.

POLL: Would You Support a Dedicated Millage for Dearborn's Pools?

Save Our Pools proposed a ballot question that would put the future of Dearborn's pools solely in the hands of voters.

A plan proposed to City Council Monday evening at the 2013 budget public hearing made a suggestion that would answer the question once and for all: Does Dearborn want to pay to keep its community pools?

Kristyn Taylor, a member of the Save Our Pools group, brought a plan before council at that would put a ballot proposal before residents asking them to vote on a dedicated millage that would cover the operating costs, capital improvements and maintenance of all eight of the city's pools.

The millage would also eliminate the purchase of pool tags, Taylor explained. Instead, all residents would automatically receive tags–as all residents would pay the tax.

"We would unite the city with something everyone would choose for the city of Dearborn," Taylor said. "Our plan ... brings together all interests we've heard from (the city and residents) ... and we would keep the pools open."

The millage proposal comes on the heels of the special assessment district funding plan, which would have taxed only the residents in the area immediately surrounding each small neighborhood pool. That idea , who said they felt it was unfair to residents to move forward without having a more concrete idea as to what the cost to voters would be.

When SOP members refused to hand over signatures that would put SADs on the ballot, the city essentially disbanded the Outdoor Pools Committee.

The new plan presented suggests that although it would be a new tax on residents, it would–if approved–be levied just as the millage runs out on the . That debt tax, which amounts to about two-thirds of a mill, expires in 2013.

"While it would be a new millage, the effect would be a continuation or decrease of the current costs the residents pay," SOP explained in the written plan. "The pool millage would begin where The Center millage ends."

Several members of Dearborn City Council said they saw merit in the idea, and would be willing to discuss it further.

"The fact that you want to take this to the voters makes a whole lot of sense to me," said Councilman David Bazzy. "If the voters want it, they’ll fund it.”

Tell us what you think: Would you support a dedicated millage for Dearborn's pools?

