Windsor shouldn’t spend money on rec center
My letter is addressed to the communal-minded who want the majority of town citizens to subsidize their pet interests. Specifically, I would like to address points made by Carol Heinkel in Sunday’s Letter to the Editor.
Addressing this topic of including tax-funded fitness facilities in an expansion of the Windsor Community Recreation Center, might I recommend to our neighbors that we already subsidize areas for fitness; it’s your sidewalk. And, it could be your bike path, your park and, when you’re feeling more advanced, your hiking trails. Is it truly proper to compel the entire community to subsidize a few individuals’ accessibility to treadmills and stationary bikes? I argue that the sizeable piece the government grabs of our household money, should go toward services of a greater necessity. On my list is dog barking. But, I’m not really asking my neighbors to pay for a solution, just to be good canine owners.
Addressing Carol’s inference that adding more services to the Windsor CRC will help to recover costs … malarkey. I believe the last CRC meeting I attended mentioned that the facility currently yields income that cover 10 percent of costs to operate that property. Folks, that’s a 90 percent loss. What fraction of an increase satisfies you enough to call added rec center services “cost recovery”? I’m not knowledgeable of the figures to add space and fitness equipment to the building, but logic tells me that adding more costs TO a money pit only creates more loss, not recovery of costs.
In closing, Carol summarized her letter by stating that “most Windsorites do not have health club memberships.” I agree. I believe it is a super-minority that want to waste more of our money on their wish list. There is a private industry for a reason. Let them do what they do best and keep government spending focused on necessities.
Dave Colemere, Windsor