Editorial from June 19, 2007

“What went wrong with the pool?”

By Danielle Seckler

   Now that it is official that the pool project is dead, leaving those who were so strongly supportive of the project shaking their heads in disbelief. How could they be so out of tune with the public they served?

    The project was started with a telephone survey asking about an indoor pool completed in July 2003 and it included renters with property owners asked. Starting on page 36 of the report, “Arguments Opposing the Measure”, it stated that 24% believed that ‘Facilities paid by residents but non-residents will use’ and 18% stated that ‘Some facilities built and closed due to mismanagement’. The latter was confirmed on page 43, where 46% of residents asked thought that the current parks were maintained fair to poor. Like most surveys, we believe that they were looking at a small snapshot of just the Park District and not taking into account other issues that faced the residents. When the Old Fire caused the valley to evacuate, the residential focus was changed to fire danger and water sources which have not changed since 2004. The pool committee should have had the major oppositions mentioned on the top of each agenda to remind them where the residents and property owner’s concerns would be.

   The price threshold should have been the next criteria printed on each agenda. The survey stated the following:

Considering that a protest vote needed 50% +1 and none of the numbers above gave enough support to meet that cost threshold. The primary conclusion should have been to the pool committee to keep it small and for the residents to use; definitely not for tourists.

   As they did research on the Operation and Maintenance (O&M), it was clear that pools do not make money across the country. This is where they started to go awry and started to think that the indoor pool had to include a large side and splash area to draw tourists to pay for the O&M. To give something to the 50% of the population that is over 50 years old and unlikely to go to a pool regularly, they added a therapy pool.

   As the public watching the pool committee do their stuff, they wanted to speak at the committee meetings. However, the Park District under past general manager Kathy Campbell held the pool committees without any public input section on the agendas and no one from the public attending was allow to ask questions or speak. Those compromises made in the valley for tree ordinances or conservation stages, included all participants, giving something everyone could live with and would support. The Park District did the exact opposite and this alienated the public from the committee; only those people invited to be on the pool committee were allowed to speak. The Park District did end up having to include some of those representatives from other areas, however it was clear that their voices were a minority and did not sway anyone else on the committee. Minds were set and nothing said would make a difference.

   One of the biggest obstacles was the location of the pool. Once it was decided that tourist had to be included in the mix, the location had to be somewhere that the tourist could be lured into. This meant that it should be located west of Division, near or on Big Bear Blvd. Again, those people from the east end stated that the bulk of the property owners were outside of Big Bear Lake and that the majority of the kids were there as well. Remember the constant cry that an indoor pool was for the kids. The US Census Bureau states there are 17,542 people living in the valley and the statistics of school children of the valley is 3,965. That means that the school age children rank 23% of the total population, with the rest of the population being mostly comprised of people over 50 years old.

   No matter how many times people both on the pool committee and off said that more public input was needed, it was ignored. By September 2006, the committee decided that they would not do an internal polling of the people’s opinion. Several people suggested that volunteers could do a telephone survey to poll opinions on size, cost, and location to see if the pool project was still within the public’s majority opinion. It was decided that this would not be necessary; another nail in this pool’s coffin.

   As in all organizations, it is a top down attitude that will prevail. Supervisor Dennis Hansberger is not seen outside of Big Bear Lake and Bear Valley News have never seen him anywhere else than at the Big Bear Chamber. The Big Bear City Community Services has asked him to come to their meeting to talk about the Park District and he hasn’t come to one public meeting since Bear Valley News started reporting in January 2003. He has come to do a walkabout of the parks, but only with two CSD board members and the general manager. Recently, Supervisor Hansberger has gone on TV6 to speak about the pool ballots. There he stated that he had been to many public meetings, yet Bear Valley News has never seen him. He was challenged to come to a Town Hall meeting to speak to the public directly. He was silent.

   If you combine a supervisor who refuses to speak to the public directly and will only do so if he can give a pre-recorded canned speech, and a Park District who will not include the public in their meetings; it is the formula for disaster. Excluding people who tried to work within the structure and discounting them by remarks that they were only ‘loud mouths’ or C.A.V.E. (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) people, sealed this pool project to its inevitable doom.

