'One man's greed' VA court decision blocks YMCA construction
-
Protesters at an April press conference announcing the YMCA's victory in the lawsuit were fed up. Now it looks like there will be more delays.File photo by Dave McNair
On August 2, Piedmont YMCA CEO Denny Blank says, he was in a meeting with the contractor who was going to build the new $15 million, 72,000-square-foot YMCA facility in McIntire Park when he got the news.
"We were very, very close," says Blank. "Their bid came in at $180 a square foot, a great price, and we were ready to get rolling."
That's when Blank got word that the Virginia Supreme Court had agreed to hear the so-called Charlottesville Area Fitness Club Operators Association's appeal of dismissal of their lawsuit against the County, which claims they were illegally locked out of the bidding process for construction of a public fitness facility. That lawsuit, and another against the City, were both dismissed in local courts.
"We were stunned by this," says Blank. "It's all because of one man's personal greed, one man trying to block this project because he's afraid of losing his monopoly."
Blank says that ACAC owner Phil Wendel told a YMCA representative [correction: in a previous version of this story it said that Wendel told Blank this directly, but that was misreported] that he would accept the local court's decision and that he "just wanted his day in court."
"But he didn't like the outcome," says Blank. "The sad part is that the community is the real loser here."
Indeed, while Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris says the City– which agreed to lease the land to the YMCA for $1 a year– has no problem with the project moving forward despite the Supreme Court decision, Blank says the bank financing the project will not release the funds until all lawsuits are settled. According to Blank, the case won't likely be heard until sometime in 2012.
The Charlottesville Area Fitness Club Operators Association, once composed of ACAC, Gold's Gym, and Total Performance, now includes only Gold's and ACAC, as Total Performance requested to withdraw from the suit two months ago.
"ACAC and Gold’s Gym are pleased that the Supreme Court of Virginia has chosen to hear the case," says ACAC spokesperson Christine Thalwitz in a statement. "This is but one more step in the judicial process, and it does not preclude the possibility that the project will continue."
Asked to respond to Blank's comment, Wendel declined comment.
"Had there been a fair and open bid process," says Thalwitz, which is the core issue of the lawsuit, "a project for these services would likely be on track today."
ACAC CEO Greg Wells, in comments made to Charlottesville Tomorrow, says the private fitness clubs were "unjustly and unfairly denied" a chance to bid, and that "other solutions" might have been better than the YMCA proposal.
Asked in April what ideas ACAC and Gold's Gym would have offered to compete with the YMCA proposal, Thalwitz offered nothing specific, saying only that a "formal proposal would have been submitted" if they had been allowed to bid.
"We've taken the high road up until this point," says Blank, "and haven't mentioned Mr. Wendel by name. But this community is tired of one man's greed."
"It's sad that corporate interests, interested in minimizing competition and losing customers, are trying to block something that is going to help so many people," says Norris, "particularly lower income families."
Norris points out that he had looked forward to kids at Charlottesville High School having a place right next door to go to, basically free of cost, where they could not only participate in fitness and sports programs, but also take part in the many other Y offerings.
"We did the same thing for the Charlottesville Boys & Girls Club," says Norris, "provided them space for the great services they offer the community, at a low cost to taxpayers."
Indeed, Blank lists 19 municipalities in Virginia that have offered assistance– in the form of attractive land leases and actual funding– to bring new YMCA facilities to their communities (see sidebar).
The Wendel lawsuit isn't the only obstacle this project has faced. Concern over the possible loss of McIntire's softball fields, which Blank says was never part of the YMCA's plans, and resistance from those who were concerned that the project would denude McIntire Park of its green spaces, also had to be overcome.
For Blank, who has been involved with the YMCA in some form for over 20 years, it's hard to understand.
"This is the only place I've ever lived where people have resisted and fought against a YMCA," he says.
TIMELINE:
“It is difficult to characterize this as anything other than a tax-exempt, taxpayer supported commercial fitness club.” –Phil Wendel in a April 30, 2007 letter to City Council
July 2007: Former Parks & Rec director Mike Svetz tells City Council that if it directs staff to enter into a lease agreement with the YMCA "there is a legal process required, including advertising a public hearing and issuing an RFP"
October 2007-City issues a request for proposals for anyone interested in leasing 3.4 acres of land from the city for the purpose of "developing a non-profit fitness and recreational center of approximately 70,000 square feet.” A public hearing was also held. Neither ACAC or Gold's Gym representatives attend public hearing.
Wester Chester, PA. Daily Local, 2008:
Not everyone is thrilled with the success of the new, bigger YMCA.
Greg Wells, senior vice president for the nearby ACAC in West Goshen, said his fitness club had seen some migration of members to the new YMCA, but he called the impact "de minimis" — meaning minimal.
"We've seen some members leave, and we've seen some come back," said Wells, who attributed a slight membership decline more to the general economic slowdown than to the opening of the larger Y facility.
Outside the ACAC's McDermott Drive facility, a sign reads: "You get what you pay for." But that sign is not directed specifically at the YMCA, Wells said.
"From our perspective, it's a way to differentiate ourselves from the other health clubs in the area," said the vice president of the five-club group of fitness centers. A sixth is slated to open soon in Lynchburg, Va. "There's no reference there against what the Y is about. They have their place, and we have our place."
That said, Wells said ACAC, like most for-profit clubs across the country, finds it difficult to compete against an entity like the Y with its tax advantages.
When asked if the YMCA had evolved from its charitable roots into a fitness center operation, Wells replied, "We share that view. This would be something that you would hear nationwide."
May 2010: The Charlottesville Area Fitness Club Owners’ Association, made up of ACAC, Gold's, and Total Performance, file a law suit against the City and the county, claiming they violated the Virginia Public Procurement Act by not allowing the for-profit clubs to bid on the proposal.
127 comments
I applaud the writer's research of the facts. I sympathize with Mr. Blank and do hope our town is offended by Mr. Wells' and Wendell's assumptions about how stupid we all must be.
I don't see how ACAC's business would be affected very much by the new YMCA, but the original judge was wrong to dismiss the lawsuit so casually. The case deserves to be heard. Gold's Gym is more likely to lose business to the YMCA than is ACAC, and for that reason, it is possible that the suit may actually succeed.
The "enough is enough" refrain -- for the Western ByPass-ByPass, for the Meadowcreek Parkway, and for the Mega-dam and coal-burning uphill pipeline -- is getting tired.
It's not just anti-intellecutal (e.g., pointy heads debating algorithms) but also anti-common sense (will this raise my utility bill, taxes, property value, etc.).
For all of the problems in The Hook's "Jaws" article, it had a read-between-the-lines truth: there's a lot of corruption and self-dealing in our community.
P.S. I think the YMCA in the park is an abomination.
P.P.S. Does anyone know the history of the old fighter jet that was in the park? What was it? When installed? When and why removed?
I'd be happy to have a YMCA if an appropriate home could be found for it. I'd even donate my own hard earned money to help make it happen. McIntire Park is not an appropriate place however. Perhaps Mr. Blank ought to think about why this is the first time he has encountered opposition to a YMCA.
McIntire Park is an amazing community resource. Destroying it with the Parkway and the YMCA is just not acceptable to a lot of us who would like to see it achieve its potential as our own central park.
I don't understand that Mayor Norris would support this. Lots of low income kids could access this if it were on a bus route in the City - not in the park !
Thumbs up to the last 2comments. A small handful of folks were getting away with a fast one. There are better locations to be sure
ACAC, and to a lesser extent Gold's, just wants all the fitness pie for themselves. They already charge considerably more in Cville for the same membership as in Richmond because they really have very little open public competition. Wendel and Wells are nothing more than dictators.
The law in Va says that fitness clubs must include certain terminolgy and disclosures or the ENTIRE contract is unenforcible. I believe that the way I read it golds contracts do not meet the law. If you have a gold contract and want out then bring your contract and point out the law to the Commonwaelth attorney and get it nixed. It also applies to old contracts where they have turned you over to collection.
here is the link...
http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/consumers/f-healthspas.shtml
It is incredibly sad that our community does not have a physical YMCA facility. All children and families would benefit. For now, many of the Y's programs are forced to rent space from city buildings or even ACAC for their pool facilities in the summer. The greed of the few in the area is keeping others from being able to enjoy the same amenities as many other counties in Va.
The problem is that these two facilities are the few here and no one wants to stop frequenting them or stop membership. Wouldn't that be great if all those members made a point and stopped going.
If the county and city would work together, there would be a fabulous new facility that is affordable and could offer a variety of classes and activities for all ages.
My hope is the greed stops and they look at the bigger picture for all residents in the county and not just the ones who can afford ACAC.
If you look at the sidebar titled "Virginia municipality support for Y projects," it's more than clear that there are ample precedents for local government support of Ys. And that support ranges from Northern Virginia (Reston/Fairfax, Loudoun) to more central Virginia (Stafford, Spotsylvania) to Tidewater (Hampton, Newport News, Chesapeake) to rural and southwestern Virginia (Altavista, Bedford, Franklin, Tazwell). So it is not isolated support, nor is it limited only to the more politically progressive areas of the state.
But anyone who knows even a little about Phil Wendel should be surprised by his actions. This is a guy who alleges a belief in competition, but that belief rings hollow. Like his conservative brethren, Wendel believes in "competition" rhetorically but not when it might cut into his profits.
Wendel is an avid supporter of conservatives and conservative causes. In 2011 alone he gave $34,000 to Republicans, including $25,000 to Bob McDonnell's Opportunity Virginia PAC, $3000 to Albemarle Supervisor Ken Boyd and $2500 to delegate Rob Bell. In an egregious case of corporate welfare McDonnell gave millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to Northrop Grumman to extend its state technology contract even though it has failed (repeatedly) to deliver what it promised. Little Bob raided the state pension fund of more than $620 million to help "balance" the state budget and create a "surplus (wink, wink). Boyd helps to shower taxpayer subsidies on the county's biggest and mostly wealthiest landowners at the expense of regular citizens. Bell is the prototypical conservative state delegate who takes money from and represents the interests of the finance, real estate and energy businesses while doing little for public education and the environment. Bell would prefer to extend the death penalty to nearly anyone who looked cross-eyed at another while denying citizens the opportunity to tag their vehicles with a license plate reading "Trust Women/Respect Choice."
In the last decade Wendel has given more than $400,000 to political candidates and causes in Virginia, 97 percent going to Republicans. He's given $20,000 to Eric "Smarmy" Cantor's Victory Fund, $10,000 to the 7th Congressional district Republican campaign committee, and more to Cantor for Congress: Cantor, the guy who voted for all the Bush supply-side policies that ran up big deficits and ballooned the national debt and broke the economy, and who then nearly brought the U.S. government into default on his own.
