| Author |
Message |
    
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 478
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:10 pm: | 
|
Oh stop. There are more hurtful things happening in the community than hesitating to install fake grass in a park at the insistence of a few people over the objections of a lot of people in the immediate neighborhood.
*You* may have elected these guys "to lead." I elected them because they promised to represent my interests at TC meetings. Nor do I think people who voted for the special tax last year to help protect community parks thought they were voting for astroturf.
I expect town government to listen to the community and to facts. This is a self-governing democracy. There are still too many unanswered questions, nobody has made a persusaive case that astroturf really is an improvement to a community recreation facility and I am mystified how anybody could think this should be on a fast track given all the important demands on taxpayers.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Oh stop. There are more hurtful things happening in the community than hesitating to install fake grass in a park at the insistence of a few people over the objections of a lot of people in the immediate neighborhood
you misunderstood me. i agree with you. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4953
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Enough of this already, how about we raise some money for defibrillator’s for the new fields?  |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 - 11:35 pm: |
|
there is a lovely way to force this issue to be put on hold until it is brought up for a town wide vote as a referendum. i think the delay would be good for us all. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4954
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 6:57 am: |
|
...sorry, in case you didn’t hear, Delay is now out of the picture. It's damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead! |
kws
Citizen
Username: Kws
Post Number: 130
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:17 am: |
|
Petitions with over 560 signatures is not "a few" in my book.
There were how many people in opposition there that evening? Three as I remember.
The head of the Environmental Committee, the head of the HNA and one resident.
There were 2 residents from the DeHart Park area who spoke in favor of the project.
Folks look at the sketches. The 2 baseball fields remain.
What happens is that they will squeeze a pair of side by side soccer/lacrosse fields in between.
The playground stays, the facility stays, the picnic benches on the hillside and the trees remain.
There can never be more than 2 games occurring simultaneously. Which is what occurs there now with baseball/softball. So where is all of the extra traffic?
Town leaders have put alot of effort and money into the Springfield area. Rightfully so.
And this upgrade will continue that trend by making DeHart Park the finest recreation facility in town.
|
indi13
Citizen
Username: Notupset
Post Number: 17
Registered: N/A
| | Posted on Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
Kathleen,
It seems like you haven't been paying attention. There is no question that the turf field is a massive improvement over our current recreational facility. The point of this effort has been to raise enough money without hitting up the taxpayers so that if we do borrow some amount of money that is funded by the Open Space Tax, there will still be plenty of money left over to fund other things as well. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 480
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Libertarian,
My post was directed to comments other than yours, and regrets for not making that plain. I think on this and other issues, you raise important, humane and intelligent questions.
indi13, if you're right, it can withstand public scrutiny and a feasibility study, yes? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4960
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 10:41 pm: |
|
"...there will still be plenty of money left over to fund other things as well."
...sure it can withstand public scrutiny and a feasibility study. Who's going to do it? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Petitions with over 560 signatures is not "a few" in my book.
you are right, its less than few. it is approximately less than 3% of the population of maplewood.
There were how many people in opposition there that evening? Three as I remember.
The head of the Environmental Committee, the head of the HNA and one resident.
people for the park at the meeting- soccer and lacross coaches
people against the plan- Head of the environmental commitee
Head of the community affected
|
Stephen P Jones
Citizen
Username: Spj3
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:12 pm: |
|
While the basis of your facts is wrong as the people speaking in favor of the project included soccer coaches, lacrosse coaches, parents, residents and the young players of baseball, soccer and lacrosse in our community, it is your cursory dissmissal of the young people who came out on a school night to express their opinions that I find particulalry offensive.
We should all encourage our young people to become involved in their community and its issues and recognise and applaud those who do so in such a responsible way. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11200
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 7:54 am: |
|
Parking certainly was an issue during the ten plus years our kids played baseball, softball and soccer at De Hart. The new plan allows for two soccer and/or lacrosse games to run simultaneously and that will increase the parking issue since currently only one game at a time can be played.
The lacrosse and soccer teams that play there are "travel teams", meaning they play teams from other towns. This means a large number of cars to be parked, which becomes doubled when the teams for the next games arrive before the previous games are completed. |
kws
Citizen
Username: Kws
Post Number: 131
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 8:49 am: |
|
Actually 2 softball games can and do take place at the same time there now.
