Tennis players blast fees, hiring at Seminole County parks

Tennis Luva wrote:

What does everyone think of the two Pros at Sanlando now?

Tennis for Life wrote:

<quoted text>
Love Brian. Like Roger. Robin and Mike are good. Don't care for Roy.

Judged:

1

J A D wrote:

I could have sworn that it's Red Bug who needs a Head Pro not Sanlando but they put Sanlando.

tennis player 1 wrote:

What exactly does it explain when blatent discrimination has occurred?

Judged:

1

1

1

I heart tennis wrote:

Right now, as always, Brian is the best thing at Sanlando, and he's had a P-1 for years. If anything happens to him, Sanlando will surely die.

J A D wrote:

Seminole Co. Leisure Services has posted a Head Pro job opening in the USTA Florida website (http://www.usatennisflorida.u sta.com/resources/custom.sps?i Type=12850&icustompageid=1 7935).
I can't help but notice the following:
1.The Head Pro Minimum Qualifications state that they are looking for a "minimum USPTA-P2 level certification for the duration of this contract." So, they get rid of Alice Reen, Tim Lynch, and Peter Staub as Head Pros because they are P2 and now they are looking for a P2.
2. I could have sworn that it's Red Bug who needs a Head Pro not Sanlando but they put Sanlando.
Makes you wonder about Leisure Services. Makes my head spin.

FYI wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey JAD, Seminole Co. corrected their ad. They can't seem to get things right the first time. It is Red Bug that needs a Head Pro and minimum requirement is P1. Is that Davia Moss, one of Joe Abel's cronies, who gets things wrong all the time?

Public Advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
Please know the facts and true consequences of losing a great asset to a community before suggesting they be cut or privatized.
Public parks provide a safe environment for people to express themselves, improve their health, and partake in activities that may keep them away from a life of crime. Not only do public parks benefit a community in the above ways, they help keep property values up -- especially parks that offer great programs like Sanlando used to. Higher property values = increased tax revenues to support other programs like fire and police. YOUR property values stay UP because of nice parks and good park programs in your community.
Think about the kids/families who use the parks for basketball, tennis, volleyball, baseball, and the playgrounds that keep families together... All of these activities keep kids off the streets thus lowering crime and reducing our tax burden for extra police.
If everything were privatized, then most lower and middle class Americans (those populations typically considered AT-RISK) would have NO access to ANY luxuries/leisure services. Their kids could not partake in any sports -- Look at private club fees vs. public fees; only the wealthy can comfortably afford to put a child - not to mention multiple children - into private sports programs today.
Public parks with public programs are a NECESSARY and NEEDED luxury. They make paying taxes worthwhile to many.
Again, please review your thoughts and support public parks and programs. What seems like a waste of money to you is really an investment in a future with a great return.

Caroline Vakhordjian wrote:

At the heart of the issue is the complete disconnect between the county government and its clientele, the citizens and patrons of Seminole County. Cynthia Coto, Seminole County's Manager in justifying the recent policy changes, stated at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on February 26, 2008, "...we need to get a better business model as it relates to our parks." The 2008 business model they selected for the park system is a verifiable flop. In developing this business model, they skipped over the most important component, the clientele. There was no park patron survey, no patron committee,- nada, nothing from the patrons. A good business, at least one that wants to succeed, conducts research pertaining to it clientele's wants, needs, and limitations. This was not done by the County. If they had at the very least conducted a patron survey, they would have had a clear indication that their biggest asset was their highly qualified and revered staff, which they jeopardized or lost due to their changes. The other problem with the current "business model" is that it appears to seek a profit for the county parks. For private businesses, this is the main goal, but for a public funded park the goal is meeting the needs of the public -ALL of the public- with its budget allocation. Public parks should not make a profit; they should break even and be affordable for and accessible to all of its citizens. The County's new business model does not serve its clientele; it alienates it.
Because of the exorbitant rate increases, many patrons and children who had thrived on the programs at the park have now been shut out. To address this disconcerting situation, the County has proposed implementing "scholarships". At the Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Director of S.C. Leisure Services, Mr. Joe Abel, stated he would give scholarships to children who carry free and reduced lunch cards and for those who do not have the cards he would "...create a scholarship program that allows the community to get involved and allow them to pay into this scholarship program to help us (the county) offset the cost of actually delivering the program." This statement is alarming for two reasons: 1. it recognizes that many individuals won't have access to their parks without outside financial support; 2. it alludes to the fact that there will be a new administrative position and/or fees for implementing the new scholarships that were previously unnecessary with the old business model. Bottom line: more tax payer supported bureaucracy and less service to county citizens. Mr. Abel continued by adding, "... we're looking at writing into this (scholarship) program the opportunity for community service either for the student or the student's family to give back a portion of what the cost would be that we're waiving in community service/volunteer hours to the community." His comments clearly indicate lack of service to all citizens and worse yet; citizens will have to pay for a service they have already paid for through taxation. Citizens will also be asked to jump through bureaucratic hoops to qualify for the scholarship program. The old park business model may have needed a little tweaking, but at least the citizens and patrons of Sanlando Park were able to afford, enjoy, and use THEIR public park.It is understood that the public parks need supplemental fees to be maintained, especially to the excellent standards of Seminole's parks. However, the current fees are neither realistic nor justified. Seminole County and its officials with their recent policy changes have failed to preserve and protect the public's interest. They may have succeeded at creating a business model, but they have failed at providing all of its citizens access to their own public parks.