Pools campaign holds mock swimathon for Measures N, O

October 15, 2012 7:00 am by Tracey Taylor

Fourth grader Angel Jaramillo said he hoped by 7th grade he would be swimming in a reopened Willard pool, with his snorkel. Photo: Tracey Taylor

Angel Jaramillo, a 4th grader at John Muir Elementary School, has never swum at Berkeley’s Willard pool. His family sometimes take him to the Richmond Plunge. But, he said, he hopes that by the time he’s in 7th grade he will be able to swim at Willard — and he’ll be bringing his snorkeling mask.

Jaramillo was one of many children who came to the middle school pool on Derby and Telegraph on Saturday Oct. 13 to drum up support for ballot Measures N and O which would raise the funds necessary to re-open the pool, build a new warm pool, and maintain two other city pools. Willard Pool was closed in June 2010 and filled with dirt in January 2011. Corn and other edible plants now grow out of a section of the main pool and vegetation sprouts from the diving pool.

Kids performed mock swimming races and held up campaign signs on Oct. 13 at Willard pool which is filled with dirt. Photo: Tracey Taylor

Measure N would allow Berkeley to issue $19.4 million in bonds to replace or repair the pools at Willard Middle School. It would also see a replacement Warm Pool built at West Campus after the one at Berkeley High School’s Old Gym was demolished, along with the building that housed it, over the summer. The bond would also pay for the repair, renovation, or replacement of landscaping, lighting, paving, fencing and the locker facilities at the West Campus and King Middle School pools. To go into effect, Berkeley voters must also adopt Measure O, which will pay for the annual operation and maintenance of the Willard and Warm pools.

On Saturday, kids performed mock swimming medleys — escaping sharks, pretending to fish, and nudging over a boy with a “No Swimming” sign. There were hot dogs on offer and a DJ provided a lively soundtrack. A rendering of what a redesigned pool might look like, created by Atelier West Architecture, was on display.

An estimated 75 people turned up for a Yes on O/N swimathon event at the shuttered Willard Pool on Saturday Oct. 13 . Photo: Tracey Taylor

“It’s just conceptual,” said Robert Collier, a spokesperson for the Yes on O/N campaign. “There would be a community process to decide what a new pool would look like.” He added: “This is a very grass roots-y community get-together that shows the spirit of Willard Pool when it actually had water.”

Council Member Kriss Worthington, who attended the swimathon, and is running for mayor in the upcoming elections, said how impressed he was at the creativity of the campaign. “They do the most creative rallies — low budget, high fun.” Worthington said Willard pool was closed not because there was no money for its upkeep, but because of a lack of capital funding. “There has been a long-term neglect of its infrastructure.” He said this was because the city had been “penny wise and pound foolish” in focusing short-term financing needs. As the years go by the pool becomes twenty times as much to fix, he said.

The dive pool at Willard is filled with dirt as is the main swimming pool. Photo: Tracey Taylor

Related:
Berkeley Council approves pools measure, debates streets [06.27.12]
City, citizens debate substandard streets, a closed pool [05.31.12]
Op/Ed: Save our pools: Invest in people, close the opportunity gap [05.29.12]
Community rallies to get pools measure on November ballot [04.30.12]
More than $100m needed for parks, rec, and waterfront [09.29.11]
Will Willard pool become a vegetable garden? [03.14.11]
Willard swimming pool now filled with mud [01.05.11]
Comment: Voting on Measure C shows a city split [07.01.10]
Swimmers lament today’s closing of Willard Pool [06.30.10]
Last gasp bid to save Willard Pool eyes city subsidies [06.29.10]
Pools majority falls short: closures expected [06.09.10]

Would you like a digest of the day’s Berkeley news in your inbox at the end of your day? Click here to subscribe to Berkeleyside’s free email Daily Briefing.

28 Comments

Print Friendly
Tagged , , , , ,
  • The Sharkey

    I totally support re-opening Willard Pool, but I will not vote for a twenty million dollar new pools complex. Tying the fate of Willard Pool to the unpopular new Warm Pools complex seems like a cheap grab for votes. If the pools advocates really cared about the kids who used Willard, they’d separate the two issues.

    The City can’t even take care of the infrastructure we have now. We’re having to float bonds to take care of basic road maintenance. This is not the time to build expensive new recreation facilities.

