Subcommittee's Assumptions Wrong

RECEIVED Tue., Sept. 4, 2012

Dear Editor,
    Re: “Then There's This: Pool Plan Panned and Lauded,” [News, Aug. 31]: The members of the joint subcommittee thought that they were required to vote for some version of the Larson Burns & Smith south grounds plan because there was bond money that had to be spent. A thorough examination of all the public records available to me on the subject fail to support this assumption on which the subcommittee made their decision, that a specific pot of money had been funded for each part of the Barton Springs Pool Master Plan that had to be spent.
    Furthermore, all money spent, whether borrowed through bond issues or diverted from current revenue, all comes from taxpayer funding one way or another, and each dime spent for the benefit of Paul leaves Peter a dime short - i.e, lavishing money on Barton Springs' unpopular architectural enhancements can close Dick Nichols Pool to winter swimming and training. This much anyone can figure out on their own, but for those interested in winding their way through the smoke and mirrors of bureaucratic budgeting I have the longer version including the four city council resolutions of 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2011.
Dan Crow
One click gets you all the newsletters listed below

Breaking news, arts coverage, and daily events

Keep up with happenings around town

Kevin Curtin's bimonthly cannabis musings

Austin's queerest news and events

Eric Goodman's Austin FC column, other soccer news

Information is power. Support the free press, so we can support Austin.   Support the Chronicle