Better ways than water park to spend $7M, FP readers say

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/05/2009 (6319 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The city is looking for new offers after plans for a $43.6-million Canad Inns water park collapsed, but most readers who wrote to the Free Press think the municipal government’s $7-million grant for the project should go to rapid transit, where it was originally allotted.

There wasn’t much support for a private water park development, and readers who took a non-scientific Free Press poll had other priorities for the cash. More than half of the nearly 2,400 people who responded thought the money should be spent repairing potholes.

Here’s a sample of how readers responded to the water park news:

I’m amazed that a city mayor… has the sort of power that he has to divert federal funds from a public rapid-transit plan to a hare-brained water park. As much fun as water parks might be, they can and should be built with private money and not public money.

Even though there is a plan in place, finally, to start our rapid-transit system, we are far, far from finished, and we need every penny that we can get to add other legs to the project to connect all areas of the city. It seems that the mayor only agreed to rapid transit as an afterthought, and only under extreme pressure. But a city of this size needs rapid transit. It is a need, not just a want.

— Garry Burgess

Taking the money from public transit for a water park was a crime.

In the end, crime does not pay.

Put the money back, Sam.

Better late than never.

— Carolyn Garlich

Giving $7 million to private concerns for a water park that will likely only be used by those who can afford and access it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. We think that the money is better spent on upgrading existing facilities to the standard set by the Cindy Klassen and St. James Centennial complexes that are used extensively. Kildonan Park or another facility could definitely use the money available or, if not that, Transit.

— Bruce and Pat Cooper

Meat and potatoes should come before dessert. The money should go back to where it was originally intended, to benefit the most people.

— Suzie Hoffer

Definitely this $7 million should be spent on something other than inane, unnecessary entertainment like a water park.

Yes, rapid transit or downtown renewal (including Point Douglas). These are urgent projects now.

— Hilda Wagstaffe

I vote against public funding for a big, enclosed water park because of the high cost of maintaining it in a clean and safe condition. This high cost could be offset by user fees, but then the water park would not be truly a public facility. Spray pads for summer use would be better for public enjoyment, and also, separately, we need clean, modern drinking stations that dispense safe water to drink. There are parts of Winnipeg without piped-in drinking water going to the homes, and drinking water has to be a priority for any city.

— J.A. Paterson

Mr. Katz should use the $7 million where it is needed most and where it will have the most benefit for the citizens of Winnipeg. This money was intended to be used for rapid transit and that should continue to be the priority.

I am very disappointed in our unimaginative and uninspiring mayor.

— Dr. Patricia Landolfo

I have two young girls, 10 and three, and I would love to take them to a water park, but only if it’s a water park of the same calibre as the one in the Edmonton Mall… I’ve watched and read the whole IKEA mess, and find it funny that we now think everything has to be downtown… Just like IKEA, this whole water park thing will get bogged down until we will just get fed up and forget it was even a thought. Please get your act together before my youngest graduates from high school.

— Chris Jankowski