marooned in Dbn May 17, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Sorry, must post correction to improper word. I should have used the word " fallow", instead of "furrow", in the above posting. I strive for accuracy.
Dearborn Taxpayer May 18, 2012 at 01:34 AM
Parasitic free loader? Come on Frank. I pay over $50K a year in payroll taxes then another $6K in property taxes. Then there's gas tax, sales tax, use tax, license fees, vehicle registration fees, etc. that I've never bothered to add up. Plus I send my kids to a private swim club. No, Frank those of us who complain about taxes pay our fair share. We're just tired of paying a lot of other folks' share too!
Frank Lee May 18, 2012 at 02:22 PM
Let me add resentful, to parasitic free loaders.
marooned in Dbn May 18, 2012 at 03:56 PM
I thought so.
Gus May 18, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Marooned, I have lived in Dearborn for 30 years and 9 years in the Heights, never chose to live in Detroit. What incentive is there to live in Detroit? The glamorous shool system, the quick response police dept and EMS? What do you get for more taxes higher insurance and employment taxes? So everyone here is whining about 40 bucks a year to keep your neighborhood pool open. I don't feel I should have to pay taxes for Ford Woods and Dunworth to be the only pools in Dearborn to remain open, if they shut one down they should shut all of them down. The ballot should have two choices. A. Pay the the tax to keep the pools open. B. Close all the pools. That would make the votes fair. Because the people around Ford Woods and Dunworth will surely vote no in supporting the smaller pools if the have nothing to loose.
Frank Lee May 19, 2012 at 06:47 AM
I pay to send my kids to a private swim club, I'm a great American worship me.
Michael Matigian May 19, 2012 at 12:10 PM
My wife and I are 65 and Yes we would support our pools and fire and police !!!
Cruisma May 19, 2012 at 12:49 PM
The pools are not what they used to be - they were clean, you couldn't even take in a towel, you had to take a shower, you were checked by an attendant before you went in .... Now, you do whatever you want - floating cigarette butts, a film on the water from sunscreen, garbage left on the concrete surrounding the pool - yuck!! If you want to use them - you pay. Creat a pay-to-use fee. Even 50 cents per person per use (probably even 25 cents) would cover the maintenance and staff. We already pay way, way, too many taxes. If you have a modest house and have done any home improvement in the past 10 years (negates the Headlee amendment) Dearborn has the highest taxes around. I think nealy $12,000 a year in taxes is enough!! Dear, dear, Mayor Hubbard is turning in his grave for what Dearborn has become.
Rachel May 19, 2012 at 02:18 PM
A lot of people-- including me--signed the SAD petitions with or without specific details or knowing the final cost. I think that indicates how important this issue is to residents, and I wish the millage option had come up before the first pool closed. I'm definitely for it now.
Dearborn Taxpayer May 19, 2012 at 05:48 PM
No Frank, I'm not asking anyone to "worship me." All I'm asking is for folks like you to keep your hands off my wallet! The folks who want the public pools can simply write checks to the City's Recreation Dept. to pay for them. They will gladly accept them.
Mary Jo Durivage May 19, 2012 at 06:51 PM
I support such a millage mostly because 1) Neighborhood pools offer the CURRENT residents an opportunity for children to walk to a pool and enjoy swimming close to home 2) POTENTIAL residents would definitlely be attracted by a community that supported neighborhood pools and parks, a good public safety program, well groomed neighborhoods AND businesses, a good library system and public transit. I would be happy about the pools but not so happy with the lack of library service on the weekend. Yes, I know about the exchange with Dearborn Heights but that is not the same. Let's keep up a POSITIVE discussion by both proponents AND opponents.
Michael D. Albano May 19, 2012 at 10:38 PM
Proposed by the city the SAD's were very divisive because they forced the working class residents where the 6 small pools were to pay an SAD or lose their small neighborhood pools. However the city was willing to fund over 1 million for Dunworth, one of the richest areas of the city, as well as put another $4 million into Ford Woods. Yet to put in 6 entirely new pools and fund operating costs for the small pools was only $3.6 million total. A yr or so ago the city resident survey showed residents want all their pools, not just 2 huge pools and saving 6 pools is priority. With the proposed millage all 8 pools are saved for the same cost as the SAD, serving the majority of the residents, which is how democracy is supposed to work.
marooned in Dbn May 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM
You signed something without knowing whats in it, without any details of what you were signing ? Sort of sounds like Nancy Pelosi, who said that "we have to pass the healthcare bill first, so we can know whats in it." Please sign a blank check, or better yet, sign a cashiers check payable to Marooned in Dbn for 100,000 dollars, mayby I'll tell you the details of what I will do with it, or mayby not. (:))
Michael D. Albano May 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM
I forgot to mention that, the proposed SAD didn't include any funding for regular pool maintenance, while the proposed millage does. In other words, decades down the line, the pools won't be in such poor shape as the current ones are. Also, the proposed millage is a win-win situation for everyone. It gets the citizens the pools they want, and gets the city the upgraded Dunworth and new Ford Woods Aquatic Center. It also puts the "monkey" on the back of the voters and off the mayor and council. Knowing that, I fail to comprehend how any city leader could vote against allowing the millage. Lastly, I want to state that our form of government is representative government, where we vote on candidates to represent us and they vote and/or approve/disapprove issues. However a WISE politician, one who is doing their job as it is supposed to be done, votes with the majority of their constituents. No politician is able to please 100% of the voters all the time because our form of government is majority rules, not all or nothing.
