|
||||
|
Nov 3, 2001 There’s no denying that the recreation center is an expensive project to propose at a time when we’re all queasy about the economy. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a good idea and, actually, not a bad time. Wellness is a difficult benefit to quantify, but there’s ample scientific evidence to demonstrate that exercise improves health in dramatic ways. Almost all of us are able to swim and walk, and a facility that will allow us to do that daily, regardless of weather, will be good for everyone who lives in or near Cortez. Other possibilities afforded by the center are more closely related to health than to recreation. The availability of such services is essential, not frivolous. The issue of "something to do" is also not inconsequential. Providing healthy alternatives to some of the less healthy pastimes is an important service that has ramifications not only for health and recreation but for law enforcement and education. Those are community issues, and the costs rightly should be shared among the community. Right now, the price of building a recreation center is as affordable as it will ever be. Interest rates are at an historic low. Construction costs are reasonable because demand has slowed and much of that money can be spent locally, bolstering our economy. The land has been set aside, in a location already part of a recreation complex. Some of the arguments against the proposal have been misrepresented. Will shoppers flee Cortez to avoid an additional .55-cent sales tax? Does it really make financial sense to drive to Farmington to save $5.50 on a $1,000 refrigerator, while buying gas for a 150-mile round trip, enjoying lunch and movie while there, and stopping by the mall to pick up just a few more items that weren’t on the shopping list? That’s not the reason shoppers drive to Farmington or Durango, and it’s disingenuous to pretend that it is. In fact, the opposite may be true. Some families make the Farmington trip to visit the Aquatic Center as part of their shopping day. Those who enjoy swimming may be more highly motivated to shop in Cortez, and some of us will even consciously choose to spend money here because we know we are supporting a local recreation center. Farmington assesses a quality-of-life tax on both sales and services, and Cortez-area shoppers pay it. Durango is building a rec center funded with sales tax, which we pay when we shop there. We should, instead, be supporting Cortez businesses and Cortez projects. Complaining that shoppers who do not utilize the center still will be burdened with increased sales tax is to compare apples and oranges. Those shoppers could use the recreational facilities. The City of Cortez will own and maintain them for the benefit of everyone who inhabits or visits this area, in much the same way the library is shared. We all pay for services we don’t use. We fund schools even after our children have graduated and moved away. We pay Social Security that is allocated to today’s senior citizens. That’s one aspect of community: We help meet each other’s needs. Those who have stated that we need higher-paying jobs should realize that, in attempting to attract the companies that offer good jobs, we are competing with areas that offer such amenities as recreation centers. There’s much we cannot change about Cortez. We’ll never be located at the foot of a ski mountain; we’ll never have a river or a railroad running through town. We can, however, give ourselves a tremendous economic boost by offering the quality of life that attracts prosperous companies, and that includes a recreation center. A rec center is something we all want; all we’re really debating is how to fund one. This isn’t a perfect proposal but it’s a good one, well worth the cost. Vote "yes" on Ballot Measure 2A. |
||||
|
Copyright © 2001 the Cortez
Journal. All rights reserved. |