These are the kinds of people and policies that Phil Wendel does support. So it should be no surprise that Wendel opposes fiercely something that might promote the general welfare of the community.
@YouthFiness @democracy:
How about this? The YMCA finds its own money, either through a loan based on its business model or through donations it raises, and leases or buys property of its own?
What's happening here is that the government is giving away public property. From the news report, the YMCA guy (forget his name) had an awful sense of entitlement.
I'm a flaming liberal progressive, but I support Wendel's argument here (despite finding his other positions, as you describe them, to be loathsome). Like CookieJar, I'd donate to place the YMCA elsewhere.
@ SkipWith
If you look at the sidebar titled "Virginia municipality support for Y projects," it's more than clear that there are ample precedents for local government support of Ys. And that support ranges from Northern Virginia (Reston/Fairfax, Loudoun) to more central Virginia (Stafford, Spotsylvania) to Tidewater (Hampton, Newport News, Chesapeake) to rural and southwestern Virginia (Altavista, Bedford, Franklin, Tazwell). So it is not isolated support, nor is it limited only to the more politically progressive areas of the state.
If the federal government under Bush can bail out the big banks and hedge-funders who caused the financial meltdown and fund corporate welfare, and if the state of Virginia under Little Bob McDonnell can send million and millions of taxpayer dollars to a highly profitable defense contractor, then why do you object to some municipal government support for a fitness center (the Y) that will actually directly benefit the community?
We already know why Phil Wendel objects.
In my opinion Phil Wendell is a dirty little greedy old man in a sweatsuit, I heard he owns house in Crozet that proves my point, In this age of childhood obesity especially in the income levels that can't afford ACAC how can someone stand in the way of a YMCA for this community. People like him gripe the u know what out of me and so do the politicians who he continues to pull the strings on.
There are public parks with fitness trails, public pools and other recreation facilities all over town. No one is obese because of Phill Wendell's greed, whether it exists or not.
@ democracy: I repeat, "Like CookieJar, I'd donate to place the YMCA elsewhere." Heck, maybe I wouldn't to some tax-incentive or whatever to get the YMCA into better building.
But this plan is for the city to give money and a $1 ground lease our city's "central park" to a private, religiously-inspired organization.
That's wrong on so many levels.
And when did access to an affordable gym become a constitutional right?
Democracy,
As much as I dislike Wendell and company, In the case of the park, I find the subsidy of any private organization with public funds and assets a problem. I find it especially aggregious when the use of those assets will deny other taxpayers the right to use those assets. Just because other localities do it doesn't make it right.
And I agree about the sense of entitlement espoused by the Y in this. They are not 'entitled' to anything from the taxpayer. This entire community stinks of entitlement frankly from the developers to those who get subsidized lunches. So far, I have not seen the Y offer many things at a lower price than the actual club itself, and many of those prices are quite affordable.
There are fitness choices in the area other than Golds and ACAC. Snap Fitness, Cross Fit, are just two.
For any years Park and Rec offered low priced classes. If the community feels it needs a subsidized facility, then it can build one.
I find it pretty funny that Norris wouldn't touch the Ice Park, which is a big draw to the Mall, but can't wait to dump millions into the Y.
I'm not sure some folks here completely understand the impact that the YMCA organization, a non-profit that has never be overtly religious, has had on American society....a little primer for you:
In 1853, the first YMCA for blacks was founded by Anthony Bowen, a freed slave, in Washington, D.C.
In 1856, the nation’s first-known English as a Second Language (ESL) class was held for German immigrants at the Cincinnati YMCA.
In San Francisco, YMCAs serving Asians were established in 1875 to serve the large Chinese population there, and a Japanese YMCA was founded in 1917. U.S. Native American Ys started in 1879 with the founding of a YMCA by Thomas Wakeman, a Dakota Indian, in Flandreau, S.D.
1881, Boston YMCA staffer Robert J. Roberts coined the term “body building” and developed exercise classes that anticipated today’s fitness workouts.
Camping became a cornerstone of YMCA programming in 1885 when the YMCA started Camp Dudley, America’s first known summer camp program, at Orange Lake, N.Y.
In December 1891, at the International YMCA Training School in Springfield, Mass., the school’s director, Dr. Luther Gulick, gave physical education teacher James Naismith two weeks to come up with an indoor winter game to challenge a class of future Y directors. Naismith hung peach baskets to the bottom of a second-level running track and taught the men his new game: basketball.
In the 1890s, YMCA instructor William Morgan blended elements of basketball, tennis and handball, and called his invention “mintonette.” In 1896, at the International YMCA Training School in Springfield, Mass., the name “volley ball” was first used to describe the back-and-forth manner in which the ball flew over the net.
In 1910, 25 black YMCAs were built in 23 cities as a result of a challenge grant program announced by Sears Roebuck founder Julius Rosenwald.
In 1950, YMCA volunteer Joe Sobek invented racquetball in Greenwich, Conn., as an alternative to squash and handball.
During World War II, YMCA staff worked secretly in U.S. internment camps holding 110,000 Japanese Americans, organizing clubs and activities for the children.
YMCA of the USA formally established arts and humanities as a national program in 1998, spotlighting the importance of arts to the development of a young person’s imagination, critical thinking, communication and social skills.
In 2002, YMCA of the USA created the National Diversity Initiative to support the YMCA movement in valuing the diversity of all people within its associations and the communities it serves.
In 2008, the Armed Services YMCA and YMCA of the USA partnered with the Department of Defense in the YMCA Military Outreach Initiative, which funds memberships and child care services for families facing the hardship of military deployment.
First Lady Michelle Obama launched the her “Let’s Move” campaign against childhood obesity at the Alexandria YMCA
Dave,
I have long appreciated what the Y has done in the past. That is not necessarily the Y today, and doesn't really change my feelings. The Y is not 'entitled' to public assets, and more than Wendell Woods is. Personally this is what the Jefferson School should have gone towards, not hacking up a park. I used to take my kids there for things like the Golden Knights, and a number of other events. Seems no longer possible.
Ahhh...so it would not be a typical Charlottesville argument if people were not mixing and matching the various issues in an effort to serve their own purposes.
Case in point - this article, and this argument, is NOT about the location of this facility. That argument has happened arlready, for 3 or more years and in countless open forums. Kudos to all of you who did your civic duty and shared your opinions in those, whichever side you were on.
What you need to keep in mind is that one person who did NOT choose to share opinions, or any semblance of an alternative plan, in these forums was Mr. Wendel. Doesn't it smell a little funny to any of you that he was adamant enough about this to launch expensive lawsuits and follow them to the state Supreme Court when he did not get his way - yet STILL has no alternate plan to present as to what he would offer our citizens?
And the people who are seeing this as an opportunity to suggest alternate locations for the Y at this point are not living in the real world. Do you have any idea how much money has already been spent on design and architecture for this facility? It's got to be over a milllion at this point. So to think we can now just find a brand new place in a more desirable city location is ridiculous at this point. Plus, even if that happened, how could you get support for it knowing that the city could be forced to pull its funding at any moment by efforts such as Mr. Wendel's?
And you can be more than sure that he would fight this wherever it landed. Read the article again. For him and his henchmen, its not about the park. It's not about what is right or fair. It's about lining his pockets by protecting his fitness dictatorship.
And if he wins, we all lose..
Rob makes a good point. The location has already been decided. Indeed, construction was about to begin when the court decision came down.
Still, its worth noting that the new YMCA will eliminate several of the shelters off to the right as you drive in, but leave the rest of the park largely untouched. I'd be interested to hear from those who believe the Y will ruin the park. Is it because of the destruction (some will be relocated) of the shelters? Some other aspect of the design plan?
Another missed opportunity.
The city very well could have structured a request for proposal to meet the exact criteria the YMCA would have fulfilled. Then Gold's and ACAC could have looked at the request and decided not to pursue if they felt they couldn't fulfill the request and be profitable.
Instead, the city fast-tracked the Y and short-circuited the usual procurement process. It is the city government that deserves blame here for not following proper government procurement procedures. I think it's important that people don't lose sight of that fact.
The City of Charlottesville is to blame, ultimately. If proper procedure was followed, there would be no grounds to sue.
Phil Wendel sits center court on the floor at John Paul Jones arena with a rotating group of ex-wives and other women who literally are younger than his oldest daughter. He has no problem with playing his cards and leverage to find a win-win with an agency of the State of Virginia for him to control that high profile public property in our town.
The city government found a win-win with the YMCA where the Y could provide dollars, services, and expertise to our community at less expense to the tax payer than if the city did it exclusively on its own without the benefit of YMCA donors and volunteers.
This type of public-private partnership should be right up Phil's alley.
I suggest folks research what Phil and Mr. Wells had to say in the town of Westchester, Pennsylvania when the Y moved in there without municipal involvement.
looks like we will get another year of our park!
Robs point is not about the fact that money was already spent, because thats like saying we should throw good money after bad, if necessary. His point seems to be more about ACAC's monopoly.
You don't have to approve of Wendell or ACAC to think there is a real case to be heard here. And I don't see ACAC putting Snap, Cross Fit, whatever that place in Belmont is, along with others out of business.
@Old Timer and Meanwhile, you make good points. I think the city erred by not structuring its proposal so that ACAC et al. would not pursue the contract--governments do that sort of thing all the time to direct contracts toward particular bidders. I don't know that it's right, because it is not really in the spirit of open competition, but in this case, C'ville cut corners and is paying the price. As to whether Wendel is a greedy old fart, well, he probably is.
It's reasonable to be suspicious of Mr. Wendell's motivations.
But his greedy character and intentions have nothing to do with the objective problem of providing public assets to a private organization with fairly treating other private organizations, even if one happens to like the private organization getting the benefits and even if short-term consequences are great. It's unfair to other private companies, even if other municipalities are fine with unfairness. And those who argue this will increase "competition" don't seem to understand you competition doesn't exist with public subsidy of one competitor.
I agree with SkipWith and Old Timer here. If the YMCA wants to build here, they should do it on their own.
Wow. I thought I had re-read that comment before posting. The incomprehensible sentence should read:
"But his greedy character and intentions have nothing to do with the objective problem of providing public assets to a private organization withOUT fairly treating other private organizations, even if one happens to like the private organization getting the benefits and even if short-term consequences are great."
@Old Timer...first of all thanks so much for telling me what my point was. Much appreciated.
Perhaps my use of the word "monopoly" was erroneous. I don't really care about how ACAC outdoes its local competition, or how it uses its power to marginalize and control them. What I care about is how Phil Wendel uses his power to marginalize kids and families in this area who would greatly benefit from the services and experiences a YMCA can offer them.
They are the ones lost in these discussions. Except, of course, for all those who are so quick and helpful to point out that we have plenty of parks where kids can exercise.