  • Robert Collier

    There is no “twenty million pools complex” for the “Warm Pools” in Measures O & N. That’s a sheer invention. The replacement Warm Pool at West Campus would cost $10 million, and the total bond measure, including major work at Willard, King and West Campus outdoor pools, is $19.4 million. As for “cheap,” yes, O & N are a prudent investment in restoring the decaying pools that have gone past their normal lifetimes. That’s what all cities have to do every few decades — reinvest and rebuild, whether it be pools, schools, libraries or other facilities. Interest rates are at historic lows now, so it’s an excellent time for needed long-term capital projects. Berkeley’s problem of unfunded liabilities is a completely separate issue with different budgets and revenue streams. As for “grab for votes,” yes, O & N are very proudly intended to unite many constituencies — South West and North Berkeley, the able-bodied and disabled alike. That’s why O & N have been endorsed by such a wide cross-section of Berkeley leaders, from Mayor Bates to Kriss Worthington, from former Mayor Shirley Dean to the Progressive Rent Board slate, from Laurie Capitelli to Sophie Hahn, from the School Board to many PTA leaders.

  • berkopinionator

    I will proudly vote Yes on O & Yes on N!  Berkeley kids deserve the support of the entire community.  These measures will improve the physical and mental health of the children and adults who live here!  

  • another BUSD parent

    sorry, not buying it, not voting for it either!

  • The Sharkey

    No, Berkeley’s liabilities and budget problems are not a completely separate issue.

    If Willard had been properly cared for over the years, it never would have gotten so bad that it needed to be filled with dirty. If our roads had been properly maintained over the years, they never would have gotten so bad that we have to float bonds to cover their repair.

    We shouldn’t be building new infrastructure until the City of Berkeley can learn how to properly maintain and care for the infrastructure that we already have.

    The way that the N & O proponents are holding Willard Pool hostage to try to get the unpopular Warm Pool built is disappointing. Voters already rejected the warm pool last time they went to the polls. We shouldn’t be wasting City money repeatedly putting the same measures on the ballot every few years.

  • Robert Collier

    Poor maintenance is one thing; the city’s current “unfunded liabilities” problem, much of which is pension obligations, is another. And O & N are a third. Apples, oranges and kumquats: different budgets. I realize it makes political sense for anti-tax conservatives to try to conflate and confuse them as a way of scaring voters, but it is factually inaccurate. “Holding Willard Pool hostage” is wedge-issue sloganeering. Both Willard and the Warm Pool were included in Measure C in 2010, which received 62.2 percent “yes” votes, a great show of support but just shy of the two-thirds required. We reduced Measure C’s cost and scope to create Measures O & N, which will preserve the pools that Berkeley has had traditionally but without any new expansion. O & N are about protecting our community’s quality of life for all — kids and teens in South Berkeley as well as the elderly, disabled and toddlers who use the Warm Pool, as well as all others of West and North Berkeley. Pools are uniters, not dividers.

  • David D.

    I eagerly await the day that “progessive” (ha! ha!) Rent Stabilization Board candidates run on their own merits rather than tag-teaming each other, and keep their mouths zipped tight on issues that aren’t relevant to rent stabilization. (But what about all the other endorsements, you ask? Well, O & N are exactly the sorts of issues we elect the mayor and City Council to handle, so they are entitled to their opinions.)

  • The Sharkey

    The only one bringing up unfunded liabilities is you. I guess that makes you the phantom “anti-tax conservative” boogeyman in this discussion?

    “Holding Willard Pool hostage” is wedge-issue sloganeering.

    No, tying the repair of Willard Pool to the building of a completely unrelated brand new multi-million dollar warm pool is a cheap ploy to try to get more votes for the warm pool project.

    “Holding Willard Pool hostage” is a completely accurate description of what warm pool advocates are doing.

  • Chris

     While I agree with you in principle, the net cost to me is low, and the benefit this will provide to West and South Berkeley means I will vote for it.

  • berkopinionator

    Opponents of O & N should consider that capital investments in our recreational facilities increase the desirability of our community, raise property values, and ultimately help draw more investments, jobs and tax revenue to our city.  People starting businesses and creating jobs are drawn to cities like Berkeley that provide extra services in addition to police, fire, and roads. There will be both direct and indirect benefits to taxpayers.  Re-opening Willard Pool will create lifeguard and administrative jobs for young people in Berkeley. 

    The future of Berkeley’s fiscal condition is more likely to be linked to the outcome of the Mayor’s race, and the race for City Council.