Mark Spits May 20, 2012 at 03:12 AM
I strongly disagree. The only potential resident that the pools would "definitely attract" are renters who aren't paying the property taxes. And everybody knows, Dearborn doesn't like renters. When I look at the property tax I'd pay for the privilege of living in the 30 foot-lot, Dearborn bungalow belt, and sending my kids to a school like Fordson, Edsel or Dearborn High, and living within a couple miles of either Detroit or Inkster, the words that come to mind are: Plymouth, Northville, Brighton, Howell, Pinckney....I'd much rather pay high taxes and live in those areas than pay high taxes to live in Dearborn. But hey, Dearborn has pools that a very small number of people, proportionately, can walk to. Let's make everybody pay for them. Here's an idea: Stop making us pay for free breakfast and lunch for the kids of parents who can damn sure afford it and use the money saved to keep neighborhood pools open.
Dearborn Taxpayer May 20, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Michael with all due respect, our form of government is not "majority rules." I think perhaps you need to re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and even our own City Charter. Nowhere does it say that a majority of folks can vote to take money or other property from others. Look at the Patch poll, 60% favor the millage while 40% do not; this is the same percentage that has supported millage after millage in Dearborn and Wayne County (zoo, parks, etc.). Why don't those of you in the 60% who want to keep these pools open simply dig a little deeper in your own wallets and checkbooks to fund them to the extent that will make them viable? You then can have a pool pass in exchange for your voluntary contribution. Whereas the other 40% of us who don't live near a pool or use them at all can keep our money to spend on those things we value more than a "neighborhood" city pool. Finally, hopefully these so-called "WISE politicians" that you refer to will all get voted out come the 2013 election as not one of them has ever seen a millage they didn't like!
Frank Lee May 21, 2012 at 01:49 AM
The reason I bought my house in Dearborn, was because it was walking distance from the elementary schools and summertime supervised Rec and pools, it certainly attracts young families to neighborhoods. Vibrant parks improve standards of living for everyone. Mike Albino is 100% correct, he clearly stated the form of government we live under in the USA, and maybe Dearborn taxpayer should read the preamble to the constitution. Maybe Dearborn taxpayer should quit being a victim and understand the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility. The founding fathers gave congress the right to take your money to improve the general welfare through taxes. If you cannot understand this concept I'm sorry. It is clear Dearborn Residents support strong public safety and recreation programs let's hope they hold the city leadership accountable for maintaining it
Pricey McSpendsalot May 21, 2012 at 02:58 AM
"A few extra dollars a month will allow everyone access to a pool." No, a "few extra dollars a month" for everybody will allow a few to continue to be able to walk less than a block to a pool because they're too entitled do drive to Levagood from a few miles away. Let's cut through the BS shall we? The many "owe" the few because expecting the people who are whining the most to pay for the convenience of having a pool within walking distance (or closer, so that their kids don't have to cross a busy street to get to "their" pool) would be "unfair". Is that pretty much it?
Dearborn Taxpayer May 21, 2012 at 05:06 PM
I'm curious how long ago Frank bought his house in Dearborn? My guess is that the neighborhood has changed quite a bit since those days as has the sustainability of publicly-funded pools. "General welfare?" That's how folks justify taking more of your money for the things they don't want to fully pay for themselves. I understand the concept of limited government and providing public pools does not fit that concept. Frank, I'll "quit being a victim" when folks who want to raise taxes for their own "general welfare" take personal responsibility, fully pay the cost of the service they desire, and keep their hands off my wallet! I've lived in Dearborn for about 12 years, have young children, don't use the "neighborhood" pools, and simply don't want to have to be forced by others to pay to keep them.
Frank Lee May 21, 2012 at 11:19 PM
DT- Whatever you sound like a crying baby. If you have a problem with paying taxes to promote the general welfare you have a beef with the founding fathers not me or community pools. Go back to your closed loop right wing feedback multi media machine and talk with the other prodigies who get their talking points from the EIB network and leave public policy to the big people. Or maybe create a time machine and go back to the 18 century and rewrite the constitution. This country is a republican democracy which strongly protects the minority. So be glad our founding fathers gave you a right to complain we heard your point. Most people disagree with you and since municiple politics is majority rule, you lose. So quite trying to hijack this thread. Your opinion is rejected, but feel free to bully us with your resentment, revisionist history, and plagerized talking points you stole from the Glen Beck Show.
