All wet, part two
By Doug Miller
Posted: January 20, 2010
We heard last week from a reader who took exception to our editorial supporting a Columbia Association budget proposal to eliminate towel service at CA health clubs.
Don Oliver insisted that it’s necessary for health reasons for the gyms to provide towels to its members. “How many bare backsides on benches will it take to convince you? Also, do you really want to use equipment that is sweaty from a prior use?” he asked. “WE NEED THE TOWELS! It is not just a convenience.”
As a regular at the Athletic Club, I can tell you that having club-provided towels has not prevented people (men, anyway) from planting their unclad buns on the benches in the locker room. I’ve done it myself (I know, TMI).
It will take some getting used to, but members will bring their own towels, just as I did years ago when I belonged to the YMCA. It’s not that big a deal.
I do have to concede some of his points, though:
“CA wants us to believe that they are being environmentally sensitive. How much waste water will clients create washing towels at home separately rather than in large tubs designed to wash them efficiently? The argument is specious.”
It sure is. It’s also beside the point.
The association’s chief financial officer estimates that eliminating towel service will save $5 million over the next 10 years. This is a budget issue, nothing more. The rest is just window dressing.
Finally, our reader offers: “I am curious about the standard for towels at other similar facilities. I suspect that they are provided.”
He’s right about that. I checked. Just about all of the comparable private health clubs in Howard County include towels as part of the deal.
But here’s the thing: Those places have to answer only to the health-club market, whereas the Columbia Association has a larger constituency to consider.
Most of the people who pay the association’s annual fee don’t even use the gyms that their money make possible (we can quibble about the clubs’ self-sufficiency, but it’s the CA power to collect what is, essentially, a property tax that gives its Health and Fitness division financial muscle).
As I said in my last post, I’m far from happy about this move. But this isn’t just about me and my fellow gym-goers. If it comes down to a choice between towels and covenant enforcement or pathway maintenance, you have to decide in favor of an essential service that benefits all lienpayers.
Comment on this entry • View all 4 responses
user tom3 says...
Hell hath frozen over! Doug Miller is supporting a CA action. I can die in peace now.
Posted 4:33 PM, 01.22.10 | Permalink
user belovedcartoonmouse says...
Towels NO. Restrictive Covenants YES.
Posted 7:08 PM, 01.22.10 | Permalink
user dno21 says...
The argument being used by CA's Sports & Fitness Division is specifically using the environmental justification. It may well be that the real reason is the costs, but that's not their rationale. I still don't get why CA insists on opening 23 outdoor pools every summer, then starts shutting them down in early August. Talk about a waste of money...
Posted 2:31 PM, 01.29.10 | Permalink
Doug Miller
Doug Miller has been newspapering since 1985, and has been a reporter, editor and columnist with Patuxent Publishing since 1988. This whole blog thing is a bit of a stretch for a guy who once actually worked with typewriters, but we figure he'll get the hang of it by the time he retires.
rss feed
Subscribe to this Feed
related blogs
reader comments
Advertisement
most popular
- read
- emailed
Advertisement
Advertisement
by trade I'm a flight paramedic...dumba$$
Posted in Suspensions at Reservoir were out of proportion to offenses
The fact that your sitting home alone on a Friday night says...
Posted in Suspensions at Reservoir were out of proportion to offenses
Huh So the Laurel Leader doesn't tolerate comments critical of one...
Posted in Obama campaigner launches his own run