Which I guess begs the obvious question...did you grow up in a YMCA? Because I did, and I don't remember the weights I lifted or the laps I swam. I remember the people I met, the relationships I forged, the coaches who taught me, the mentors who helped me and, I hope, the people I was able to help as well. I remember that they were not all people who looked like me, not all people who lived in the neighborhood I lived in.
I don't think I am alone in feeling angry and sad that one man in our community is hiding behind political and enviromental causes to deny my children and all the children and families in this region those relationships, those experiences and those opportunities.
I laugh at the idea that ACAC has a monopoly on access to fitness.
Step back from the keyboard and do a push up. That's exercise. Open your front door and go for a walk. That's exercise. Repeat as desired.
And I hope Rob isn't implying that only the YMCA can provide a healthy human environment of (safe) mentors, coaches, etc. No one is denying his kids anything. That's a sad song & red herring. ("Hiding behind"? Get real.)
And, yeah, I did have good experiences with activities organized by the YMCA in Charlottesville (eons ago).
I played basketball (at the old firehouse on Ridge, then at public middle school), and learned lacrosse (on STAB's fields). For some of these my dad coached; other times other parents did -- FOR FREE.
A timeline for you:
“It is difficult to characterize this as anything other than a tax-exempt, taxpayer supported commercial fitness club.” --Phil Wendel in a April 30, 2007 letter to City Council
July 2007: Former Parks & Rec director Mike Svetz tells City Council that if it directs staff to enter into a lease agreement with the YMCA "there is a legal process required, including advertising a public hearing and issuing an RFP"
October 2007-City issues a request for proposals for anyone interested in leasing 3.4 acres of land from the city for the purpose of "developing a non-profit fitness and recreational center of approximately 70,000 square feet.” A public hearing was also held. Neither ACAC or Gold's Gym representatives attend public hearing.
Wester Chester, PA. Daily Local, 2008:
Not everyone is thrilled with the success of the new, bigger YMCA.
Greg Wells, senior vice president for the nearby ACAC in West Goshen, said his fitness club had seen some migration of members to the new YMCA, but he called the impact "de minimis" — meaning minimal.
"We've seen some members leave, and we've seen some come back," said Wells, who attributed a slight membership decline more to the general economic slowdown than to the opening of the larger Y facility.
Outside the ACAC's McDermott Drive facility, a sign reads: "You get what you pay for." But that sign is not directed specifically at the YMCA, Wells said.
"From our perspective, it's a way to differentiate ourselves from the other health clubs in the area," said the vice president of the five-club group of fitness centers. A sixth is slated to open soon in Lynchburg, Va. "There's no reference there against what the Y is about. They have their place, and we have our place."
That said, Wells said ACAC, like most for-profit clubs across the country, finds it difficult to compete against an entity like the Y with its tax advantages.
When asked if the YMCA had evolved from its charitable roots into a fitness center operation, Wells replied, "We share that view. This would be something that you would hear nationwide."
May 2010: The Charlottesville Area Fitness Club Owners’ Association, made up of ACAC, Gold's, and Total Performance, file a law suit against the City and the county, claiming they violated the Virginia Public Procurement Act by not allowing the for-profit clubs to bid on the proposal.
I concur that this lawsuit is about nothing more than greed. I'd like to see the YMCA stop whining and waiting an play hardball. There's a huge portion of the Albemarle Square shopping center that is vacant on it's south end (former Circuit City), it's on a bus line and centrally located. I think the landlord, Dumbarton Properties in Richmond would be thrilled to have the YMCA as a tenant in that location. Mr. Wendell has nothing to lose by letting this linger because he knows the Y doesn't have the stomach to play his game.
@Skipwith...you are, like so many others, shortsightedly equating the YMCA with push ups and basic fitness. It's a lot more than that.
And as for your red herring...these facts are indisputable....
I would like my kids to grow up in a YMCA.
Without Phil Wendel and his ridiculous lawsuit, said YMCA would be breaking ground within the month and would be open within two years.
So it is not a sad song, but a true story.
And of course there are others who can provide safe, healthy recreational experiences for kids. But the Y has been doing it, and doing it well, in communities across America for a century, not to mention in almost every community in Virginia, including Waynesboro, Farmville, RIchmond...
And what is the difference between all those communities and us?
Mr. Wendel.
"to deny my children and all the children and families in this region those relationships, those experiences and those opportunities."
Cry me a river.
You've argued that your kids won't have health mentor relationships without the YMCA (and no other organization) in McIntire Park.
Fail.
"And of course there are others who can provide safe, healthy recreational experiences for kids. But the Y has been doing it, and doing it well, in communities across America for a century, not to mention in almost every community in Virginia, including Waynesboro, Farmville, RIchmond..."
And re: "fail"...ouch. Nothing stings like so-egregiously-overused-that-it-was-obsolete-a-year-ago techspeak.
The YMCA is a NON-PROFIT orgainization whose core values are CARING, HONESTY, RESPECT and RESPONSIBILITY. The Y is all about fitness and recreation for EVERYONE regardless of financial circumstances. The Ys many donors (who have donated many millions) and it's board is comprised of volunteers who's motivaton is to give back to the community. Unlike the guy trying to stop the Y (Greedy Phil) no one at the Y is getting rich. Phil's lawsuit is baseless as demonstrated by Judge Higgins who threw out both cases. His only motivation is to try to slow up or stop the Y project. The assertion by the ACAC folks that they would have wanted an opportunity to bid is 100% baloney. The lease terms are for a non-profit and Phil would have zero interest in putting a non-profit facility anywhere. Phils club is expensive and apporximately 80% of the folks living in this area can't afford it. They are the ones the Y will be built for and if Phil had his way those folks would have no place for fitness and recreation. It is unbelievable greed that he would take this position. Phil has been trying to stop the Y for many years and this lawsuit is just the latest of many agressive measures he has pursued to try to stop the Y. Several years ago he sent al long letter to the county trying to convince them not to contribute. Then he boldly sent out a letter to his wealthy acquaintances and business partners which basically warned them not to contribute to the Y and that if they did he would not view it kindly and would not being doing business with them any longer.
McIntire Park is by far the best location for the Y. Plain and simple it is by far the most centrally located site available and is therefore the most accessible location to the most target users, especially the inner city families. The Y will be built on 4.5 acres of an 80 acre park so it will take up about 5.6% of the park land. The land the city is leasing to the Y is mostly a sloping ravine that is only used for a couple of picnic shelters which will be relocated elsewhere in th park. This is not a matter of the Y believing it has a sense of entitlement for getting a lease on public property but rather when the Y was looking for a site the city expressed an interest in having it located in McIntire Park because of the easy access to that location by so many city residents. This is a very wise move on the part of the city as they are getting a huge fitness facility asset that serves EVERYONE regardless of income and only having to pay a very small fraction of what they would have to pay if they built such a facility (which is needed) on it's own. By the same rationale Albemarle County is also chipping in. If the city sees an opportunity to have a state of the art fitness facility built on it's land that will serve a large percentage of it's citizens, be a tremendous asset to the community and can have this facility built by contributing a fraction of it's cost then it is certainly appropriate for the city to partner with a non-profit organization, especially one with such a proven track record such as the YMCA.
While I understand that not everyone agrees that McIntire Park is the best location despite it being so much more accessible than alternative sites, remember that this facility will take up just 5.6% of the park land. Also remember that the majority of Charlottesvillians and City Council members want the Y in McIntire.
"I would like my kids to grow up in a YMCA."
And I'm raising my kids in a ** family home**, and I'm not asking you to pay for it or asking the City to put my house in the middle of public-owned park. much less pay for some of the structure, or fob off mentoring/coaching/physical (and moralistic) training on strangers.
Skip...we'll agree to disagree. I get where you are coming from and I think you get where I am coming from, and that is what discussions like this are all about. Appreciate your passion.
Now off to see the kids, whom I "fobbed off" on "strangers" today for their first day of school.
Boycott golds and acac. I am...
deleted by moderator
I don't mind a YMCA being built anywhere in Charlottesville, except for in a park. This is public land! Self interests are exempted on park land, or at least should be. The $1 lease is an egregious slap in the face to taxpayers. Is there a place they could build on 29N? They should pay their own way. Non-profits seem to pay executives and lobbyists very well.
Beat him at his own game. He's fighting to preserve the free market. Put the Y on all the vacant land in Seminole Square that will continue to sit empty due to all the new commercial development to the north and south. Then kick the little man's but by appealing to a wider audience and offering better service, longer hours (what time does ACAC close on Sunday night... ridiculous) and rallying the donor base that supports the Y's public mission. Phil will stretch this out as long as he can because it allows him to preserve his monopoly and over-price his mediocre product due to the lack of competition. He makes a fortune off the kids in this community through his youth programs, he's a businessman, of course he wants to deny them the Y they need and deserve. He needs to believe he has something at stake, something to lose to drop the lawsuit and honestly at this point, he has nothing to lose. This is not an emotional issue Phil, it's business. I'm sure he gets a kick out of all the drama while he laughs his way to the bank.
Capitalism at its best?
Is anyone else troubled by the image of Charlottesville High School students walking home to Garrett St past King Phil's moated castle, aka Downtown ACAC, that they can't afford to use while he personally denies them an opportunity to better themselves through the programs and services that a Y in McIntire Park, adjacent to their high school, would offer them? How does Your Highness sleep at night. It's morally reprhensible. Why doesn't the community speak up.
I don't see anything wrong with the city or county giving attractive lease terms to worthy organizations willing to offer desired amenities to the public under better terms than offered by the likes of Phil Wendel. The arguments advanced against this remind me of arguments made against The Bureau of Reclamation selling power generated by Hoover Dam to local utilities, that it was "unfair" to private power companies who were then gouging the public. I had been oblivious to the various signs I'd seen around here opposing the "Y" and had just assumed it had to do with the general hand wringing and garment rending associated with the "save the park" codswallow we've heard for so long. How "unfair" is it that the park provides cheap golfing for a few duffers at the "expense" of Farmington and other clubs?
Back to the various posters bashing Phil Wendel. I wonder how many current patrons of ACAC would bail if they were truly aware of that man's execrable political and religious attitudes? Years ago I had a membership and when I found out what his values actually were, I notified them to cancel my membership and to enforce the point I cancelled the credit card they were billing the monthly charges to.
It's clear that change is often difficult, and it's more difficult for some than others.
It's also clear that there are commenters on this site who opposed (passionately) the building of the Y in McIntire park. But some of these folks are letting their opposition and their passion get in the way of objectivity.
As Dave McNair noted, the Y has a long history of nondiscrimination. The building of a the Y in McIntire is not about "entitlement." Indeed, if that term fits anywhere then it applies to the position staked out by Phil Wendel.