POWDERBURNER May 22, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Here I go again, Dan. There's a "segment" of people in our city (you refer to them as morons, I prefer a more derogatory term) who think they're getting this stuff for free, or at least at the expense of others, like us. When my obligation to my ailing father is over, I already own a couple places I can retire to and gladly leave this greedy cesspool in the dust.
Dearborn Taxpayer May 22, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Wow Frank. I just hope some of my tax dollars go to funding Anger Management counseling that you can attend for the "general welfare" of those of us who read your posts. Since the trend of this thread is getting personal rather than debating the proper limits of taxation, I will do as you request and leave this thread so that you can further influence the 6 of 10 folks who will undoubtedly vote to raise my taxes once again!
Frank Lee May 22, 2012 at 11:56 AM
You sure spend enough time trying to influence those 6 people with your anti tax nonsense. Maybe you should stick to trying to influence the people at your private swim club, wherever that is. I just bet your authoritarian rants against kids using community pools are the hit of the show at your private swimming pool that is filled with publicly subsidized water, that you drive to on publicly subsidized roads, patrolled by publicly subsidized police and watched by lifeguards that are more than likely swim team members from the locally subsidized high school and trained in programs supported by federally subsidized grants. Yes, you support limited government but put what money you do have in a federally guaranteed bank, freely use airports subsidized by people who don't fly, work with people who were educated by the public from k- BA at great expense, hunt or fish on lands where the game and habitat are publicly managed, use the Internet that was created by the DOD and improved by grant managed scholars, watch college football that is free entertainment provided by the state, I could go on but you get the point. You are resentful about kids using a community pool because it might cost you $20 a year. Not even enough money to buy one movie ticket a soda and popcorn. Please type your response on your own private Internet that was created by private capital.
Michael D. Albano June 10, 2012 at 06:18 PM
No one is asking everyone to pay for the 6 small pools. We're asking that instead of the city choosing select pools like Dunworth and Ford Woods having millions of dollars poured into them, while the SAD would force selected working class neighborhoods to pay an SAD to keep their pools. That SAD option discriminated against the 6 small pool, working class neighborhoods. The millage would support ALL 8 pools and make everyone pay their fair share. It would also save the city from spending $4 million for a new Ford Woods Aquatic Facility to be built similar to Dunworth and save another million or two to update Dunworth. This is the most fair solution to ALL citizens.
sarah martha June 10, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Yay John! I agree!
Silvio Davis June 11, 2012 at 03:05 AM
Dearborn Taxpayer, using the "60%" number on a online news paper page is a little foolish, wouldn't you agree? Do you think every tax payer in Dearborn voted on this site? Lets be real here, the same people comment on every article on this page. Notice the facebook page of SOP, we have followers all over Dearborn. Yes, some are not residents but most are. Also look at all the support of the pools we have with fundraisers, family nights, etc. To say the people do not want the pools is absurd. The taxes will decrease this year because the Center is paid off. The proposed millage for the pools will be less than what is now, which means your taxes will still decrease. Not only will we get new pools throughout the 10 years, but families will get free tags and property values will not decrease more than they already have. What do you want the kids of Dearborn to do all summer long? Run the streets..if we have it your way the crime rate will sky rocket sir. Just because your children did/do not use the pools is their choice. Some kids like to get exercise some like to play video games all day. As a child I grew up in the pools and was there every single day from open until close. All of my friends were as well.The children in this City use the pools, notice the number increase over the past 3 years in usage. I do agree with some of the non-supporters comments about taking it to the people.You all will be surprised once you come out of your boxes and see all the supporters SOP has.
Dearborn Resident July 12, 2012 at 06:08 PM
A new Aquatic development at Ford Woods, like Dunworth. Something stinks in the keep East Dbn residents in East Dbn department.
Dearborn Resident July 12, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Amen Steve.
Dearborn Resident July 12, 2012 at 06:16 PM
In a nutshell, yes, I would vote YES on this millage.
cmg July 12, 2012 at 06:21 PM
After reading all of these comments I can pinpoint the people that don't have kids that routinely use the pools. I do. My kids have used them for the last 7 years, swim lessons and all. I've paid for the lessons and for the tags. I've paid for them to play sports, for the ump fees, the upkeep on the fields, you get the picture. That being said I do it so my kids have a place to go to be safe and have a good time. If they are hanging out at the park doing nothing then it's a cause for trouble. Why is that better?? How about you "older" generation support some of the younger generation like you had when you were younger?? Dunworth has been there forever, I'm assuming you all went to Seashore. Whether you pay for a private club or you pay for the city pool what is the difference. I'll pay. No I'm by no means wealthy, I work because I enjoy the things I have. All of you "haters" need to find something to do with the extra time you spend on here complaining.....I know go take care of the pools....for free....then we wouldn't need a tax hike.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »