It’s impossible to say if this is a case of ‘silent minority’ but the discussion on social media – including the Guardian’s own Facebook page – has been spirited.

Let’s look at some numbers.

The results of council’s ‘My Community Plan’ survey by percentage of mentions were:

So while an ‘aquatic centre’ was marginally higher overall, it still doesn’t mean that it was a sure thing.

Hopefully it goes without saying that a full-blown aquatic centre – while very nice I’m sure – would cost exponentially more than the water park.

Council received $800,000 from the Stronger Country Communities fund, certainly enough to cover the majority of the cost of the water park and not nearly enough to construct an indoor aquatic centre or some similar thing.

Bathurst’s Aquatic centre – for a flimsy comparison – that opened in September 2007, took a year or so to build on the site of the old council baths, cost approximately $12.5 million to build with funds from the council’s own reserves and other sources.

We can’t know what Mid-Western Regional Council’s process is but if it was us making a decision, we wouldn’t hold something back just because there was a slightly more popular option available that was far more expensive.

It’s almost a predictable cycle of complaints. 

Council will announce funding for a project more people will complain it’s ‘X’ instead of ‘Y’.

But often, as many commenters try and point out, not all projects are created equal.

Sure, it would be nice to have a ten-pin bowling alley in town – for example – but where, how much would it cost to build and maintain and how often would people realistically patronise it to keep it afloat?

Not to mention it would be privately-owned and none of council’s business.

You simply cannot please everyone, and nor should you ever try. 

We predict when the water park is complete, the complaints will fade into history and people will simply enjoy it on their own terms.