Yes, it would be nice if Payson had YMCA, but it would also be nice if had a Target or Costco store.
Would the council be willing to give up some more park land for those two private businesses? Let's analyze the recent action of the council to see what they really stand for.
Several months ago we learned the councildecided to cut back on funds for charities and nonprofit groups working in the community. They decided to gradually cut off all funding, until they were completely out of that function.
Then several months later, along comes the "Y" and dazzles them with fast talk and the council reverses its position and "funds" a private for-profit business by giving them five acres of park land. So is this now the will of the people, no funds for charity, but only for private businesses? Something is not right here.
Payson has some beautiful parks but is limited to only a few. Parks are for the enjoyment of citizens who have paid and are paying for them. The land for Rumsey Park was purchased for the citizens of Payson, not for private business. Is the council acting in the best interest of all the citizens by "leasing" limited park land for only a small number of the local citizens?
When you "lease" land to someone, they will control who can come onto that land. At $800 + per year for a family membership, not everyone in Payson Payson will be able to afford the Y club. And without a membership you are not entitled to use the facilities.
The council is taking away park land from the many and giving it to the few. An action like that should not be acted upon, unless the council has first heard from all the citizens on how they want their parks used. A referendum is in order for that purpose.
Blair, Connell, Fruth, Romance or Wilson should ask for a reconsideration on the issue, before the citizens of Paysonose their parkland and maybe get stuck with a big empty building to pay for.
Let's see if the council can step up and do the right thing. Let the people decide.