  • The Sharkey

    The passage of something like Measure T will do a heck of a lot more to draw business and money into Berkeley than a new warm pool that only a tiny fraction of Berkeley residents will ever use.

  • Howie Mencken

    Berkeley is run by lobbyists. 

    We’re an unending parade of evangelist Ice skaters, sacred warm pool water treaders, public pool cheerleaders, sanctimonious cyclists, social justice educators of the under-served, irreplaceable West Berkeley funk art metal sculptors/artisans, etc. etc..

    But this Justice League of Super Heroic ambitions has been betrayed by the staff. Six figure salaries, little or no contribution  to health and retirement benefits has left us nothing to paint our big picture. 

    I wonder what temperature Phil Kamlarz keeps his pool?

  • Councilmaven

    I’m voting NO on measures N and O.  Yes, pools are certainly part of the $1.2 billion in unfunded “needs” (not somehow separate from the other infrastructure needs) and  perhaps one day we can add more.  For now, Berkeley already has nine+ pools that are or could be open to the public (2 city, 4 Cal, 3 YMCA) plus 2 in Albany and 1 at BHS. With a cooperative approach and for a tiny fraction of the $20 million we could extend their operating hours and seasons, selectively raise pool temperatures, and selectively subsidize Berkeley users if needed.    Per a $50 thousand plus professional poll conducted last spring by our City, pools ranked next to lowest in voter priority of 11 potential needs.  We just rejected this measure 2 short years ago when the huge extent of our fiscal needs was not yet known.  The Warm Pool, per Council discussion, will eat up $14 million of the $20 million bond (not $10 million), and Albany got 2 new pools for only $8 million. The Warm Pool is effectively holding the other pools hostage.  We could certainly fix up Willard and King by extracting moneys from our bloated employee costs in the City’s operating budget.

  • Anonymous

    His warm pool or the one filled with gold coins that he dives into like Scrooge McDuck?

  • Anonymous

    People who use their kids for political campaigns make me sick.

  • Anonymous

     If Berkeley had even a mediocre record of maintaining its “recreational facilities” or pretty much any facilities for that matter I might believe you. But all I see are decaying parks, third-world streets, and limited services. Not to sound to paternal but maybe the city should demonstrate that it can take care of the stuff it already has before buying new things?

  • Heather

    As a mother and a homeowner, I think measure O & N are important investments in Berkeley’s future. Kids need safe places to play and learn to swim, they need physical activity to help them stay healthy and to help them stay focused in school. Same for adults. We miss the warm pool – it was the best place to get our 2 year old comfortable and having fun in the pool, and it was by far the best place to take him to get exercise on cold or rainy days. And I hope to grow old here and know that the warm pool will be an invaluable resource as the inevitable effects of an aging body set in. Having community resources like pools is also good for our property value. Having Willard sitting idle and in disrepair is a blight on city and a wasted opportunity to improve people’s lives. Yes on O & N!

  • willardteacher

    While I know that politics is what closed the pool in the first place, I will happily be exercising my vote to say yes for reopening the WIllard pool.  South Berkeley deserves it!

  • Donna

    I am proudly working for and plan to vote for Measures O and N, to restore both Willard and the Warm Pool and to renovate our other two public pools.  Why?  All our children–not just those in North Berkeley or whose families can afford a “Y” membership–need to learn to swim, for safety and for fun and recreation.  (It’s not the only South Berkeley equity issue, but it is one.) There have been tragic drownings of children who couldn’t swim: It used to be that you couldn’t graduate from Berkeley High unless you could swim–and you learned at Willard, King and West Campus if you didn’t have other opportunities…AS FOR THE WARM POOL:  Berkeley has a deservedly proud tradition of serving seniors and disabled.  It’s not a numbers game (we don’t all need curb cuts or accessible buildings) but let’s face it:  All of us–and the populace overall–are aging.  Which of us can say that we won’t welcome a warm water pool for vital exercise that is easy on aging, arthritic joints?  A new warm pool which is not decrepit, need not share facilities with the high school, and has adequate parking will have the potential to serve far more people–including youth for year-round swim lessons that can help make the pool self-sustaining.  So join me in voting yes on both “O” and “N”.  (N will build, and O will provide staffing for the new pools.)
        