Moreover, there was a very open and public process by which the contract with the Y and its construction were decided. Some of the commenters on this site were not happy with the outcome of that process, but public-private (and a nonprofit to boot) partnerships are nothing new, here or elsewhere, now or historically. Moreover, as Shecky notes, "The Y will be built on 4.5 acres of an 80 acre park so it will take up about 5.6% of the park land. The land the city is leasing to the Y is mostly a sloping ravine that is only used for a couple of picnic shelters which will be relocated elsewhere in th [sic] park."
It's one thing to object; it's another to have a sound reason for doing so.
What rent does Monticello Little League pay at Quarry Park? Or Central Little League at Pen park? Hopefully Phil's suit will finally force those leaches to pay for their use of OUR public space.
The saddest part of this whole debacle is that everyone is so absorbed in protecting their self-interest that they can't see the greater good that will come from the Y in McIntire Park. (1) Phil is a businessman but not a very good one. Many would argue that a more fit population with a larger portion interested in fitness and wellness is good for his business in the long run. The Y is not going to expand in Charlottesville, they have a focused mission and limited capacity that will be well served their new location. The region is growing. A big part of what they do is increase awareness about healthy living, thereby increasing Phil's target market in the long term. (2) Building the Y in a relatively small unused portion of the park will draw people into this underutilized public resource creating greater affinity for it among the general population, thereby increasing the likelihood that it will be preserved for the long term. I've been in the park multiple times over the years when there was not another person anywhere in sight. A Y is a great addition to a great park that will make it even better. (3) It is far more efficient and cost-effective in the long run for the city and county to partner with a reputable agency like the Y to build and operate this facility then for either the city or county to build and operate such a facility on their own. I'm sure the politicians and the staff have done the math and my bet is that the long term cost savings of partnering with the Y are substantial. It's a shame that we live in a society where it's all about greed, self-interest, and the short-term...that's why the federal government is such a mess. Get out the way Phil, be a responsible citizen and support the community that has given you your lavish lifestyle. If you are a true entreprenuer, you should be one of the Y's most prolific donors. Take the money your spending on your frivolous legal games and redirect it to the Y campaign, that would knock people's socks off.
I have never found any of the programs at the Y to be particularly cheap. Most programs cost over $100 and I believe that fees at the Y will be $75/month. Most folks can't afford this unless they qualify for financial aid which many don't.
A number of people oppose the Y being located in McIntire Park. Their opinions are understandable and it is a valid public debate. However, those who favor the Y being located in this centrally located and easily accessible site far outnumber those who oppose. This is a democratic process. Yes, it is public land but the governing body of this public land (City of Charlottesville) has deemed the Y to be an appropriate and good use for 5.6% of this public land due to the very real benefit to the public, especially the citizens of Charlottesville. The Y considered several sites but there were no sites available that were nearly as well located or easily accessible to the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle as this site.
Webster, the monthly Y fee of $75 you refer to is for a FAMILY. That is an absolute bargain when you consider the state of the art fitness facility that is going to be built there complete with pools. Compare that to ACAC family monthly fees of $229. That's threefold. No one is turned away at the Y. If you can't afford the fees financial aid is available.
On the other hand, with regards to Greedy Phil's argument and legal case, there seems to be about three or four people who are taking his side. I believe they are all on his payroll.
Webster,
I have commented on that several times, and it just drops in the wind, like no one wants to hear it. I also looked at the prices that the Y charged for particular classes, and then went to who was actually teaching it, and it cost the exact same. The thing that the Y appeared to offer was a chance to apply for aid in paying. I suspect they will do the same in the center, but as usual, the people in the middle won't really see much benefit, but they will end up paying for it by losing their park.
Shecky,
"This is a democratic process."
It hasn't been democratic at all. No one got to vote on what amounts to the sale of the property to the Y for nothing. A 1$ a year lease that goes for a century is effectively a sale, and if I recall that is what the courts determined. I think if a vote were to occur you might find the results don't agree with your statement.
Old Timer,
To spell it out for you, the citizens of Charlottesville elect the City council (democratic process). City Council in representing their constituents voted for the Y in McIntire. Sorry that every agenda item can't be on a referendum. Not practical.
Shecky,
I have never been offered a reduced rate. I guess if I wrote about my personal issues and begged, I might be considered. At one of the informational meetings, it sure sounded like $75/person. I could be wrong though.
Latest YMCA monthly fee data for planned fall 2012 opening of the YMCA in McIntire Park:
Family: $78
Adult-Individual: $48
Seniors (60 plus): $43
Young adult: $30 (14-20)
Youth (13 and under): $18
With financial assistance available to those who qualify.
Shecky,
Being snarky doesn't prove your point or in any way add to the situation. It also doesn't make you right. Having a vote on the sale of large public assets hardly represents doing it every time.
I am sorry you are confused between a representational government and a democracy. I am not.
A point not raised so far: Whatever your opinion of Phil Wendell or the YMCA, the fact that the Supremes have selected this case to hear tells me that the legal challenge is serious, and not just a roadblock thrown up to delay "progress."
So, how about everybody cease-fire on this until the Virginia Supreme Court weighs in?
Also: great point by poster "Get in the Game." Why doesn't the YMCA occupy some existing real estate instead of McIntire Park and go head-to-head with ACAC?
Concerning VA Supreme Court decision to hear case. From CT:
Greg Kamptner, deputy attorney for Albemarle County, said he expected the case to be scheduled for oral arguments in the spring. An appeal of the case against the city of Charlottesville could still be heard separately.
“The case presents some interesting issues because they raised a Dillon Rule challenge to the board’s actions, and those cases are always interesting,” Kamptner said.
Under the Dillon Rule, local government only has the power given to it by the General Assembly. He said the case against Albemarle was narrowly focused on whether the donation could be tied to a specific use agreement.
“The fitness clubs argue that the board of supervisors didn’t have the authority to make the charitable contribution to the YMCA subject to a written agreement,” Kamptner said. “The court has seemed to have an interest in Dillon Rule cases in recent years and this case does present a unique challenge to the board’s authority.”
Phil Wendel agreed to meet with me last summer when he started this greedy blocking process, only because I have been a full facility family member of his club for over 10 years. He was patronizing and I saw right through him as none of his defenses held any water. He told me he would just see this original case through and then drop it. So much for that. When he appealed, I contacted him but he ignored me. I asked him what type of legacy he wanted to leave, and obviously it is one of greed and not of concern for his community. He wants his tombstone to read "Here lies the only man who has succeeded in keeping a Y from his community and was proud of it ". How pitiful.
Wasn't Paul McIntire chair of the local YMCA board in his time and trying to find space for one in the City because he believed in them so strongly? Lawsuit or not, having it in McIntire Park might make Paul stand up and applaud from his grave for finally fulfilling one of his goals for the City.
Wow Dave, those rates are cheaper the Smith Center for a family of 5. Will the CHS students be charged to use the Y?
There is plenty of space outside of the park for a YMCA to go. Jefferson School would be a fine location, except that's been given away to some cronies of the local Democratic Party. If common sense had prevailed and a location like that had been chosen, there would be NO opposition of any note to building a YMCA.
Dear Cookie Jar:
Phil Wendell was strenuously strong-arming anyone who dared to support the Y well before the location was decided. Nobody in his office and nobody at the YMCA believes the crux of your post. Your post is perfectly logical but it's not applicable here, unfortunately.
The storied history of the YMCA and what it has done for communities across America speaks for itself. But if you like to know more about it just check this link http://www.ymca.net/history/founding.html.
The fact that a city as historic and well-known as Charlottesville doesn't have a "Y" is scandalous. But more woeful yet is the obstinate manner displayed by Phil Wendell in keeping us from correcting that grievous oversight. Our very own Gordon Gecko has achieved a notoriety usually reserved for the likes of the Enrons and the Bernie Madoffs of this world. Quite a distinction for good ole Cville. Thanks, Phil.
But I would also like to address those of you who use the "McIntire Park will be degraded" reasoning to hold up this much needed city improvement. Here is the sad truth, McIntire park, while certainly better than no park at all, is a pathetic excuse for a "Central City Park." I invite you to visit other cities of our size, (or even smaller) if only on the Google Earth website. There you will see what makes a real city park. Things like several walking and biking trails, tennis courts, large community swimming pools, large wooded areas and beautiful lakes. And maybe even a golf course with "grass" greens. Thankfully, Charlottesville has Pen Park and Darden Towe to provide these things now.
This is not meant to demean the efforts of those who have worked to provide what McIntire does offer, or the hours that many of you may have been spent enjoying the area. But somebody needs to say it. McIntire is on the low end of what a central city park should be.
The irony of all this is that a YMCA would actually increase the value of McIntire. It would draw more visitors and supporters and possible pave the way for an expansion and/or upgrade of the park to show the world that yes, Charlottesville is among the elite in city park systems.
This "YMCA is sorely needed, it is overdue and it should be constructed without any further machinations. C'mon Phil, swallow your pride and show us what a wealthy citizen can really do for his community.
So far as I know Phil Wendel paid the market price for the Downtown ACAC ground, then paid market price for the new building, and has been paying property tax on these items all the while. In a free market, one takes a chance and them either fails or is financially rewarded for the above. Usually this is called capitalism. It involves risk.
The YMCA --- let me remind everyone that the "C" is for Christian and the "M" is for Men's --- will pay nothing for the ground and pay no property tax for same and as a "non-profit" can make as much money as they like, they just don't have to pay taxes on the profit.
The city's RFP stipulating a non-profit was really at fault. Was ACAC or Gold's supposed to instantly create a non-profit entity to compete, or was the RFP aimed at the Y? No one showed up at the meetings or responded to the RFP? Very silly. Of course they didn't: the RFP was designed to be impractical for them.
If the city wanted a new facility at McIntire, they should have built it themselves. No controversy, no unfair RFP. In my view, the greed --- for free land and tax free status, both of which are actually paid for silently by taxpayers who pick up the burden not carried by the tax exempt --- is on the side of the Y.
Cookie Jar,
Harry is right. You are talking about a man who has made it his personal mission to block the YMCA not only here, but in his Pennsylvania and Richmond locations as well. The location, for him, is a convenient flash point, nothing more.
And yet he consistently trots out his minions...like Wells and Craytor, to tell the media "This is not about the YMCA." How stupid does he think we all are?
And his lust for power, control and money is so great, in fact, that he is willing to take it to an extreme that could have lasting negative impacts on our community. Before someone jumps in and calls this hyperbole, consider this...if he were to prevail on these grounds, it threatens every not for profit in our region and state. Imagine if every senior-based charity had to battle in bidding processes against every flea bag hotel claiming it could provide the same services, or a women's shelter being forced to do the same thing. The list goes on and on.
