Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SPRINKER: Facility also has public safety role

Letter by Peggy A. Leach, Spanaway on July 12, 2010 at 2:38 pm with 4 Comments »
July 13, 2010 9:01 am

Last week, the heat arrived in the Puget Sound area, and a list of cooling centers was published in the TNT (7-8). And guess what? Sprinker Recreation Center is on the list – and it is open more hours than the others listed, such as public libraries.

So beyond its many recreational uses, Sprinker is also a cooling center, a place to help those vulnerable to heat. It seems only logical to me that a building used for public safety should be maintained, repaired and deemed a safe building. If it is closed, this is another way that the Pierce County Parks and Recreation Department and the Pierce County Council have failed its citizens.

Leave a comment Comments → 4
  1. Loren_Zimmerman says:

    Good work Peggy!!! I wrote a similar letter to the editor but I think I was meaner…so yours is in. And Im glad someone got something said on this. How ironic they make decisions to close the facility and then advertise a whole new use for it.
    Part of my article addressed just that….the shortsighted view of our county government. They dont look to solve the problem of keeping the facility open or even finding new services to provide. They instead worry about finding 34 million dollars.
    The Friends Of Sprinker have never been about the $34 million dollar rennovation; we have only asked for the building to be maintained and our programs and services continue.
    Again….great letter!!!!!

  2. Yeah, a cooling center for our two days a year over 90. What a stretch. Instead of making things up why not stick to reason? Sprinker is a public facility built to accommodate people for recreation. It is a valuable asset just like all the parks and public facilities in Pierce County. It should have been maintained, period.
    We deserve an explanation about why it wasn’t maintained, not to find fault with someone, but to discover how to not let it happen again.
    Pitting Sprinker against Chambers Bay golf course does no favors for anyone. Those two facilities serve different segments of our population and both are positive additions for all of us.
    I have a suggestion. Write your letter to the editor and then put it aside for two or three days before considering once again about sending it in. It might save a little embarrassment.

  3. I’ll put a sprinkler on the lawn for you after they tear it down !

  4. Loren_Zimmerman says:

    Publico
    You are right about Sprinker and Chambers Bay serving two different segments of the population. Sprinker serves the middle class, the poor and yes…even the rich. Chambers Bay serves only the rich.
    I am retired and also an avid golfer. There is no way I can afford to play at Chambers Bay. Maybe once just to say I did it. I can play at Spanaway Golf course 7 times for the price of one round at Chambers Bay.
    Sprinker aside, I find it personally offensive that Chambers Bay ever made it off the drawing board at tax payers expense.
    If we were able to professionally poll Pierce County Citizens, I am sure you would find the overwhelming percent of citizens against paying their hard earned tax money for Chamber’s Bay.
    And good news for you ImBack…you can save your sprinkler. Take a read later today on the Pierce County Council’s resolution at last night’s weekly meeting. Looks like Sprinker will be here for awhile longer.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0