Albany voted Yes on bond measure to rebuild pool
The half-a-century-old Albany Pool will be replaced by two new pools with voters’ approval of Measure E this week. Photo by Linjun Fan.
A bond measure for rebuilding the Albany Pool was approved by a majority of Albany voters Tuesday.
More than 3,400 Albany residents voted Yes on the measure, accounting for 71 per cent of the total number of votes, while 1,400 people voted against issuing the Community Pool Improvement Bond, according to the Registrar of Voters Office of Alameda County.
The measure becomes effective when it’s supported by more than 55 per cent of Albany voters.
Following the approval of the measure, a 10-million-dollar general obligation bond will be issued by the Albany Unified School District to finance the construction of two new swimming pools for the community, and several classrooms for the Albany High School.
“I would like to thank the community and parents of the Albany Unified School District for their continued support of the students, ” said Superintendent William Wong of the school district.
Peggy McQuaid, former director of the pool, said she was pleased at the voting result.
“I am grateful to the community for supporting it, ” said McQuaid, who dropped campaigning pamphlets for the pool measure door to door last month.
Architects hired by the the school district will develop a design for the pool project in the following two months. Demolition and construction work could start in about six months, according to Wong.
Click here to read previous stories on the pool measure.
It’s unfortunate that amongst a seemingly educated electorate that there has been virtually no discussion about how bond measures affect low-income residents and seniors on fixed income. Perhaps those who can afford the property taxes in Albany can start donating to a general fund to help those in the community who are at risk of losing their homes due to rising taxation.
It’s not about the benefits of warm water therapy or aging facilities. It’s about gentrification and class issues in Albany.
Without question, Albany is a community with a higher standard of living than others around it; there’s never a guarantee that your town will remain, frozen in time and economic status. Parcel taxes, such as those committed to this bond, are arguably fairer than ad valorem taxes based on assessment… those who bought houses recently are at a *huge* tax disadvantage, and if you’ve owned your home for 40 years, you’re paying a tiny fraction (in ad valorem taxes) of what the neighbor next door who bought her house last year pays, thanks to Prop 13.
Dear Albany property owner,
Thank you. Maybe it is just these people who are paying a fraction of the property taxes to contribute to a general community fund. Community building in action.
Well, you could agitate to repeal the distortive effects of Prop 13, but that would gore a lot of people’s oxen. As a former Virginia property owner, I saw my assessment rise and fall, every year, as someone, somewhere calculated property values based on comparables, etc. We sold a house there in 2001, and its value (and taxes paid on it) has nearly doubled since (D.C. being in something of an economic “wartime” boom)… I’m as sympathetic for the new owners, with that unanticipated tax rise, as I am for people who buy here, and get stuck paying much more than their longtime-owner neighbors…
Do recognize that if you’ve owned a house in Albany for 50 years, and can’t afford the property taxes, you might be able to get a reverse mortgage, and live quite comfortably in your own home… it means less of an inheritance for the kids, but there’re no free lunches.
As a sixth generation bay area native, I know that the area was much more amenable to the working class (not working middle-class–there is a difference). through the years from family and local history.
So my question is: ‘What if you have owned your house only 10 years, and/or work at Target for 10.00/hour?”
Yes, and…? That’s not an Albany thing, nor just an East Bay thing. If you work at Target for $10/hour, you can’t afford to buy a house in this area.
Vote for “Not McCain” in the fall, and we can take some small steps toward addressing that problem. But it’s not all that connected to Measure E.
Here is a more detailed version, with references, of a letter published by The Journal today. Thank you for your attention.
Based on the information available before the last election, Nan Wishner and I recommended against voting for Albany’s “Community Pool Improvement Bond” (Measure E) in our guest commentary in The Journal (“Voters should scuttle nebulous Measure E,” January 18, 2008, http://www.contracostatimes.com/thejournal/ci_8007968). We supported rebuilding Albany’s pool, but felt that Measure E was not well crafted and should have been brought back to the voters in a better form in one of the two subsequent elections this year.
Our recommendation against the measure was in part due to our conclusion that “just the pool facility will likely cost the full $10 million or more,” not including demolition of the old facility, and design and engineering of the new facility. As the bond was to fund other project components as well (new classrooms and food service), we found that the lack of clarity around costs and project priorities warranted turning down the measure.
Amazingly, an article in The Journal two weeks later, just before the election and after many voters had submitted ballots by mail, confirmed our conclusion about cost (“Bond can be a splash for Albany aquatics,” February 1, 2008, http://www.contracostatimes.com/thejournal/ci_8138876). This article relayed that the School Board had just received estimates on four project configurations – $14.5M for two indoor pools and two permanent classrooms, $10.0M for two indoor pools, $10.8M for an outdoor competition pool, “covered” therapy pool and two permanent classrooms, and $10.3M for the same but with portable instead of permanent classrooms.
Despite this confirmation of our suspicions on cost, the then-Board Vice President at the time was quoted as saying, “I’m sorry there’s so little trust,” referring to Nan and I questioning what the School Board would actually do when the funding turned out to be inadequate for the projects.
The measure having passed by a wide margin, the question of which projects the Board will fund is now at the fore. It is clear that $10M is insufficient to fund the commitments made in the ballot argument for Measure E (http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/02/05/ca/alm/meas/E/#arguments). To reiterate, this argument stated that Measure E would “replace Albany Pool with two indoor pools: one competition pool and one smaller warm pool, build up to five new classrooms for Albany High School and after-school community use, [and] replace the outdoor Albany High School food service area with indoor food service and seating.” This statement was signed by the then-School Board Vice President, who is now the President, as well as by Albany’s Mayor.
In contrast to the project commitments made in the argument for Measure E, the language of the measure does not so commit the School District. How many people vote on the actual measure language, though? Most voters rely on the impartial analysis and the ballot arguments. Therefore while the commitments made in the ballot argument were clearly impossible to fulfill, they succeeded in getting the bond passed.
So which project component(s) will the School Board choose to fund? Will it build two indoor pools as promised in the ballot argument? Or will it place the pools outdoors in favor of getting more classrooms? What about the food service?
Probably the best result would be building the two indoor pools, as the measure was called the “Community Pool Improvement Bond,” and the School Board itself previously committed to put the pools indoors (http://albanytoday.org/2007/11/08/a-bond-measure-for-rebuilding-pool-will-be-put-on-ballot-of-albany-voters/#more-60).
As far as economically- and environmentally-sensible design elements like solar water heating for the pool, I hope the School Board doesn’t leave this to the next generation to worry about. We are out of generations to deal effectively with such issues. This will take stout leadership, however, as it will require yet more funding for the pool project in the short term (yet result in reduced operating expenses in the long term).