For a man who spends a lot of time and money promoting himself and his company as caring so deeply about the community, it seems strange that this doesn't matter to him.
What matters more is making good on a pledge he is said to have made in a speech to an industry association...that over his dead body would he ever allow a YMCA in his town.
He's a little, small-minded man with a huge ego that needs constant feeding. The community must prevail and demonstrate that this is not "his town" and that this is not the way we do business here. Where are the heroes?
Al Hood you make a very good point. A facility based YMCA is long overdue in this town. Rob and Napoleon you also make very good points. This story will have a happy ending. Good will prevail. This wonderfull facility that will improve the lives of so many WILL get built. Phil's maniacal opposition has only galvanized the resolve of the many good people who are determined to see it through. And it will get built in the location which will serve the most which is McIntire Park. The bad guy will be the big loser in this saga. Phil will not achieve his objective of stopping he Y but he is rapidly trashing his reputation and rapidly making himself the most despised individual in this community.
Barbara Myer you must be on Phil's payroll and you make some very silly points. When you point out the the C stands for Christian and the M stands for Mens you are really reaching to try to find fault with a great organization. The name dates back to it's founding 150 years ago when society was completely different. Of course the Y is inclusive to all genders, religious faiths, races, etc. And of course it's very appropriate for the city to state non profit in it's lease terms as the intent is to have an organization such as the Y build a facility that is affordable and accessible to everyone regardless of financial circumstances. Your assertion that greed is on the part of the Y is more than ludicrous. No one at the Y is getting rich. It's leadership is made up of a modestly salaried CEO and a board of volunteers whose only motivation is to give back to the community. Hands down the Greed Award goes the guy who is trying to prevent a facility from being built that will provide fitness and recreation for the 80% of our community who can't afford his expensive club. That would be Mr. Phil Wendel.
Barbara Myer points out –– no, emphasizes –– what the "C" and the "M" in YMCA first represented (maybe she also thinks the term SAT has meaning). But apparently she's taken no time whatsoever to actually read about the Y.
On the Y website, under the rubric of "Diversity and Inclusion," the Y specifically states the value of:
* " a diverse and inclusive organization...;"
* "Having a supplier diversity program that seeks out talented minority- and women-owned contractors and service providers;"
* "Diversity and inclusion practices" that "foster a high-performing learning environment where staff and volunteers are engaged, valued and encouraged to collaborate, generate ideas and contribute at the highest level."
The introduction to the section on diversity and inclusion states the following:
"The Y is made up of people of all ages and from every walk of life working side by side to strengthen communities. Together we work to ensure everyone, regardless of gender, income, faith, sexual orientation or cultural background, has the opportunity to live life to its fullest. We share the values of caring, honesty, respect and responsibility—everything we do stems from it."
I doubt very much if Phil Wendel can even utter those words.
@Dave thanks for showing the official prices of the Y. You have demonstrated very effectively, how, once again,single people are getting kicked up the butt and are expected to subsidize families, while bearing the highest tax burden. 48$ a month? Too expensive for many adult singles these days, in the pathetic wages paid here, once they have a mortgage and car payment.
The irony in all this is that a park I could use for free because I paid for it through my tax dollars I now have to pay to use so the Y can have a fitness center for its agenda. Whats more, my tax money that should be used to fix things like collapsing bridges instead are going to this, which I get to pay for again. Its even more insulting that this is my park being used to give county residents a Y. Why doesn't the county donate some land? They have a lot more of it? Oh wait, they are also owned by developers who want to build endless shopping centers, using up their greenspace.
Year by year I find the nice FREE spaces that EVERYONE can access being handed over to special interest projects like this in the name of 'good' when in fact, you are just taking away from one group, and handing it to another. The Pavilion was an example and this is another. Even the water park is an example. This is what is causing our hourglass looking economy, where people like me in the middle are squeezed this way, to provide things for top and the bottom, because people in the middle make too much money to get anything, but have too big a burden to access anything.
Yeah Wendell Wood stinks, but so does the Y in this. They are acting self righteous over it. They do NOT have a right to my park and until I see there stated fees drop a good 20 bucks for singles, they aren't offering a low cost solution in this town. Sorry.
@Al - some of us actually happened to like the park as a wide open green space, that could effectively be used for many different things. The City has several different pools, and it had tennis courts that were not being used very much apparently and now sport a skateboard bicycle course for children and adults. A FREE park mind you.
In fact, I would rather see that wide open space used for things that many city kids DON'T have access to, but will teach them something. Something more agricultural. I would like to encourage 4-H - which was my thing- to do some shows there. I would like to see a community garden there, with field trips for the school kids so they can learn how to do this themselves. They'll eat better. Down in GA there is a small animal fair in the fall with all sorts of agricultural things for kids that are FREE, and man, they have a good time. It would still fit nicely into the current park.
There is nothing wrong with having a wide open green space for a park, and exposing folks in the city to a little taste of the country that they would never otherwise get near, especially the less affluent. For a city that wants allow goats and chickens, its pathetic to see how quickly they try and build some giant building in the middle of a green space. Give me a break.
I can think of lots of other uses for that park. We should put the YMCA somewhere else. It should have gone into the Jefferson, which would be a perfect location, and you could still have the Black American Museum there.
There has been a lot of shrieking about how much we NEED a YMCA, although apparently we don't NEED a YMCA badly enough for it to be successful if it had to pay rent for the land it's on. Perhaps someone who believes that there ought to be a YMCA in McIntire park can answer some of the points raised in this post which I've copied in its entirety from the link at the top of the article. No one dared to try where it was first posted.
PlayballTim May 3rd, 2011 | 4:50pm
A couple of observations from somebody without a dog in this fight:
-In all of the posts above, there's one thing missing: no one seems to be vociferously arguing that we need another fitness center. Never mind debating about the Y's Christian tone or Phil Wendell's riches. Somebody please convince me that there is an unmet need for another gym.
-here's a quick list of all of the other local places in the area to work out:
ACAC (2 locations)
Anytime Fitness (2 locations - Crozet & Greene.)
Gold's ($19/month)
Snap ($39/month)
Total Performance
Boar's Head Sports
Cross-fit
Curves
Physical Therapy centers offering gym access for additional customers: Move Better and Atlantic Rehab
Cville's Smith Center ($39/month, and a really, really excellent place.)
Existing Cville centers/gyms (Carver, Crow, Key, Westhaven.)
Various yoga/karate/pilates/tai-chi studios too numerous to count
UVA gyms (for UVA employees, which accounts for about 20% of the local population.)
-Conclusion: there has GOT to be a better way to spend the $3.28M plus the implied rent subsidy ($1/yr really worth something like $100k/yr.) Fix bridges, shelter homeless, increase school funding, add to the libraries, or whatever your favorite cause. I just can't believe that another gym is what Charlottesville is missing.
-Action: it appears that the YMCA's gameplan is to start building ASAP and finance the new gym with loans since they are still several million dollars short. This risks a half-built elephant that only Halsey Minor would love if the financing collapses or if the Y can't make interest payments because of too little revenue. How about someone at the City or County level just say "no building the gym, or getting our contribution until you have the whole thing paid in full."
Democracy - well stated.
Barbara Myer - again I must assume that you are on Phil’s payroll. If not I must ask the question: Are you serious? Are you truly drinking Phil’s Kool Aid and buying into his argument about the tax treatment of non-profits? Do you truly believe that the masses of lower and middle income folks in our community should be denied a decent fitness and recreation facility so Phil can get richer? Remember that one of the roles of government is to assist the lower income and less advantaged members of society. One of the ways in which this is done is through tax policy such as tax exempt status of worthy non-profits such as the YMCA. That’s what government does. Always has. Always will. An example would be housing. I happen to be a developer of mid to high end apartments. Government provides tax credits to developers for the construction of low income housing. I have to compete with these lower income developers who can offer lower rents because they build with tax credits. But I don’t complain about it because I know that low income housing built with tax credits is a good thing. Good for society. Good for the community. While there is some market overlap and I do lose some business to some middle income folks who choose to rent at a lower income housing community I also know that much of my target market prefers to live in the more exclusive types of communities that I build and own. Phil should embrace the same logic. A very sizable portion of his market is always going to choose to work out at his more exclusive clubs instead of a less exclusive facility such as the YMCA. He has the high end fitness and health club market in our community completely cornered and it has made him quite wealthy . Shouldn’t he be satisfied with that? He should drop this obscene lawsuit and focus on what he does best, the higher end. He’s worried about some overlap in market share as I describe above so he chooses to try to deny the 80% of our community who can’t afford his club a decent place for fitness and recreation. It’s despicable evil greed is what it is. Sorry. Gotta tell it like is.
Some are more than modestly salaried (Googled "YMCA CEO salary").
"The top executive of the YMCA of Greater Houston is the highest paid CEO of any nonprofit human service organization in the country, earning nearly $700,000 a year, according to a recent study by a charity watchdog group."
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/YMCA-leader-s-pay-tops-p...
"But by far the biggest salary is paid to the head of Charlotte's YMCA, where CEO Andy Calhoun earned a salary of $381,000 for 2008, plus benefits of almost $37,000 for total compensation of over $417,000 a year."
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/18890104/detail.html
The YMCA of San Diego County’s CEO Richard Collato was compensated $420,000 in 2003. While high in relation to other nonprofit salaries in San Diego, the YMCA provided information, including detailed salary surveys, to put the data in context. First, the YMCA of San Diego County is the second largest YMCA in the nation, with 13 branches, 3,400 employees and more than $100 million in revenue.
"The “YMCA’s 2003 Survey of Executive Compensation,” completed by researcher Sullivan, Cotter and Associates, puts the compensation range for chief executives of general industry organizations with revenue of $50 million to $125 million at $350,000 to $428,500. Collato’s compensation is in line with that. It is also in line with what the survey data shows for nonprofits with revenue of $50 million or more. That compensation range is $364,200 to $448,100.
Further, YMCA literature points out that Collato has been in his position for 23 years, a long time by any measure of executive tenure. He has helped the group achieve 10 percent to 18 percent annual growth for the last 15 years. “The compensation philosophy is one of pay for performance,” reads an official YMCA document, and is set by an eight-member board of directors."
http://www.sarahzsleeper.com/sizing_up_san_diego_s_nonprofit_ceo_pay_692...
But it appears to be only $39,000 in Lexington, VA...
http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Rockbridge-Area-Ymca-Executive-Director-C...
Shcky,
Apparently you and Rob just don't want to listen do you?
"Do you truly believe that the masses of lower and middle income folks in our community should be denied a decent fitness and recreation facility so Phil can get richer?"
Somebody from the middle class just stated that the cost of the Y was too much for them, as a single person. And that person probably won't get subsidized. Snap Fitness charges even less per month,and if you can pay 6 months at a time, its about 34$. You also have 24 hour access, which is why that place is always busy.