And in terms of traffic with travel teams, my experience says folks are more likely to double up and carpool if they are traveling to an away game. So the crush of cars might not be as severe as one would think.
Still there will be a period of time where teams are playing and the next teams arrive...
maybe the start times of games could be staggered between the 2 fields to allow people to leave one field as the teams for the other field are arriving 30 to 45 minutes before their game time. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7274
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Maplewood isn’t the only place where the prospective use of artificial turf fields is being debated. The cover story in Metro, New York, April 17, 2006 called Plastic Parks, is about the controversy regarding the use of artificial turf on playing surfaces in New York City which are presently either covered with asphalt or dirt.
Following are the pros and cons taken from the article:
Pros:
The cost of maintaining artificial turf fields is much lower than the cost of maintaining natural turf fields
The person power and equipment required to maintain artificial turf fields is much less than for natural turf fields
Most of the costs associated with artificial turf can be capitalized while most of the costs associated with natural turf fields come out of the tax levy budget (This could also be a negative if you believe that we should reduce capital budget expenditures)
Most people (in the experience of the person from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation who was quoted in the article) prefer to play on artificial turf surfaces (article does not say what types of surfaces are being compared here but most of the surfaces being considered for artificial turf by the City of New York are presently covered with asphalt or dirt, not natural grass)
Artificial fields will last about twice as long as natural fields (and therefore remain in good condition for a longer period of time.
While artificial turf gets hot in summer, it doesn’t get as hot as asphalt (not an argument for us since we are not looking to replace asphalt surfaces).
Cons:
Artificial turf gets much hotter in warm weather than natural turf. (Not a problem if fields will be mostly used in cold weather)
When kids slide into artificial turf, the rubber crumbs come up and the kids ingest the crumbs. (Article doesn’t state whether this is a problem with all artificial turf surfaces or just those being considered/used by the NYC Parks Department.)
There is a disposal problem. Artificial turf is not readily biodegradable and has to go into a dump somewhere when it is no longer in use.
For every field covered by artificial turf, there is that much less natural turf surface, which serves to reduce the amount of green space.
When artificial turf catches fire, it is toxic and produces noxious fumes.
There are drainage issues
If the artificial turf field isn’t maintained properly and/or replaced when it should be, it will be even worse than a poorly maintained natural turf surface.
In summary, the advantages cited in the article are primarily budgetary while the disadvantages cited are primarily safety and environmental concerns. Which set of arguments should be the more pressing?
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1952
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 4:56 pm: |
|
it is your cursory dissmissal of the young people who came out on a school night to express their opinions that I find particulalry offensive.
We should all encourage our young people to become involved in their community and its issues and recognise and applaud those who do so in such a responsible way.
when they pay taxes then i will be interested in their say on how they get spent. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13722
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 8:00 pm: |
|
The way we run our family is that the kids get input, and we listen to it with respect. Then the adults make the decisions. As they get older, they are allowed to make more decisions, if they show they are responsible enough to handle them.
I would value the kids' input about their needs at the park and other civic matters, too. I'm proud that one of my daughters is attending township and board of educaton meetings lately.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4751
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 8:41 pm: |
|
we should value intelligence and hands-on experience, not just who puts money into the pot. There are plenty of adult taxpayers who don't know or care about how kids use the recreational facilities, and plenty of kids that do. The kids who play organized ball in the parks can tell you far more about the care and condition of the fields than 99/100 adults.
Why make decisions that cost money based on ignorance when you can use knowledge instead? |
Stephen P Jones
Citizen
Username: Spj3
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Libertarian - "believer in free will; advocate of liberty"
But only based on your financial contribution or age???
You need to re-examine your political affiliation.
|
rssounds
Citizen
Username: Rssounds
Post Number: 378
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Joan, here are some responses to your cons.
Artificial turf gets much hotter in warm weather than natural turf. (Not a problem if fields will be mostly used in cold weather)
Artificial truf can get hotter than natural turf duing the summer. However many communities have found solutions to this problem, inclcuding Las Vegas which has several artificial turf fields. Sprinkling with water can reduce the surface temp.
