Funny, capitalists always say gov't. is inefficient and bureaucratic, but then gov't. isn't allowed to compete on even ground with the private sector. No wonder gov't. appears so.

More specifically, gov't. has an interest in public health--last time I checked there were still a lot of under-active overweight people in Utah. We voted to place our tax dollars in recreational facilities of all kinds, so leave them there! The private sector is not always the answer!

I like the city recreational facilities more than the ones that private companies build. The city seems to know and understand what we, the residents, need.

Have yet to meet a private company that supports and sponsors many of the public-oriented activities our local rec center does. Nor do the private gyms have the breadth and depth of facilities or activities. They ONLY concentrate on those that are profitable and leave a large part of the population out.
The comment that the demograhics at private gyms vs those at the public pool/rec center is RIGHT ON.

The Legislature's time would be better spent on conflict of interest laws that prohibit legislators with a direct financial interest in private schools from competing with public schools!

I'm a bit taken aback by the comments on this message board. I wonder if people would have similar opinions if the government was creating businesses in their respective industries and putting them out of a job in the name of the "public welfare." When the "public interest" means that only those whom the government prefers get jobs, it means we've lost the understanding of basic principles of good government that lead to freedom.

It's true that the private market will not provide everything. Basic economic principles lead us to this conclusion. However, it's not the proper role of government to supply every convenience and recreational activity people would like if they had enough money. When it attempts to do so it leads to inequity and politics (as opposed to inginuity)deciding who gets certain benefits and who does not.

Crogers, I don't think you understand competition. Public firms are actually the ones with the unfair advantages relative to private firms. When public firms go in the red, tax dollars come in to make up the difference and the public firm continues on its way, when private firms go in the red, they cease to exist. Peace.

I would have a major problem if the legislature prohibited cities from building recreational centers that compete with private gyms. A city rec center only charges by the day, or you can buy a seasonal pass. As I understand it, at a private gym you must buy a membership and then also pay a monthly fee. At the city rec center, I only pay if I go and use. Most people who buy a private gym membership end up not using it and thus wasting all that money they spent.
And as one of the legislators said, you would not find the same people in the private gyms as you would in the public ones. Private gyms seem to cater to those who are already fit. At public gyms you will find an assortment of all different shapes and sizes and no one seems to be embarassed to be there. In my less than perfect body,(much less than perfect) I would not be caught dead in a private gym, but have no problem going to the local rec center.