When you read the Gazette editorial piece (July 2), one could easily conclude that Council passed a motion prohibiting all neighbouring residents from using our swimming pools. In fact this motion simply provides a common sense mechanism by which we ensure local residents have an opportunity to register for swimming lessons at the facilities they own and for which they pay taxes to build and maintain.
The attempt to draw an analogy between St. Albert teams going to Sherwood Park to play a hockey game, or St. Albertans going to Oiler games or concerts is fundamentally flawed. Council’s motion does not preclude a neighbouring resident from coming to St. Albert to enjoy swimming. Sherwood Park does not preclude St. Albert teams from playing hockey in their rinks. Hence the attempt to draw comparisons between apples and oranges is of questionable validity. Driving to Millennium Place for a fun day of swimming is a little different than driving that distance for swimming lessons. Consider what residents would feel if our arenas allocated ice at a first-come first-serve basis.
We are not meanies. Many non-residents are welcome to enjoy the spray park or the many other amenities St Albert has to offer.
After one and a half years on waiting lists it is nice to see my granddaughters being able to continue developing their skills in swimming. Maybe we do not have tax dollars for that "new expensive pool" but some on council found the money to spend on a "road to nowhere" costing taxpayers close to $6 million.
L. Hennigar, St. Albert
