Comments on: Why Fremont doesn’t have swimming pools

By: Leanne

Leanne — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 05:29:34 +0000

Bruce, yea we’ve visited it and those features are nice… just not quite that same as letting the kids really get wet!

VOR: A water feature is typically sprayers or sprinklers, or something else incorporated into a regular playground. Birch Grove in Newark has a water feature, unfortunately it wasn’t turned on this year due to budget cuts. The one section at the water park next to the food stand with the rubber ground is a “water feature”. The water park is nice, but it’s simply too expensive! I understand the expense of such an undertaking needs to be paid for, but it’s just not practical for my single-income family except maybe once a year.

Again, I understand it all costs money! Just surprised with how large Fremont is that we never built one.

By: bbox231

bbox231 — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:30:09 +0000

Re posts 18 and 19 -

Unclear as to how either of these contribute to this topic – - other than to redirect attention to that of personality traits . . for whatever reason.

By: VOR

VOR — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 14:49:23 +0000

Leanne, could you elaborate on what you envision when you say “water feature?” Is the water park not a water feature?

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 04:33:36 +0000

Leanne: the “Always Dream” playground on Stevenson near Gallaudet has mist sprayers and a sand play area with a faucet and a water play table. Not a full-fledged stomp around in the water place, but the kids can get wet and sandy at least

By: Janet FitzGerald

Janet FitzGerald — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 02:30:10 +0000

Meant to also add the “best-cities-to-live-in” quality of life / health factors. Maybe a joint venture between private/corporate interests and public would do, and not just swimming facilities, but other sports as well, which could attract other related health-oriented and entertainment/leisure-oriented business. Why not look at the possibilities here & share some city success stories, so we have some good models to look at?

By: Leanne

Leanne — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 01:35:39 +0000

I don’t think we need a pool so much as we need a water feature. I run a local playgroup for the tri-city area and we were having to go as far as hayward and dublin to visit a park with a water feature… and this year, as soon as it actually got warm, all the parks were closed on weekdays(including quarry lakes). The dream park could have easily included a nice water feature… any of the park improvement could have. If Hayward can build a new park for this purpose, Fremont should be able to as well.

By: Janet FitzGerald

Janet FitzGerald — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 00:06:03 +0000

One of the many good points Kathy McDonald brings up. Your historical note highlights the need to revisit this issue, almost 50 after such a no vote. Imagine the economic boost Fremont could enjoy being a state-of-the-art sports center people would travel to year round. All it takes is innovative ideas, new and enlightened leadership, and an informed population. My hopes are high for Nov. 2nd.

By: Marty

Marty — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:33:50 +0000

You can tell how badly Box wants to “correct” someone by his use of ellipses. He must have strongly disagreed with your post, VOR.

By: VOR

VOR — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:07:06 +0000

Bbox, don’t take it personally. I wasn’t questioning or doubting your comments, just adding to them.

By: Matt Artz

Matt Artz — Sat, 23 Oct 2010 15:55:41 +0000

54 percent voted no on swimming pools. A simple majority was needed for passage.