Nevertheless, it's hard to read the latest rant from the proposal's opponents (in this week's Connection), without wondering what they are thinking. The image that comes to mind is a six-year old pitching a fit at the grocery store and his mother admonishing "Listen to yourself!"
Yes, the consultant's study reflects RCC and RA's interest in building an indoor facility. Surely, that's not a surprise or a reason not to consider the study seriously. Yes, the consultants talked to various groups, all of whom represent some special interest. Again, that's shouldn't come as any surprise. And it's not as if the study tries to hide the fact that each of these groups claims to speak for some segment of the community, and not the community as a whole. The study calls them "stakeholders," which is what they are. It doesn't say that they represent the whole community
The latest screed tries to argue that there's insufficient demand for an indoor facility in Reston. The consultants think otherwise and they lay out all sorts of numbers to back up their claim. The most persuasive figures are, however, the overall population numbers for Reston and the surrounding area. It's more than plausible that a community of more than 60,000, with many thousands in the surrounding area, can support an indoor facility. Whether the community wants a facility and whether a facility is the right priority now are different questions.
The letter to the Connection claims that the consultants admitted that they had not spoken with operators of existing facilities. What the consultants said was that they spoke to the operators but did not expect to get, and did not get, detailed information about current usage. The consultants did say that they believed that the new indoor facility would not compete with the existing facilities. Each of the current facilities, they said, had its own clientele and the indoor facility would appeal to other groups. Anyone who has used Worldgate and the YMCA can testify that their clienteles are very different. Perhaps some folks who use the YMCA might be attracted to the new facility, but the fitness fanatics who populate Worldgate probably would not. The YMCA's biggest programs are its day care and summer camp programs, which would seem unaffected by a new indoor facility.
This week's letter goes on to claim that the current private facilities are all operating significantly below capacity. One has to wonder where the writer got this information, which most business owners would treat as proprietary and therefore confidential. One also has to remember that when the YMCA announced that it would build a facility in Reston, the private facilities all cried foul and claimed that they would go out of business. None of that happened. And, if the private facilities are operating below capacity, why are they still in business? And is it the community's responsibility to guarantee them full houses before building a public facility?
The proposal's opponents continue to misunderstand the choices involved in paying for a new facility. Simply put, the more non-residents who use the facility, the smaller the burden for Reston residents. If the facility is restricted to Reston residents, then they will pay for the all the costs, either thru user fees or property taxes. If the facility is open to non-residents, their user fees will reduce the cost to Reston residents. Now, it would help if the fees charged to non-residents were significantly higher than the fees charged to residents and if the facility could make sure that non-residents paid the proper fee -- neither of which is true of RCC's current operation. It is silly, however, to complain that outsiders will use the facility and, at the same time, complain about the additional tax burden a facility would represent for Reston residents. If you want to reduce the tax burden, make sure that user fees cover a substantial portion of the costs, not the 16 percent RCC currently covers, and open the facility to non-Reston residents.
If none of this persuasive, consider the claim that all the groups the consultants talked to were "biased." Really? If you don't agree with us, you are biased! Listen to yourselves.
