to Free State being open all year round except for two weeks for cleaning and maintenance, the Outdoor Pool across the street from the library being open during the summer only, South Park Wading Pool open during the summer where anyone can get in for free, and the 4th (Carl Knox) next to Lawrence High being open only during the school year. If kids can't afford to pay $1.75 to swim then there is definitely a problem. It's called their parents buying cigarettes and wasting their money on alcohol just so they can fill their pleasures while their kids suffer. If you're going to do all that then what is the point in having a kid that you can't support?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.