When kids slide into artificial turf, the rubber crumbs come up and the kids ingest the crumbs. (Article doesn’t state whether this is a problem with all artificial turf surfaces or just those being considered/used by the NYC Parks Department.)
While it is possible, I have not heard that this is a problem. The MSDS for crumb rubber also states that ingestion does not pose a threat. This stuff is approved for playgrounds where the possibility of ingestion is far greater by toddlers and infants than by kids slide tackling during a soccer game.
There is a disposal problem. Artificial turf is not readily biodegradable and has to go into a dump somewhere when it is no longer in use.
Inaccurate. Virtually all of the products used are recyclable.
For every field covered by artificial turf, there is that much less natural turf surface, which serves to reduce the amount of green space.
True, but I refer you to the game day picture above. I don't consider a dust bowl to be desirous. Safety issues have become paramount, and teams from other towns are refusing to play in Maplewood and South Orange because of these concerns.
When artificial turf catches fire, it is toxic and produces noxious fumes.
I assume you are referring to the potential of vandalism. Flash point is in excess of 600 degrees F. It is self extinguishing, meaning that once the accelerant has burned off, it will not sustain a fire.
There are drainage issues
There are over 35 artificial turf fields within a 15-20 mile radiaus of Maplewood. I am not aware of any drainage issues. DEP would not allow the field to be installed without proper drainage.
If the artificial turf field isn’t maintained properly and/or replaced when it should be, it will be even worse than a poorly maintained natural turf surface.
This is not a con as much as it is common sense. Artificial turf fields are designed to be low maintenance not maintenance free. They should be maintained. When the turf reaches the end of its lifespan it should be replaced.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1958
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Libertarian - "believer in free will; advocate of liberty"
But only based on your financial contribution or age???
You need to re-examine your political affiliation.
when you actually understand what the libertarian party stands for and what my political affiliations are, then you will be qualified to make that statement. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1959
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
we should value intelligence and hands-on experience, not just who puts money into the pot. There are plenty of adult taxpayers who don't know or care about how kids use the recreational facilities, and plenty of kids that do. The kids who play organized ball in the parks can tell you far more about the care and condition of the fields than 99/100 adults.
Why make decisions that cost money based on ignorance when you can use knowledge instead?
alot of teenage girls in this town also think we should build a large stage and hire the backstreet boys to play every night. they certainly have more experience with the type of music they play. My point is that until it is their money being used they lack a certain important perspective. "our field is dusty and we are really really embarrased", doesnt really cut it for me.
while i am sure your little darlings are very adult and you are all so very proud of them standing up with the big people and sharing their views, i would rather hear from experts in field management and landscaping. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4762
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Nobody's talking about teenagers deciding anything, and certainly not what to do. My point is that they should be free to give input on how.
are these experts in field management and landscaping using their money, too? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1962
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 5:55 pm: |
|
are these experts in field management and landscaping using their money, too?
oooh! i can play the , "lets be absurd game"! my turn! fig newtons ride penguins to the market!
YAY!
that was fun!
moving on..... |
Stephen P Jones
Citizen
Username: Spj3
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:43 pm: |
|
"oooh! i can play the , "lets be absurd game"! my turn! fig newtons ride penguins to the market! "
Well done!
By far your most intelligent comment of late.
I hope you will continue to demonstrate your wit and intelligence regarding the debate, I for one will follow the old adage and refrain from engaging in a battle of wits with someone whom is so obviously only half prepared |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 488
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 10:56 pm: |
|
rssounds,
I don't understand why the proponents of artificial turf are saying that the installed non-grass "fields" won't present a hazard to kids in hot weather because they will be used mostly in cold weather. Is De Hart park going to be fenced off in summer? Isn't this a neighborhood playground? Aren't kids out of school in the sumemr, playing games? Sorry if this was answered somewhere before, but I hope you won't mind repeating the answer if it was.
Playing fields of artificial turf can reach temperatures of 170 degrees when it's hot. You've posted that "sprinkling with water can reduce the surface temp." To what temperature? And how much water is needed? How often? What does this add to the costs for the taxpayers? And does a water soaked surface make for a silppery and therefore more hazardous surface?
