FACC numbers might be misleading

To the Editor:

I am a retired long-time resident and taxpayer of Fairmont. I have lived in this town for almost 60 years. I wish to express my concerns about the recent City Council meeting where the Fairmont Area Community Center (FACC) representatives presented the results of the community center design survey.

A first glance, the results seem impressive until you look at the numbers a little closer. In the last general election in Fairmont there were 5,283 ballots cast. Yet, there were only 499 resident surveys returned. This is about 9.4 percent of the precious voters. If the community center is as highly supported an endeavor as claimed by the FACC, where was the outpouring of public opinion in favor of this project?

As I read through the survey responses, I disregarded the non-resident numbers. In the past 40 plus years that I have been working out at the various fitness clubs in Fairmont, I have seen hundreds of people with good intentions that started working out only to quit a short time later and never return. You simply cannot take people from outside of Fairmont, who express interest as shown in the survey to be an endorsement, without a commitment of support like the citizens of Fairmont. The citizens of Fairmont will be the people who will possibly end up paying for the community center with future dollars.

The survey had no provision to explicitly vote “no” to the project. However, out of the 499 resident surveys returned, 225 chose the “no amenities” option. In other words, 45 percent of the people didn’t support the community center project. This was the highest response of any of the choices in all categories. The pool came in next with 199 votes or 40 percent. Then came the track with 170 votes or 34 percent followed by the Ice with 134 votes or 27 percent. The fitness center received 116 votes or 23 percent. The filed house received 78 votes or 15.6 percent, and meeting rooms received 58 votes or 12 percent.

Depending upon one’s viewpoint these might sound like great numbers. However, if you compare these vote percentages to the total number of votes in the previous general election and entirely different picture comes into view. For example, the 199 pool votes equals 3.77 percent of voters. The 170 track votes equals 3.2 percent. The 134 ice votes equals 2.5 percent. The 116 fitness center votes equals 2.2 percent. The 78 fields house votes equals 1.4 percent and the 58 meeting room votes equals 1.1 percent. These figures do not indicate a high degree of interest or support among the voters in Fairmont for a community center, regardless of which criteria you examine.

This survey could have had a much better response rate if it had been included in the utility bills sent to the people living in Fairmont. Many people I talk to view this project as another ‘Aquatic Park’ project which has operated with a large deficit since conception. They feel the Aquatic Park was forced on the community against public opinion at that time, and they don’t want a repeat of that situation. Because once built, it needs to be supported to be solvent.

I think now is the time for the City of Fairmont to conduct their own survey or put it to a vote of the people. I urge the council members to talk to the people of Fairmont personally and get their true feelings in regard to this issue. Just taking the FACC findings, when all of its members are “pro” community center, does not take into account the possibility of bias when interpreting results. My sense is that you are attempting to use a private organization to make public policy on decisions and spend tax dollars.

Bill Cieslinski

Fairmont