  • Get Real

    not even the most positive pro-pools campaigning says that the warm pool will be self-sustaining

    it will be another drain on the city budget and require parcel tax funding from the day it is built until the day it is demolished

  • Proud Pools Proponent

    The reason for Measure O is to provide a dedicated stream of funding for Willard and the Warm Pool.  Is it likely people will want more hours?  Quite possible.  (And the City can say no, as it must to many requests.)  My point was that well-run warm pools–not tied to a high school– sustain and extend programming through year-round swim lessons, especially for younger children. These are lucrative but can still be reasonably priced.  (Far more affordable than the “Y”.) Since all of us will one day be old, such virulent sentiments about facilities that do serve aging people frankly surprise and puzzle me.

  • Gary

    To GET REAL would be to understand that swim lessons are generally understood
    among swim professionals as THE money-maker in aquatics and  that warm pools are 
    the best place to give them. There are dozens (the vast majority) of   private swim 
    schools in California  that are “self-sustaining” (stay in business) using 90-94 degree 
    water. The recently demolished Warm Pool at Berkeley High was so hedged round
    in its conditions of operation (including, I must say, a lack in its management of the
    expertise of the private schools’ ) that not a single swim lesson was ever given there
    by COB; it took them 20 years to even start parent-baby swim, though it was 
    thronged once begun. As a disabled person dependent  on access to a warm pool
    for elementary health maintainence, I believe it is tragic that Berkeleyans view of 
    what a warm pool is continues to be based ONLY on the very limited part of its 
    potential that was realized at Berkley High. Equally sadly, “even the most positive
    pro-pools campaigning” fails to adequately combat the toxic legacy of misunder-
    standing that pervades discourse.

  • orenm

    I am planning on voting against these two measures, because:

    1. If these pools and programs are important, then our elected and appointed officials should budget for them using existing funds.  If there aren’t existing funds for the entire project, then take out a loan and repay it using existing funds over the life of the loan.

    2. I can see how pools are important to some people, but with a short search, I can see that there are several existing pools available in Berkeley.  Maybe they are less convenient, or have some small disadvantage, but imposing new taxes is not a trivial thing, especially for people on limited incomes like seniors, young families, etc.  The downtown Y has swimming programs for children of all ages, seniors, and adults.  I also see that they have financial assistance for those who can’t afford their rates.

    3. There are other measures on the ballot this year that require additional taxes (education, transportation, etc) that I will support because I think those are more urgent.

    To get my support for a pool measure in the future, I would like to see a way for the pools to re-coup some or all of the cost of the investment, as well as fund some portion of their operating expenses (including maintenance and future repairs).  This might mean sub-leasing the facilities for part of operating hours, or charging higher fees for certain people, etc.

  • Proud Pools Proponent

    Pools are important for more than some people.  Our public pools are the affordable way for children to learn how to swim, an essential life skill even for those who do not turn out to spend a lot of time in the water.  The way this can most surely happen is for pools to be conveniently located in neighborhoods and connected with schools.  Other existing pools in Berkeley are not merely less convenient, but either unavailable for open public use at all, or can be used only with a membership fee which is out of reach for many.  (There is some financial assistance for yearly membership at the “Y”, but no drop-ins.)

    Interestingly enough, there are in fact feasible ways for recouping some of the cost of investment and of running the pools, as Oren suggests. For example, all over California and beyond there are warm pools that both serve seniors and disabled people and go a long way toward covering their costs by offering year-round swim lessons, especially for younger children.  This was never done at the recently demolished warm pool, for reasons that would not apply to the new one–such as restrictions on parking, changing areas shared with the high school, and the decrepit condition of the facilities.

    And indeed, the plan IS for higher fees at the warm pool for non-residents.

    Another way the outdoor pools can be more self-sustaining is for them to be
    integrated with after school and summer recreation programs.  But this
    means having pools across the city–near the programs– and in good condition.  It does not mean Willard
    Pool filled with dirt.

  • reader

     Kids use pools, and 2-year-olds can’t write their own letters–there’s no shame in a parent talking about what she wants for her child.

  • Guest

     Some of his money and his wife’s went into contributions to the Bates campaign.

  • orenm

    Hi, thanks for the reply.  Do you know where I can find information about the plans to charge higher fees at the warm pool for non-residents?  I’d be interested in general in learning more about the plans for managing these facilities, but I read the whole voter guide and didn’t see anything about this there.

  • Proud Pools Proponent

    There is indeed no mention of rates for a new warm pool in ballot information because these decisions will need to be discussed–no doubt at length–at both the staff and City Council level once the voters approve measures O and N.  However, the principle has been brought up many times in the past and there has been general Council agreement about it, since  it is well known that some Berkeley taxpayers have concerns about this issue.