   When the pool committee spoke people went out into the public to different selective civic groups, they gave presentations and answered some of the questions. The pros and cons of the project were not made clear. Add into the mix the distrust the Park District (remember the survey?) and the feeling that vital information was not given out. The financial document, which had to be forced from the hands of the Park District with legal action in March 2006, clearly stated that the project would cost $10.3 million dollars; and not the $6.7 million told to the pool committee in September 2006. This amount included the $1.2 million in grant money promised by Supervisor Hansberger. Once the accelerated foreclosure and the extra disclosure were mentioned to us, Bear Valley News started researching and found it to be a part of the normal Benefit Assessment District; an aspect which is hated with the dreaded Mello Roos.

   Once Bear Valley News started getting this information out to the public, it fed into their distrust of all government. Those activists on and off the pool committee tried to tell the Park District, but they were met with distain and they were ignored. Every point that was brought up to the park commissioners, park district, and Kathy Campbell were met with the spin that there was nothing to worry about and this pool would be a good thing. At public Town Hall meetings held right after the ballots were sent, they had to admit that accelerated foreclosures were a legal part of the property taxes, but it was played down as a possibility. The constant changes to the three financial documents made public, were played down as not being significant. When asked about the last pool, Campbell had to admit that it wasn’t the earthquake that destroyed the pool, but incompetent maintenance personnel who emptied the pool when the water table was too high. Remember the survey saying 18% of those asked thought the Park District did a fair to poor job? People of this valley don’t ever forget.

   A group was formed to fight against this pool, starting with the collection of 50 property owners’ signatures per hour to give the to the county’s supervisors, before the ballots were sent. By that time, there was no way to stop the ballots. Consider this, a small group of about 35-40 people handed out information to property owners, created an 800 telephone number, a website, and Bear Valley News’ public opposition to this pool project. All we asked was that people read our point of view and to make up their own minds; then to tell their friends, family, and neighbors. Denise Proffer and Bear Valley News were the most visible spokespersons and we took the hits for standing up for the rest. Those who we spoke for became more and more angry and determined to stop the project. It fired them up to stand out on the boulevard with signs saying ‘No’ on this pool. It made them go the extra mile to make sure that property owners had the ‘other’ information.

   The landslide of property owners saying ‘Not this pool’ vindicates all of us who took the hits and walked the walk. Grassroots can make a difference. The people, who tried to create a project the valley’s people would vote for, did so with open hearts and minds. The problem lies in the leadership, starting with Supervisor Hansberger, the park commission, and the previous Park District administration. They refused to listen all along the line; their own telephone survey, the public that attended the meetings, and the articles and editorials Bear Valley News wrote. When I spoke with City Council member Rick Herrick about the signatures gathered, he condescendingly told me that “it was just a couple of big mouths” and he knew that the majority were for the pool, because he was on City Council. This is an example of the attitude that was displayed throughout the valley. A few people come up with an idea and refused to listen to anything the other side has to say. They become so entrenched with their vision that they refuse to compromise. I can understand why Councilman Herrick believed what he was saying. Like so many other political leaders, they end up like their counterparts in Washington DC. Listening only to those people they associate with. Supervisor Hansberger listened to those leaders who come to the Chamber. The pool committee followed Kathy Campbell, the Park District, and only those on the committee.

   Everyone was left out the public and their changing views and pocketbooks. Since 2003, we’ve had a massive fire threat, water shortages and restrictions, road and drainage measure voted down, the difficulty of the Sugarloaf residents to get their streets plowed, and the hospital’s mandated earthquake retrofit. Utility costs continue to rise and gas prices in the valley are always at least 35-cents higher than down the hill. People are feeling squeezed and their governments are doing nothing to help them.

   You had to be deaf and blind to how the American people are feeling today and the valley’s residents are no different. Billions of dollars are flooding out of the country, when inside the country the entire infrastructure is falling apart. Why would anyone think that a pool would outweigh the concerns for fire, water, the hospital, and roads?

   For all the political leaders of this valley, watch out. The people are angry and they will revolt, if you do not listen to the people. We don’t mean the people you see at the Chamber mixers or at the galas. We mean the people who meekly speak to you in letters, phone calls, and on the street. They are the silent majority; silent until you refuse to listen to them and they are standing in the voting booths.

Back to Front Page