The material posted previously indicates that children playing on artificial turf need supervision to know how to immediately dress "turf burns." I understand those of you who want the artificial turf want it because your kids play on official teams of some sort with coaches. Are you saying that after the turf is installed, ONLY official, supervised teams can play on it?
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1965
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Well done!
By far your most intelligent comment of late.
I hope you will continue to demonstrate your wit and intelligence regarding the debate, I for one will follow the old adage and refrain from engaging in a battle of wits with someone whom is so obviously only half prepared
for someone so doubly armed with wit, i find it ironic that you dont understand sarcasm and its intent. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4765
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 12:25 am: |
|
If we're going to water the turf, why don't we water real grass instead? |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 4999
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:07 am: |
|
...Tom, when you make jokes you should use the little funny faces... |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4766
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 8:42 am: |
|
you're right, deadpan never comes across right on line. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:05 pm: |
|
i think it is a valid question |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14957
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 7:24 pm: |
|
Because it take more time and money to maintain a grass field. It has to be watered, mowed, seeded, fertilized, weeded, graded and on and on and on. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 490
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Here is a link to the article "Plastic Parks" which Joan referred to earlier:
http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Plastic_parks/2074.html
I re-read some earlier posts and saw that it had previously been stated that watering reduces the surface temperature of artificial turf by 35 degrees. I doubt anyone thinks that is adequate, since surface temperatures for artificial turf can read 175 degrees (as opposed to 105 under the same conditions for natural grass).
I didn't find any answer about why this isn't being considered a hazard to neighborhood children or what will be done to keep them off the fields during hot weather -- whether it is appropriate to convert a neighborhood playing space to this kind of restricted use.
|
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5499
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 10:03 pm: |
|
I rarely see neighborhood children in any neighborhood on any of the fields actually except for organized activities.
By the way Kathleen, do you have any more cut and pastes on the hazards of body shaving? |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 491
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:33 am: |
|
Hank,
Is it that you don't see kids on the fields because you're not there except for organized games or is it because the fields are poorly maintained? If it's the latter, don't you think installing lots of bright green plastic that only looks like grass might attract kids to playing on it during hot weather when they aren't in school?
The "Plastics Park" article raises this additional point: If we aren't willing to tax ourselves adequately to maintain the parks we already have, what makes people think we are going to tax ourselves adequately to maintain artificial turf? So which is worse: Poorly maintained grass fields or poorly maintained artifical turf? Does anyone know?
The "Plastics Park" article also points out that a cost-comparison between grass and synthetic turf reveals that savings for artificial turf are being oversold.
I realize Maplewood is located in America, where the arrival of something plastic and cheap is always celebrated as an "improvement," but maybe some of the proponents of the artificial turf would understand some of the objections better if they looked at the issues this way for a moment:
If I could privately raise a million dollars to put several putting greens in one of the public parks, can any of you think of any legitimate objection to my doing it? If I could organize something educational and fun for my kids to do in your neighborhood, but it would triple the amount of cars parking on your street, is there some reason not to do this for my kids? If I can privately raise a million dollars to buy shiny plastic things for my kids, is there some reason I should agree to pay more taxes to adequately maintain public parks, public schools and public safety? Whose crazy idea is that?
I'm not opposed to improvements in De Hart Park that would facilitate greater use of the fields, and can be persuaded artificial turf is the way to go. But the proponents of the artifical turf need to answer all the questions as to why this is better (and less hazardous) than grass, and why if grass actually is better and poses no hazards, a community this affluent can't afford grass.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1978
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:40 am: |
|
Because it take more time and money to maintain a grass field. It has to be watered, mowed, seeded, fertilized, weeded, graded and on and on and on.
so for convenience sake we should put a carpet on what could be a nice grassy field. sounds like a winner to me!
by the way, you would love this newsgroup:
news:alt.pave.the.earth |
mickey
Citizen
Username: Mickey
Post Number: 430
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Kathleen,
Thank you for remaining somewhat open-minded about this. You ask some good questions. But may I ask you two?
