Council Corner: Pool Shrinkflation

Recently at the grocery store, my son wondered why his favorite “pint” of ice cream was only 14 ounces. I explained the concept of shrinkflation, in which companies reduce the size of a product, increase its price, and market the change as an improvement or innovation.
At its December meeting, the Columbia Association proposed a similar approach to community amenities: shrinking the number of pools while continuing to raise the price residents must pay to use the pools. CA markets this proposal as part of its commitment to “enhancing accessibility and reducing costs for residents.”

The plan, which the CA board will vote on in February, proposes closing one of the six lowest-attended pools and replacing it with a splash pad at an estimated cost of $1.1 million to $1.6 million. If the plan is approved, it is unclear how many additional pools CA would seek to convert in the future. While the River Hill pool would not be directly impacted, it could experience increased crowding as residents have fewer pools to choose from. The outcome is simple: residents would pay more for fewer pools.

CA pitches the proposal as promoting accessibility and equity since the splash pads would be free for everyone, including residents who may not be able to afford a pool membership. In my opinion, this approach risks cementing a two-tier system of summer amenities for residents: pools for the roughly 30% of residents who are willing and able to pay the ever-escalating membership costs, and splash pads for everyone else. Unfortunately, children cannot learn to swim in a splash pad.

If CA is truly committed to accessibility and reducing resident costs, we should follow Reston’s example. Rather than replacing an entire pool with a splash pad, CA could replace only the wading pool. This option would be significantly less expensive while also reducing staffing requirements. Rather than raising the costs of resident pool memberships, as the CA Board voted to do in December, CA should instead include pool access as part of the annual charge. Doing so should not require an increase in the annual charge rate given that Reston’s homeowners association fee includes pool access while also being significantly less than CA’s average annual charge bill.

Roughly 60% of the outdoor pool operating costs are already subsidized by residents through the annual charge. Shrinking access to pools while increasing costs is not fiscal responsibility—it is shrinkflation. CA should pause this proposal and work with residents to preserve existing pools, expand access and ensure that the amenities we already pay for remain available to the entire community.

Eric Greenberg is the River Hill Representative to Columbia Council and the CA Board of Directors.

Email: Eric.Greenberg@ca-board.org.

Disclaimer: This column reflects the views of Eric Greenberg only and not those of the CA Board or the River Hill Board of Directors.