Your lead article (Nikiski residents file to stop center) in the March 24 Clarion has confused me.
Would it be possible for you to run an article that clarifies some questions that the three initiatives bring up? To quote your news article the first initiative "would limit the scope of the service area to recreation programs only, barring it from operating a meeting hall, providing food service or leasing out space to other organizations."
Am I to read this as limiting the service area into providing free and open access to all residents of the borough and state to the Nikiski swimming pool whether they are service area residents or not? Also would this limit any organization that wants to use the facilities of the service area from renting those facilities (the pool and hockey rink)?
Does this mean that during the summer we will not be able to have Nikiski Summer Fun the third week of June as we have for the past several years? What about the concession stand and pop and candy machine that is in the pool area? My grandsons will be crushed.
In August of 2002 the class of 1992 held its 10th reunion at the pool a place that so many wonderful memories were made. Would this reunion have been barred because the pool would have been operating as a meeting hall?
The second and third initiatives have me very confused. Will the group of Nikiski residents who are bringing these initiatives forward be responsible for the legal fees that are incurred during the "legal review" or will the borough taxpayers foot the bill? Since the initiative writers put forth two nearly identical initiatives deciding later which one they will pursue, will there be a fiscal note showing the dollar amounts that either one of these initiatives will cost the taxpayers in the future?
Please note that these Nikiski residents do not speak for me.
Peninsula Clarion © 2016. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us