I predict that tonight’s city council meeting is going to be heated and I guarantee there is going to be much backlash against the VERY misleading news article on pool fees as it relates to the council majority’s campaign to abolish those fees.
Here is what I thought of the article, and I guarantee many are going to come to the same conclusions: First, I have a problem with the idea that charging a fee is somehow a deterrent for trouble. This idea assumes that the troublemakers are unable to afford the admission fee. Certainly some of the troublemakers can afford a dollar. And surely not all troublemakers are poor. I think it is better to abolish the fee, even if it means a greater likelihood of an incident, so that people are not marginalized and excluded from swimming. Also, the words “safety issue” in the context in which the Times used it to scare people signifies to me that a fee is meant to deter dangerous people; and it also signifies that dangerous people cannot afford admission. Again, the fee is based on an assumption that has no basis.
The second issue I have is with the idea that forcing the poor (or anyone for that matter) to pay for admission teaches them responsibility. The fee only teaches city children the lesson of pay to play in Scranton. It teaches them the Mayor’s philosophy. If you want something from the city you must pay for it; if you want contract work or a cozy job you must make campaign contributions. This is the mayor’s credo!
But then Ms. Healy responds by saying, “we’re not trying to keep anyone out.” Well if Ms. Healy, city administrators, and lifeguards are not trying to keep anyone out, why do they need an admission fee? If you’re not trying to keep anyone out, how is the fee a deterrent for trouble?
Doherty is quoted as saying “A mother with young children has the right to go and have a good experience.” I agree with him on this point. However, if Doherty sincerely feels that way why doesn’t he just abolish the fee so that all families can have a good experience? If he is so concerned about a good experience why did he make the poor families go through the voucher process?
Parks and Rec director said the fee puts a value on the public pools that results in respect for the facilities. To me that’s a very weak argument and I disagree with him. But I think we ought to test his hypothesis. Maybe if the city starts charging the U of S (as well as KOZs) they’ll respect the city and NOT swindle the SS complex and everything else they can get their greedy hands on. Maybe Councilman McTeirnan is right about the responsibility a fee teaches: maybe the U of S will become more responsible when they are forced to pay a fee. The director also said “If Mr. Dibilio makes it free, he better take responsibility for what comes down the pike.” If he really said this, I hope he apologizes to Gary for this because this may be the most irresponsible thing he has ever said in his life.
The paper suggests that there is a drop in the number of “incidents” from when admission was free in 2002 to 2004 when a fee was charged. This is misleading because the pool fee NO DOUBT deters people from swimming; the fee acts as a gatekeeper. Consequently, there are less people in total number swimming in 2004 than in 2002 when it was free. More people in a small area results in a higher likelihood of incidents; less people using the pool means a less likelihood of an incident. To me, the drop in incidents suggests that less people are using the pools. It does not suggest that the fee is effectual in lowering the rate of incidents.
What is really interesting to me is that lifeguards are the ones who want to use the fee as a way to keep out the riffraff or troublemakers (i.e.poor kids out): “The fee was reinstituted for the 2004 swim season at the request of lifeguards”. Bob Scopiletti and Chris Doherty are taking advice from lifeguards still in high school on how to run a public park; they are taking advice from children of the bourgeois on how to implement public policy. That’s a serious problem. How do lifeguards have that much influence? Are the parents of these lifeguards campaign contributors? Many if not most of the lifeguards attend Scranton prep and live in Greenridge by the way. Furthermore, it seems that lifeguards have more bargaining power than city unions!
Overall, I don’t believe lifeguards as young as 16 are equipped to control kids their age or younger and they are definitely ill equipped to control older adults in that capacity. I’m not sure that people (children as well as adults) that use the city pools are going to respect someone 16 or 17 year olds. It is a problem when a 16 or 17 year old lifeguard has to act as a disciplinarian for both children or adults. My point is that children trying to control children as well as adults might be a large part of the real problem at our pools.
Being a lifeguard is a dangerous job that takes a lot of responsibility; that’s why I don’t think a 16 year old child is cut out for it.
Interesting points on the pool admissions fee. I've been in towns that allow free admission on weekdays but charge on weekends to try and minimalize the crowds. They tried free admission on weekends but there was literally a pool of humanity and little water in sight. The ended up charging the admissions fee to recover the cost of refilling the pool at the end of every Sunday afternoon. The fee was like $.50. Unfortunately in Allentown, were there used to be 6 pools open during the summer, many of them free at all times, the city has had to cut many of the pools out of operation and rely on grants to keep 3 pools open on an admissions price basis. The fee isn't expensive, but with a declining financial status, keeping the pools open at no cost is just too difficult. The mayor, being the bastian of good policy thinking that he is, is too willing to save money by cutting summer rec programs and other services that keep kids out of bad neighborhoods or out of any kind of supervision.
As far as the lifeguards, where would you propose getting people willing to sit in the sun for an afternoon in the heat, watching a bunch of rugrats splash around in the water. The only person willing to work for less than $8/hour to do that is a 16-18 year old (most get minimum wage which is why I oppose a statewide minimum wage hike b/c it helps spoiled rich kids during summer employment...that was an aside). Besides, my experience has been that college students returning for the sumer take up those jobs, but this is mostly in Allentown, Bethlehem area so I'm not able to argue about Scranton. Regardless of who fills the job, who would you suggest using as lifeguards/disciplinarian when the wage is so poor and the training required so immense. No even daycare teachers earn enough to want this kind of job. 16 year olds are the perfect group to dump on, but without them, there is no pool program. You could always raise the wage, but that would mean uping the admissions fee, or horrors, paying more taxes.
LV Dem wrote: As far as the lifeguards, where would you propose getting people willing to sit in the sun for an afternoon in the heat, watching a bunch of rugrats splash around in the water. The only person willing to work for less than $8/hour to do that is a 16-18 year old (most get minimum wage which is why I oppose a statewide minimum wage hike b/c it helps spoiled rich kids during summer employment...that was an aside).
Very fair questions. There are a few guards at each pool at all times. They constantly rotate. I suggest having an older male or female that can handle theirself. People will have more respect for someone older. But note I don't think police are the answer. I don't feel comfortable with them there (or in schools) because it kind of expects something is going to happen. They weren't tneeded when I was in highschool. HOWEVER, maybe Gary D and the majority have the best idea by sending a police officer to show up periodically. This will work as a panopticon and people might check their own behavior. Yet, this may be ineffectual in preventing heat of the moment fights and arguments but I think it could maintain some order.
More than anything else, I want to shift focus for a sec and turn the debate so far upside down. Maybe it isn't the poor kids and suspected criminals that are the only problem here but the VERY young and innocent lifeguards who have been hereunto look at as the victim.