I think the Y is draining the middle class, not helping it.
Old Timer,
No need to get snarky.
You don't want to do your homework do you? Have you seen the Y plans? We are talking about a 72,000 sq. ft. full service fitness facility complete with pools. Snap Fitness doesn't even come close.
Someone saying they can't afford it doesn't distort the fact that the Y will bring this full service fitness facility and community center to our town for 1/3 the cost of ACAC. A price range that will make it accessible and affordable to the large majority of our community. No one is turned away. Financial aid available.
Cookie Jar...I don't know what it is going to take for you or others like you to understand that the Y is not merely a fitness center and thus your price comparisons are irrelevant.
This is especially true for people like those at Snap Fitness, good people who obviously see this point, as evidenced by their refusal to join Phil's hollow crusade. Their niche is busy people who can drop in anytime to use equipment. And they do a great job,
The Y, as much as it pains you to hear, is about joining a group of people dedicated to making this community better. You'll never get that, and that is OK, but the point needs to be made.
And you might want to supplement your research with a little fact checking. Before everyone floods the Gold's Gym phone lines to grab that $19 a month rate...the rate is actually a range..."from $19,95 to $59.95."
Call and ask them yourself, And I encourage others to call too, and ask them about their position on the suit. It won't be the first time they have had the question this week.
Also, a poster early talked about going in and talking to Phil directly. Curious if anyone else has contacted ACAC this week to ask them about all this and what answer they might have received?
Jes Sayin' notes the the Y director in Houston makes $700,000 a year. Personally, I think that's far too much. So too do some Y members in Houston. However, Houston YMCA Association Board Chairman Will Williams said that "We have worked with an independent consulting firm twice over the past four years to review and make recommendations regarding the best practices and compliance in executive compensation."
And, the Houston Y "the YMCA is doing well financially, according to the charity watchdog [Charity Navigator] which has given the local organization four stars — the highest financial performance rating - over the past eight years. Its fundraising expenses are low, and it has a good level of working capital."
And Houston isn't Charlottesville...or Lexington. Just sayin'.
Rob,
"I don't know what it is going to take for you or others like you to understand that the Y is not merely a fitness center and thus your price comparisons are irrelevant."
On the contrary, it makes it even more relevant, especially when folks like you are trying to sell it as an inexpensive fitness location that includes everyone and is supposedly affordable.
What you have said in an earlier post, and are confirming now, is that the YMCA is actually about a particular culture or set of ideals that you happen to approve of, and wish to pay for. They might not be a culture or set of ideals someone else wants to pay for, or in this case, cares to subsidize, especially when it is private organization.
We can agree that we might not care to purchase the services and culture offered by Wendell, and we can agree that the Y has a more palatable culture. It still doesn't change the fact that it is a culture combined with services that is neither cheap. Basically, your argument comes down to how much better the Ipad2 is, and a great bargain over a netbook, but some people still neither need nor can truly afford more than a netbook, so now they get nothing at all because they make too much money to get a subsidized Ipad2.
I wonder how many of you would be gung ho over this if it were a RC Nunnery looking to open a health care and rehab facility with all sorts of social services subsidized by the RC Church, available to all regardless of ethnicity, income, or religious affiliation. Would it suddenly be different? Too religious? Different because it wasn't your experience?
What is we instead did invite the regional 4-h to come in and do the same thing but involving agriculture and livestock? Are you willing to give it up then as well, knowing you don't get your own choice of 'culture'?
Or how about the Boy Scouts of America?
What is relevant here is that the Y is a private organization and it is being subsidized by taxpayers as well as given public property at the expense of those who might have other uses for it. Apparently the courts think there is a real argument here, regardless of how unpleasant a person Wendell might be.
Rob, You're right in stating that "the Y is not merely a fitness center." In fact your admission reinforces my main reason for opposing a YMCA in a public park.
http://www.ymca.net/about-us/
"Our Impact is Felt Every Day
With a mission to put Christian principles into practice through programs that build a healthy spirit, mind and body for all, our impact is felt when an individual makes a healthy choice, when a mentor inspires a child and when a community comes together for the common good. "
Cookie Jar and OT...if the clearly non-religious "ideals" you speak of are CARING, HONESTY, RESPECT and RESPONSIBILITY, which happen to be the four core principles of the YMCA...yup, I approve.I heartily approve.
The Nunnery comment doesn't make much sense. It's apples and oranges. You are talking about a specific religion in the Catholic church and I am talking about a basic set of principles. The same set of principles at the core of the founding of a lot of things. Like this country. Or has it been changed to "one nation, under whomever..." and I missed it?
Listen, I hope this gets built, And I hope that all who fought so passionately here and in other places will use this as an opportunity to rededicate themselves to appreciating and enjoying the 95% of the park that will remain in its current state.
Folks, the inner city kids arent coming over to mvontire on a regular basis because you have to drive to get there.
Rob, spin as you will, but this is anything but "clearly non-religious":
"The YMCA is alive, active, and able to lead. We have opportunity today, just as our predecessors did in their era, to testify to Christ’s life changing message of love and model His teachings through gracious acts of kindness and mercy. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) still calls out for those who desire to serve their neighbor. Our current Purpose, as set forth in Article 1, Section 2 of the National Constitution of the YMCA of the USA, affirms this reality:
“The Young Men’s Christian Association we regard in its essential genius a worldwide fellowship united by a common loyalty to Jesus Christ for the purpose of developing a Christian personality and building a Christian society.” (Constitution of the National Council of Young Men’s Christian Associations of the United States of America, Page 2, Purpose)""
http://mymissionfocus.org/about/
Also Rob, "One nation under god" has nothing to do with the founding of this country. It was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
Addition of the words "under God"
Louis A. Bowman (1872–1959) was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea.[13][14] He spent his adult life in the Chicago area and was Chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. At a meeting on February 12, 1948,[citation needed] Lincoln's Birthday, he led the Society in swearing the Pledge with two words added, "under God." He stated that the words came from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Though not all manuscript versions of the Gettysburg Address contain the words "under God", all the reporters' transcripts of the speech as delivered do, as perhaps Lincoln may have deviated from his prepared text and inserted the phrase when he said "that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom." Bowman repeated his revised version of the Pledge at other meetings.[13]
There are nets of connectivity that are disturbing me. I've been wondering for a while now whether the time has come to end all automatic tax abatements for religious institutions. That whole separation of church and state thing that has taken a bigger hit since Bush II started advocating for governmental subsidizing of religiously based charities. Michelle Bachman and her gays-can-be-fixed mentality that she walks off news-interview shows to avoid discussing --- this is not an accident. It's part of the web.
Part of the web, also, are i-dotting, t-crossing rules that even the bureaucrats use stupid lawyer-tricks to avoid. "Let's issue the RFP to be so narrow that only the person asking for the concession qualifies..." Wasn't that the case in selling the Ridge/Cherry/Elliott bit of city property, as well as this YMCA proposal? The rules are too hard to follow, so let's avoid all of that.
If only more of us could. Isn't the ridiculous complexity of, well, everything governmental, really the reason we have a TEA party? Isn't it sad that all that indignant energy has been cynically diverted to propping up the ridiculous complexity of big business?
Let's pretend the Meadowcreek Parkway is really three independent entities rather that one thing when we submit it to review with the DEQ and the Army Corps of Engineers and whoever else needs to look at it. It's too hard to sell it as a single thing. Let's also yell a lot at the people who keep pointing that out to us.
Let's pretend that the pipline --- and its costs --- that are absolutely required to actually use the new dam, can be figured out later; let's make decisions on incomplete information because it's too hard to figure out the real costs. Let's also yell a lot at the people who keep pointing that out to us.
Let's pretend that money is the equal of speech and so long a five magic words are avoided in the advertisements, the ads aren't for candidates: they're for issues. Let's yell a lot at the people who keep pointing that out to us.
Bureaucracies! First there's an idea, then there's a bureaucracy to perpetuate it. But the bureaucracy is mostly interested in perpetuating the bureaucracy --- not the idea. It doesn't matter if the idea is religious, governmental, charitable, or a business. We, the bureacracy, must continue to exist and this is what's important! Aren't the bureaucracies of all sorts what the energy of the TEA party is pissed off about? Isn't it sad that they've been seduced to the dark side? Isn't it sad that Taxed Enough Already isn't really, Taxed Too Confusingly and Stupidly Enough Already?
Let's focus on the very simple truth that every imperative now comes with too many silly provisos: we know they're silly and that's why so many of our institutions engage lawyers to find loopholes through the silliness. The loopholes are not universally good things. We need some checks to many things, but there's a concept that if any hoops must be jumped through, that's a bad thing. We need some hoops: we simply do not have the correct ones in most cases.
Letter of the law; spirit of the law. We avoid letters whenever possible, we ignore spirits --- seemingly --- entirely. Too hard to tackle.
We established a country with a single piece of parchment, a bottle of ink, and a feather. Social Security was passed with, what, 64 pages of text? Health Care Reform was in the thousands? Really? Or bureaucracy run amok & we all object. Of course we do, and we should. But we're also missing the point. It isn't the reform we should object to: it's the form it's compelled to take. Compelled by too many bureacracies.
Not only do I not work for Phil Wendel, I wouldn't know him if I fell over him. He could be either a pirate or a privateer ---- depending upon whether a government adopts him or not --- I neither know nor care. He made a bet in our town and invested a bunch of money. He's paying into our government with property taxes & payroll taxes & sales taxes. Then our government issues an RFP that by definition exludes him and has the potential to under-cut him and he's the greedy one? Silly.
The net is that the rules change. If Phil made buggy whips and the horseless carriage appeared, well, he would take his lumps. When the city government accepts his taxes and then uses them to under-cut him with another entity who will neither pay the same taxes, nor recompense the city for ground rent....well, it's hard to know how the city expects to pay for the subsidy after the tax loss it will inevitably experience.
The rules are too silly & hard. The bureacracies create the rules to perpetuate themselves. We all know the rules are too hard. Sometimes they should be because the stakes are high; mostly they shouldn't be because the stakes are low to mid-range. Shouldn't we attack the bureacracies rather than the businesses or the governments? The problem is in the sub-sets. Let's fix those, rather than demand an across-the-board reduction whether you're efficient or not. It's harder than Taxed Enough Already, because you have to actually weigh each thing and say either "yes" or "no" to it. Mostly, I'm not Taxed Enough Already: mostly I'm Taxed too Bureacratically Enough Already. Mostly we have "i" dotting where it's not needed and we're so tired by the time we get to the truly salient "i" dotting that we think that it's silly, too.
