Thanks to the Roanoke Times for an editorial summarizing many points already made here, and elsewhere.
Like restating the aquatic center should have opened January 2007 (but a "real date" was only recently disclosed, then missed anyway). Earlier reports said the plan was to get busy December 2005, so couldn't it have been completed 18 months later (as was done in Roanoke) in Spring 2007 as was then published on the town's own website?
The similar project in Roanoke didn't seem to have similar problems, even though it involved strong public input and an open, known debt obligation. It was previously suggested Christiansburg residents might want to check it out. Or restating the Roanoke facility is green, while our town is not.
Like restating excuses that delays are simply due to 2005 design changes when instead this aquatic center should have already been entertaining guests and residents and generating revenues for the town.
This editorial implies some people would have Christiansburg residents believe the town's economic woes will "wash away" once the doors open -- yet all the eggs are placed in one recreational basket, instead of this facility being a single strategy or goal within a broader economic development plan.
Whether the doors open before May elections or not shouldn't matter (unless you're an incumbent, especially one who has been around since this particular project was first conjured up). Getting the job done, and getting it done right does matter -- as will covering annual operating costs of at least $1.5 million.
Christiansburg residents aren't stupid or infinitely patient. People have been paying attention and see how town administrators work, how the town has grown yet not lived up to its motto. Now let's watch voters as they begin the process of ensuring there's no more rinse and repeat cycles.