 |
|
|||||
|
County shouldn’t have contributed taxpayer money to SportsQuest Some neighbors and I read with interest the commentaries published in your July 21 issue of the Chesterfield Observer, “County and nonprofits debate merits of SportsQuest deal.” The commentaries reflect a shameful assortment of promotional dealings and decisions generated by Chesterfield County officials. The actions taken by the three Chesterfield County supervisors (Dan Gecker, Art Warren and Dorothy Jaeckle) to promote the SportsQuest deal will likely have long-term financial consequences and a detrimental impact on the quality of life for a segment of youth in our county. It is shameful that the supervisors pushed the SportsQuest project to culminate a sweetheart deal at the expense of county residents, particularly our youth. From the early beginning of this issue surrounding “[CEO Steve] Burton’s Big Dream,” it has been a debate of whether it is proper or even legal to expend public (taxpayer) funds to support a private enterprise. Gecker, apparently speaking on behalf of the other two supervisors who voted approval with him, said, “The SportsQuest deal is more about economic development than about fields.” It is very difficult to lend credence to any evidence that the SportsQuest deal has reasonable economic development qualities. Some of us have noted that often when local supervisory and administrative officials are elected to office, the incumbent becomes an instant expert in economic development. I believe the county’s handling of Cloverleaf Mall is an example to study. While it is not apparent why Burton’s big dream has been placed at the head of Chesterfield’s list of suitable economic development candidates, questions prevail. Is it within reasonable probability that Chesterfield County will become a bustling world-class name to bring the tourism set into the county to attend national and international Olympics level sports features and tournaments? Is there a high probability Chesterfield County can become a national, international and world leader in some of the minor sports, such as speed skating, fencing, soccer, swimming, track and field, skate boarding and related shadow sports? Practically the entire issue surrounding the controversy of using public money for lease purposes with SportsQuest revolves around facilities for soccer. I never deciphered any consideration for expanding the number of playing facilities for youth team sports other than soccer. I believe a count will show that baseball, softball, football, basketball and tennis are truly popular activities among youngsters throughout the county. They are finding suitable and improved playing fields in short supply. In likelihood, team games [like] baseball, basketball, softball and football will continue to dominate youth activity in this area for many years to come. Those youth activities will call for additional and improved public facilities, hopefully to be provided by the county or public school system. It is not the intent of SportsQuest to offer Chesterfield County’s youth access to private facilities without charge. The company states its goal is to be a $200 million business. Residents in Chesterfield County will be charged for use of their facilities just as charges now exist for physical fitness and exercise centers.
In the future, when Chesterfield County negotiates economic development deals, we hope proper and thorough consideration will be given to all elements of the county. |
      |
||||