I think that this lawsuit helps me as an individual tax-payer. I think it has the abilitiy to clarify what my elected officials can and cannot do in my name. I think that it has the potential to spotlight the web that I live in and support via taxes --- will-I-or-nil-I. My hope is that my elected officials pay attention and simplify what they're doing rather than continuing to consult lawyers to slide through the web. The web, by the way, of their own making.
It's all simpler and clearer. We deserve that and we long for that. And we villify people who won't pretend that stupid complexity is easy or simple or right. We villify people who acknowledge that stupid-lawyer-tricks must be engaged. We're the ones who made stupd-lawyer-tricks necessary; we're the ones who need to fix it.
Hmm...perhaps its time to lighten the mood
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAYHQWz3i7I&feature=related
Barbara Myer is right, as usual. The goons on this blog appear to think that every issue should be decided based upon whether you like somebody or not. So sixth grade.
Dear Cville Eye and Barbara:
Fair enough. But just to be clear, you agree that Wells/Wendell are not telling the truth. You basically say it's understandable or even appropriate. Those that support the Y or just support honest public discourse, think the lies are offensivel.
The funds that are used to prop- up ACAC come from a business built exclusively on tours of public Washington, DC monuments for children in public schools around the country. Phil has benefitted greatly from public dollars whether he wants to admit it or not. And now, he/ACAC also receives millions in funds from contracts with municipalities.
Phil relied on your government to find zoning hurdles to the fitness entity that would have been built near 250 and 64.
Last, your analogy about buggy whips does not apply unless you assume he copied somewhere else's buggies and then tried to convince people he invented transportation.
Harry
Dear Cville Eye and Barbara:
Fair enough. But just to be clear, you agree that Wells/Wendell are not telling the truth. You basically say it's understandable or even appropriate. Those that support the Y or just support honest public discourse, think the lies are offensive.
The funds that are used to prop- up ACAC come from a business built exclusively on tours of public Washington, DC monuments for children in public schools around the country. Phil has benefitted greatly from public dollars whether he wants to admit it or not. And now, he/ACAC also receives millions in funds from contracts with municipalities.
Phil relied on your government to find zoning hurdles to the fitness entity that would have been built near 250 and 64.
Last, your analogy about buggy whips does not apply unless you assume he copied somewhere else's buggies and then tried to convince people he invented transportation.
Harry
Okay, Dave. I'm pretty sure I must now commit seppuku for the great shame of having caused the Village People to be invoked.
Barbara,
lol...please don't. Your perspective, as are the perspectives of others in this discussion, is very welcome.
Barbara, your embarrassment is nothing compared to Harry's embarrassment for having completely misunderstood/misrepresented what you had to say.
Well, I finally took the time to peel off the ACAC sticker that's been on my car's bumper for several years. Now I am thinking long and hard about dropping my membership from ACAC. Too bad...it will be a loss for me but I really don't want to be a part of this crummy, crummy action to block the YMCA.
I've let my opinion be known to a membership coordinator at ACAC. I hope that more members will speak up. We're fortunate enough to be able to work out at such a "nice" facility. This "nice" facility is no longer so appealing, that's for sure.
Dear Pookie:
I am sorry for not investing the 2 hours needed to understand what Barb had to say. u are right. I shouldn't have commented.
Harry
Gary, I applaud you for boycotting ACAC and I advocate a massive boycott of ACAC. This will hit Greedy Phil in the only area he cares about, money. Existing ACAC members should not renew to protest his incredibly greedy and egregious lawsuit. Kathy, I'm glad you are considering dropping your ACAC membership and I hope you follow through with it. There are other places you can work out until they get the Y built.
Also, in reading some of these blogs it seems that some of you are actually buying Phil's story that the RFP issued by the city excluded him. Despite what Christine Thalwitz of ACAC says there was a fair and open RFP process. The RFP certainly did not exclude anyone. The RFP required non-profits which is appropriate since the vision was for a fitness and recreation facility that would be much more affordable for the citizens of Charlottesville than a for profit club. Phil could easily have formed a non-profit entity but of course he had no interest in a non-profit club. Don't be confused and don't buy in to his baloney.
I emphasize the following points:
1. Phil Wendel has no interest in building a non-profit facility in McIntire. Note that Phil's employee Christine Thalwitz offered no specifics when questioned about what type of proposal they would have submitted.
2. Phil Wendel's legal case has practically no merit. It was thrown out twice in local courts. Yes the VA Supreme Court has agreed to take the case but that in no way indicates that the case has any significant merit or that he will win. He will lose and the Y construction will begin by Summer 2012. It's unfortunate that Phil doesn't realize that the downside of continuing with this meritless lawsuit far outweigh the benefits. The only benefit to him is that he will delay the Y, not stop it. The drawbacks are many. He's completely trashing his reputation. He's losing business as members don't renew in protest of his greedy actions as well as running the risk of a far reaching and expensive boycott. He's no doubt paying lots in legal fees and focusing much of his time on a losing cause.
3. As others have pointed out, Phil has agressively been trying to stop the Y since long before the McIntire Park location. Don't anyone be fooled. His lawsuit has nothing to do with the case itself but rather has everything to do with trying to slow down or stop the Y.
Barbara Myer:
Wonderfully well thought and well said. Thank you.
Antoinette Rhoades:
At the risk of creating a mutual admiration society, may I extend a blanket thank you to you for the myriad of highly astute comments you have added to this and other sites recently. I seek your comments out, read them with pleasure, and always learn something valuable and new.
Shecky,
you don't get to make your own facts up:
"Also, in reading some of these blogs it seems that some of you are actually buying Phil's story that the RFP issued by the city excluded him."
I have read only one comment that suggests they agree with this premise. I have read far more comments that suggest the real underlying issue is handing over public property to private organizations. That is a real, and very current concern in many areas.
I wonder how you would feel if it were your house, along with Rob's, that the City decided to use for the Y. What if they pulled the concept of public domain for the greater 'good' and you had to sell your home at current market prices.
What is going on here is very close, and my understanding is that the Dillion law is what is causing this review.
Your desire to claim about how good it all feels, how nice you think the people who run it are, or how much you happen to like the Y for whatever personal reasons, are a non-sequitor in this. I am sorry, but they just aren't. I would be glad to see this new Y facility built, but not in this way. Its a terrible mistake as part of a growing trend where public assets are given to cherry picked private institutions.
I guess once again it is the taxpayer's responsibility to provide a place to exercise and then help pay for their membership. In my day we went to the top of the street and played hide-and-seek and kick-the-can, we walked to school and had recess and gym class and didn't rely on someone else to foot the bill. I miss my park where you could play on the old plane and sit on the bank and watch the fireworks.
Let's try to avoid the distracting issues about whether the park is a good place for a health club facility and whether the local government should help fund establishment of such a club (whether it is affiliated with a religious viewpoint or not), since neither of those are the legal issues that will be addressed by the Virginia Supreme Court, and, hence, will have nothing to do with whether the Y project ever goes forward. Instead, the issue is whether the bidding process was sufficiently open, and the ruling will turn on whether the bidding was appropriately restricted to entities that could propose to build a "non profit facililty." The owners of ACAC and Gold's, being for profit companies, must believe that they could not have bid to build a non profit facility (i.e., that their for profit status would have tainted them from being able to, for once in their miserable lives, set up a non profit facility on the side), and were therefore unfairly shut out. In other words, they object to not having been allowed to get their own greedy mitts on the free land in the park, and not getting their own chance to demolish some parkland, in pursuit of their own business interests. They can't honestly hide behind the skirts of the "save mcintyre" or the "stop the meadowcreek parkway" crowd, since their legal case hinges on the beef that they got "cheated" out of their chance to pave the park on their own. If the county and city lose their cases, it won't be because Wendel convinced the court that putting a facility in the park was wrong in some moralistic "preserve parkland" sense -- it will be because the county and city may have gotten too cute in narrowing the bidding criteria in a way that caused the greedies to not even bother to try. Of course, one possibility, since ACAC and Gold's never bothered to bid, is that the Supremes will toss their case out on a delightfully judicially conservative "standing" ruling, as absent having submitted a bid and having it rejected, ACAC and Golds have not really been "injured," in a constitutional sense.
(This is not the same Rob who has been posting) I hope ACAC wins, then I'll be on here to read how all of us are impacted when the city can't help ANY non profits. Homeless Shelters, you're on your own, Battered Women & Childrens centers best of luck to you. Seniors, meals on wheels, maybe ACAC can provide you with a sandwich. City funded programs for children with disabilities, yah, not able to help you. We focus on the small picture, ACAC looks strictly at how this can impact it's bottom line. You look at "your" green fields and open area in the park (you won't even be able to see The Y from the road), then $43 a month is to much for a single person really? Greed is a big factor in all of this, but based on reading these postings ignorance plays just as big a part. Look at the big picture, ACAC wins this and ALL NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS LOSE. All of them, you can't pick and choose. Maybe you're so high and mighty you don't realize how many there are and you need to do some research?
This is the Rob who has been posting and I wanted to thank "New Rob" for what is a very good point...and one many have chosen to ignore earlier in this thread.
Oh yeah, and I wanted to prepare him to be attacked as a government loving wacko.
How about it OT or Cookie? Are you going to break out "Battered Women and Children? Cry me a river!"?
In all seriousness, this is the point so many of us have been trying to make. The argument over whether or not this is the right place for the YMCA was had,and it was had in MANY public forums. I hope the people who have been so passionate against it here exercised their right to make the same points directly to their elected officials when they had the chance.
Phil Wendel and ACAC did not choose to speak up in those forums. They chose behind-the-scenes channels like long and rambling letters to Supervisors and City Council members. They chose ads supposedly paid for by the Save the Park folks. Then they chose a last-minute lawsuit that they lost. Twice.
Now they are choosing a path that has dangerous and lasting consequences for the community, as Rob A pointed out above.
If we cannot discriminate between religously based charities and regular charities, shame on us and our bureaucracies. Pretending that this lawsuit will blur the lines is silly. The blurring began with city hall, sort of. Pretending that this lawsuit is the danger is silly. City Hall, the State House & Senate, the US House & Senate, and Bush II --- they're dangerous. Not the local distillation of same.
If this is "dangerous" and "lasting", then the bureaucracies are to blame. Can we please eviscerate them now?
The YMCA should not receive any public lands at discounted rates because it is a religious organization. Period.
This is not Harry. This is the Charlottesville Association of Tom, Dick, and Harry Operators. Dick withdrew from the organization after our last post. There are lots of fat kids in Charlottesville and we need to do something about it because (a) it affects all of us and (b) it's immoral to leave a generation to Coke and video games.
Our democratically elected officials and a bunch of donors GIVING their money have created a solution that is both better and cheaper than Parks and Recreation doing it on it's own. If you object to it, the don't donate.
