Patriot, I think that you totally missed my point. It was that all of the activities I mentioned, parks, pools, civic center, library,... are supported by tax money - NONE of them pay their own way. So, when it comes time to pick and choose which ones do you shut down and which do you continue to operate?<quoted text>
Are you saying I would win my bet on who plays golf, but doesn't use the other city amenities?
Yes, I do play golf although neither as often nor as well as I would like. I am, however, the only city council member who does and to say that I can swing council votes on the course is to ascribe to me far more persuasive capability than I possess. Unfortunately, it happens on forums such as this that it is all too easy to attribute base motives to an individual without understanding the much larger picture. As you just did.
Privatization isn't always the best answer. If we privatized all recreation activities for the city the end result could well be to price participation out of the range of many, if not most, of our residents. No entity is going to take over a city function without seeing a profit in it. We recently studied privitazing our EMS services and found that it would cost us more to privatize them than it costs us to operate them ourselves.
There is a vocal minority in the community who dislike the golf course, as there are vocal minorities who dislike the way we operate our animal shelter, maintain the streets, price water - you name it and someone doesn't like it. We listen to them but in the long run make the decisions which we think are in the long term best interest of the city.
I'm now retired but when I was working I kept a small sign on my desk which read: "Recipe for failure: Try to please everyone". It can't be done.
This is my last post on the subject. If you want to discuss budget or other issues feel free to call me and we will meet for coffee. If you don't care to do that so be it.