1. Have you ever been to DeHart and have you seen the fields in question? There are grassy areas, playground areas, tennis courts, a skating enclosure and a walking/jogging path which would not be changed at all by the addition of the turf fields.
2. Have you ever set foot on, or at least seen up close, a turf field like the one the grant would be for? They are not "carpets" and they don't look or feel like plastic. They do retain heat somewhat, but only in the deepest of summer would it matter. My son played has played year round on this surface (even in August) and it's been fine.
I understand and appreciate your concern for the safety of all children, both in and outside of organized sports, who may use the fields. But I can tell you from first hand experience that kids are more likely to be injured playing on a hard, dirt-patchy "grass" field. I've mentioned this before: the turf fields are more forgiving. Serious injuries (tendon, ligament, bone and skull fractures) are LESS likely to occur on turf fields than on a field like DeHart has now.
Finally, I'll say that even if money were no object, you can't pay Mother Nature enough to rain and not rain at the right times to maintain a grass field. If we were talking about one baseball team using the field, great. But with the confluence of baseball, softball, lacrosse, soccer, and the occasional touch football and ultimate frisbee game (and I'm sure I'm forgetting some), even the most beautiful million dollar grass field wouldn't withstand all the use our town would give it. It's a usage issue.
Think of the grass courts at Wimbeldon! (And there's tons of money there) At the end of a fortnight, the grass courts...maintained by the best landscapers in the world....are all chopped up and filled with dirt patches.
Check out the turf field on Pleasant Valley way at West Orange HS. It may give you a better idea of what it would look like/feel like at DeHart. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 492
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:02 pm: |
|
mickey,
Thanks for really answering, instead of doing a bad imitation of Stephen Colbert. (I was beginning to think researched facts were being dissed as lacking truthiness. Real men believe in corporate plastic.)
Yes, I've seen the poorly maintained fields. Please do not think for a minute I am suggesting NO turf or a badly maintained park is acceptable. But the more I read the more I think the savings of artificial turf are being oversold, and the maintenance costs and replacement costs of such turf are being low-balled. Research on the injury stats AT BEST support the notion that it's a trade off, not that artificial turf results in fewer injuries. And I'm afraid the heat injury issues are more serious than the proponents are dealing with. Surface temps only come down briefly after watering, and shoot right back up again. Again, who is going to keep kids off these surfaces when they are 170 degrees?
It also appears to me that Mother Nature is going to be working against artificial turf in a drought (do we still get to water in a water emergency?) and actually ANY time normal summer temperatures prevail. And I assume you've heard what they say about Mother Nature.
But these issues are going be answered by a town study, yes? So, we wait for the study.
In the meantime I would like my curiosity satisfied in this regard:
Are you and other proponents of the synturf recommending these fields be blocked off from access by unsupervised children in August or other sufficiently hot days?
Are these fields being installed mainly for use by school teams?
|
kws
Citizen
Username: Kws
Post Number: 132
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Kathleen,
You have done a fair amount of research on the subject so I ask you...
any reports of children being cooked alive on turf fields in the summer?
Not to be silly but that seems to be your issue at this point.
So have you found anything?
|
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5512
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 11:07 am: |
|
I attended a meeting at Town Hall yesterday, representing the Rec Advisory Committee, regarding the recommendation of studies to be done for the artificial turf project. The meeting was run by the Township Engineer, based on the resolution passed by the TC, and also in attendance were the Directors of Recreation, DPW, Health and the Township Administrator as well as the person who has been writing the grants. Although noone from the Environmental Advisory Committee could attend, their report was read and their recommendations and questions were integrated into the list drawn up.
Interestingly, many of the questions and suggestions for studies that were listed yesterday were also presented in writing to the members of the TC in a report from the Rec Advisory Committee on August 2, 2005, and reports answering those questions "in-house" were sent back to the TC by the heads of Engineering, Recreation and DPW by early September. So noone I know is against a thorough study of all the issues or thinks due diligence is not necessary. I, and many others, just had, and continue to have an issue with the curious timing and perceived political nature of the call for it at that last TC meeting when the project was discussed, when there had been opportunities at various times in the past couple of years for it to be initiated.
