Dear Editor:
I have been following the development of the information campaign regarding the Aquatic Centre with interest. I attended one of the tours of the facility as well as the open house held recently.
The issue is presented in such a way as to portray the current facility as being beyond saving, with the most reasonable alternative being to tear it it down and replace it with a new building and all its parts and components.
I, on the other hand have a different opinion: repair, reuse, do not demolish.
We live in a disposable society. Most things are built to last their projected lifetime and then thrown out and replaced with a new item. It is true about most small items, a variety of mechanical and electric appliances, and all the way to buildings. Everybody sees how wasteful and environmentally unfriendly this approach is.
In the same way we are grappling with the question of replacing, or repairing our current Aquatic Centre. I say – repair and reuse. It can be done for a substantially lesser amount of money than tearing the old facility down and replacing it with a new one.
Yes, the repairs would be costly. It is highly regrettable that the facility has been allowed to deteriorate to the current state, namely the leaking roof and problematic state of the mechanical components.
Some uncomfortable thoughts keep nagging: Why was it allowed to get this bad? On whose watch did it happen that the roof developed leaks and was allowed to continue leaking to the current state? None of us would allow our houses to deteriorate to such a degree. It seems to me that one way to bolster the replacement idea is to point out the terrible state of the present facility.
Can we learn anything from other municipalities which have a 50-year-old pool?
But it all can be repaired. A new roof will stop the leaks, plus good thermal insulation would improve the heat retention. The mechanical components of heating, air conditioning, water filtration and chemical treatment can be replaced, the hot pool can be rebuilt. It all could be done for a fraction of the $50 million which we are contemplating borrowing and which is the subject of the upcoming referendum.
I urge our municipal council and staff to do their due diligence and examine the situation from this point of view.
Al Tinka
Summerland