Our democratically elected officials aren't giving THEIR money, they are giving OUR money and OUR parkland to an organization that has no business receiving either. It's the forced donation that is being asked of me that I object to.
Harry who isn't Harry,
When I was kid there weren't as many fat kids. There are also weren't tons of athletic facilities. There also weren't super size me portions at fast food restaurants and tons of sugar added to everything we ate. We rode bikes. We played baseball in the sand lot. We built tree houses and castles out of junk. So did my kids. We didn't go the YMCA.
Oh, yeah, and we went to the local park without a Y and played on the the swings, played more baseball/stickball, rode bikes, and ran around making lots of noise.
Places like the skate park on McIntyre are exactly what this area needs. Kids need unstructured wild playtime, where they can go for free,with their friends, along with anyone else who wants to do it. Then maybe, combined with diet, we can get the obesity problem under control.
The location of where this project would happen has already been debated, voted on and decided so if you're hanging on to those ropes it's time to let go and move on. This is simply about ONE MAN trying to protect HIS best interest and the rest of the city be damned. A ruling in his favor could not discriminate soly against The Y as a not for profit organization it would have to impact ALL not for profits in Charlottesville. If the supreme court rules the city can't subsidize land for The Y because it impacts for profit business what in the world makes you think it's okay for the city to assist other not for profits? Many in Charlottesville make the choice to ignore what happens beyond their own front yard and if it can't help them they don't care. The Y helps many who don't have the ability to help themselves. Stop thinking about yourself & look at the community in it's entirety.
Rob A,
Seeing as single people without children or a home often are working crap jobs that pay low wages with no benefits, but get to pay federal taxes at very low income rates, yes, 48$ - not 43$ - could easily be too much money. And because they aren't the chosen ones according to the Y, they will make too much money to be subsidized. God forbid a single person might try and buy a home on their own in this area. Just try that on the pathetic wages paid in this area. I have watched one of my children go through that, and yes, I think 48 bucks is obnoxious for something subsidized like this, when the area already has facilities like the Smith Center.
As for battered women and all the rest, do not confuse one thing for another. But I tell you one thing, if it means my kids take lower and lower living standards to pay for these things, while never having services that are provided for them, you are darn tooting I would say, 'Don't fund them with taxpayer money.' Because that is what is going on here. This is the hollowing out of the middle class.
Right now, both the County and the City have infrastructure that is in desperate need of repair or replacement. The cry that there isn't money while stuff like this gets built is an absolute slap in the face to the taxpayer whatever their income level is, but especially to those who are too poor to actually save and buy a home, but too rich to qualify for any of the subsidies these magical places are supposed to offer.
That, my friends, has to stop, and it stops with this kind of nonsense.
I generally agree with you Old Timer. But lots of lots of kids throughout the United States depended on a YMCA to essentially to do what you and I did. A guy who donated land to Charlottesville named McIntire (presumably not an anscestor of Pookie's), thought parks AND YMCA's were a good idea in combination. Many a great municipality in these United States obviously share that view.
I bet I've been in that ravine with the two shelters over the last 4 decades more than anyone posting on this board. And I can tell you as a Charlottesvillian, a YMCA on that land for the price put on the taxpayer is a steal for us. And I'm very comfortable that, given his own words, and common sense, Mr. McIntire would agree without reservation.
Nobody expects 100% agreement ... even with the obvious.
Old Timer kids aren't the same anymore, when I was a kid friends and I were out the door when the sun came up doing many of the same things you mentioned and didn't come home until the street lights came on. Unfortunatly times have changed. It would be great to have kids out doing that but many parents don't want to have the "fight" with their kids. The Y will be built on 4.5 acres of an 80 acre park, I'm not a math wiz but that seems like it would leave roughly A LOT OF LAND for kids to use just like THEY'RE REALLY NOT USING IT NOW!!!!!
Harry,
"This is simply about ONE MAN trying to protect HIS best interest and the rest of the city be damned. "
It ain't over until its built, and if it were just about one person, you wouldn't find so much chatter on this forum with opposition to it. Sounds to me like you are happy to damn those in the City and County who happen to disagree with their tax money being used this way....
and Old Timer, I rent because as a middle class person earning 45k a year I can't afford to buy in this area but I also know for this area to become a better place to live we're better off with a Y than without one and we're better off providing a place for children to go than to not. The other point missed by many in this article is this .... "Charlottesville Mayor Dave Norris says the City– which agreed to lease the land to the YMCA for $1 a year– has no problem with the project moving forward despite the Supreme Court decision, Blank says the bank financing the project will not release the funds until all lawsuits are settled" The city is subsodizing LAND 4.5 acres of an 80 acre park, the city isn't giving The Y the money to also build the facility. LAND. 5% of a park. Not cash. Not money. Not credit. LAND.
Rob A,
Correct me if I am wrong, but unless things have changed, both the City and the County are donating cash to the project. I believe the City is doing a little over 1 million, and the county about 2 million. Both the City and the County have bridges they can't repair for lack of funds. Whats wrong with this picture?
The YMCA is in the area, and is not going out of business just because it might not get to build in McIntyre. I reiterate I don't have anything against the Y as an organization, but I do have a big things against how this is done, who its really costing, and what the priorities are in this area when it comes to taxpayer dollars.
Old Timer,
I think you quoted Rob A back to Harry but I'm lost. Who sued my City? By the way, this is not Dave.
But that's not relevant. The good news is I'm with you now. I think we should cancel the indoor swim teams, high school or otherwise, or go ahead and spend the taxpayer's $5M or whatever to repair the City pools and build the County its first ever indoor pool. I know that costs me more but it feels so good for my my rhetoric to be pure and superior when it comes to MY tax money. Ooooh that feels good. Oooh. Aaaahhh. I'm going with this. Oooh, that feels sooo good. It's definitely worth it. Don't tread on me. Ahhhhhhh.
Association of Dave Operators (Not Dave)
I'm not a great negotiator, Hell, I may not even be a Richard. But, Seriously? a $1 lease? C'mon, I could get $10000 easy. When the executives of this "Christian" organization are making 6 figures a year, why should we give up our parkland to subsidize this "non-profit"? It occurs to me that someone is profiting. Let them find their own space along the 29N corridor , and move on. I for one will not support ANY candidate who supports this foolish giveaway of sacred parkland, when so many are struggling to pay a light bill.
Dave,
If you can't be anything but sarcastic, then you have as much as admitted you don't have an argument. When it comes to choosing between bridges or swim teams, yes, you choose the bridges. Everybody needs bridges to be safe and open including high school swim teams. There is not a lack of swimming pools to use in this area so spare us the specious arguments. And the sense of entitlement.
Is there or is there not a lack of indoor swimming pools in the area? Seriousy? Who can answer that?
Is there or is there not a shortage of indoor swimming pools in the area? Seriousy? Who can answer that?
Is there or is there not a shortage of indoor swimming pools in the area? Seriousy? Who can answer that?
To answer the question: Yes, there is definitely a lack of indoor pools in the area. There is Smith Pool (which has limited capacity for both City aquatic programs, CHS swim team, and YMCA swim programs like the YMCA/CYAC that have nearly 250 kids age 6-18 y.o.), Crow Pool (which currently houses the YMCA/CYAC program, and is small, but also is being closed after this school year as Walker Elementary is being merged with Buford), ACAC (members only), and the Fairview Pool w/bubble, which is members only, is small, decaying, and beginning to go into disrepair.
By the way, the Y is not just a an indoor swimming pool. It also will house all Y programs, from fitness to gymnastics, dance, and after school programs currently being held at the various and scattered Y locations. People forget the need for safe after school activities for kids with 2 working parents. When waxing poetic about the good old days, how many of the older generation had 2 working parents? The issue is about community programs, not just a pool, and the money has been committed, is awaiting distribution, land had been secured, plans have been drawn up and the project is ready to go forward. Money for roads, bridges, etc. is NOT being taken away by the YMCA project, as the VDOT giveaway of funds to green light the Western bypass has shown. Money isn't the issue, it is the delaying tactics being implemented to hold the YMCA and its supporters hostage.
"People forget the need for safe after school activities for kids with 2 working parents. When waxing poetic about the good old days, how many of the older generation had 2 working parents? The issue is about community programs, not just a pool,"
I don't see any reason to believe that anyone has "forgotten" about the need for after school activities. It seems like those needs are being met by the YMCA already from what you describe. Those various and scattered locations are in the communities that they serve. I don't see how thing are going to improve for the people that might want to use those services by placing them all together in a location that will require driving to make use of. Will be be providing subsidized cars next?
Nobody is stopping the YMCA from constructing a fitness facility. They can do that anytime they want. Why they have to get essentially rent free land from a public entity to do that and then whine that greed is keeping them out is beyond me. Find land, rent it or buy it, and build your club. You already have tremendous tax advantages that should allow you to do this. And Wendel is right, if this had been a free and fair bid process, then we wouldn't be going through this now anyway.
Again, Wendel's argument, shempdaddy, is NOT that the Y should not get rent free land from a public entity -- that moral beef espoused by many has no relevance in the litigation. Rather, his argument is that HE should have been given a better chance than he had to get access to that same rent free land from a public entity. And that argument rests on the claim that since the invitation went out to the world asking for people to bid to build a "non-profit health facility," he, as owner of a for-profit entity, was impermissibly discouraged into such a degree of hopelessness that he chose not to bid at all. So, who is the wimpy whiner here? Did some vast left-wing conspiracy (i.e., the city) preclude Phil from setting up his own non-profit side-entity to submit a bid? Of course not. Did some vast right-wing conspiracy (i.e., the county) tell Phil that they would not contribute their $2 million if he won any bid he could have submitted for a non-profit facility? Doubt it. What it boils down to is that Phil wished that HE could have gottent the free land from the public entity, in order that HE could profit from running a facility there. That's greed, in any reasonable person's book.
ATTENTION ACAC members, it's time to speak up! ACAC's survey has just been mailed out. Suggested answer to the question, what can ACAC do to improve so that I will be more likely to recommend them to others:
DROP THE LAWSUIT AND LET THE YMCA BE BUILT.
legal quibbler, if ACAC's suit might crash the plan for a YMCA in McIntire Park, then I'm all for it regardless of its motivation.
cookieJar, all an ACAC victory would mean here is that when a new bid invitation goes out, it will be open to all for-profit and non-profit suggestions. There is no reason for you to assume Phil is opposed to a facility going in the park in general. As long as the city and the county want to mutually outsource their recreation programs to someone and not impose the necessary tax increases to fund their own programs and facilities, a facility run by someone else can be built by that someone in the park. Will you feel better about it all if the public park space ends up getting used to fatten Phil's wallet? Perhaps under that scenario the park will be kept more pristine than if the Y were to go in there, in that only the affluent will be able to afford to use Phil's facility.