I believe after a formal list of studies is derived with a determination of what can be conducted in-house and what needs to be contracted out, and the reports are completed, a public meeting, appropriately well publicized, will be announced. It is very fair to say that all potential issues were listed as requiring appropriate attention and responses. A request was made that a proper survey of the neighbors be conducted along with the neighborhood impact study. Design, health and safety, engineering, financial, usage and environmental issues were all covered. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 493
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hank,
I've never seen an issue in Maplewood involving property use that didn't have the exact same trajectory: Lots of sparsely attended meetings, several steps taken in some fixed direction, and then a lot of people taking interest as they begin to realize all the ramifications and word spreads, provoking additional questions that require answers, politicians responding to opposition and concerns they hadn't previously known existed, and then some people lamenting the process. A friend of mine once said "government sucks," and I can't improve on the description, and I can't improve on the process either. And I don't lament it. In government, it finally doesn't matter when citizens step into the process and express their concerns when they are valid concerns. Glad to hear no one on any side of the turf issue minds the due diligence.
In the meantime, can you report whether the proponents of the artificial turf are recommending it not be used during the summer by unsupervised children? And will the artificial turf mostly be used by school teams?
kws,
What happened to the "kws" who posted previously: "Let us look at this from all angles before making a decision." Did he start running into questions he couldn't answer? As I previously posted from a study done at the University of Missouri:
"Fresenburg said there's a national trend toward high schools and municipal recreation departments replacing grass with artificial turf -- once the almost exclusive purview of college and professional sports teams -- and he wants coaches and parents to know how to keep players safe.
"If they are going to have artificial fields, we need coaches, parents and players to know that temperatures on these fields are going to be anywhere from 150 to 170 degrees on some days," Fresenburg said. "You might as well be sitting in an oven somewhere."
If you're still willing to look at this from all the angles, including the angle of protecting unsupervised children from a well-established heat risk, you can learn more with google searchs using terms like "heat stroke" "children" and "artificial turf."
|
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5515
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Kathleen,
First, the process, not the due diligence itself, ought to be lamented because the TC was presented with a list of questions that the Rec Advisory Department thought should be addressed or might be raised as valid concerns. I dont think any, or many, of the new questions are all that new. If the responses to the questions were not thorough enough, they had the opportunity at least at that time to call for more thorough studies. An advisory committee with no authority and no budget cant be conducting those studies. And, a member of the neighborhood association was approached a number of times, in person and in writing, but said they would take a wait and see attitude rather than voice their questions or concerns, also at the same time the questions were submitted. So this isnt a case of trying to sneak something through or not address issues. Like I said, the timing of the call for due diligence, not the due diligence itself, was curious and had the feel of political gamesmanship.
You yourself said let's wait for the study. Many questions have been appropriately answered, but some folks wish to discount that. Other questions do need to be more thoroughly explored. The Health Director called for a variety of "health-related" reporting. The field is not being used now primarily for the schools...it will continue to be used by a variety of groups, youth and adult (recreation is largely for kids, but not solely). A number of people are working on ideas regarding the sorrowful state of the school's fields too, knowing full well that the district cannot pay for it. Nothing has reached an "official" stage as far as I know but the same concerns exist regarding quality and safety and availability.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 494
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Thanks for those answers, Hank. As I've often posted previously, I have a great deal of admiration for the professionalism of Robert Roe, the town's public health director. My questions about the school teams were motivated by wondering whether state budgetary "caps" made it impossible to privately raise money to improve the fields at the schools. I would have less of a problem (I think) with artificial turf on school property, which can easily be kept off limits to unsupervised children.
Just to be clear, I in no way think anybody has been trying to sneak anything through. I was pointing out that I have never known stable community decisions to be reached by any other process than the one you've now described twice, human frailties and all. We can all imagine a neater, more efficient, less politicized process. Somehow, it unfailingly stays in the realm of imagination and I think there is actually a good reason for that.
My only lingering question about the politics, given some of the timeline you've posted, is whether it was known last year, when people were given the chance to vote on the ballot referendum to tax themselves additionally for parks maintenance that a large amount could be earmarked for an artificial turf project. If those putting forward the measure for a vote had artificial turf in mind, I don't think the voters were made aware of that -- and should have been. But perhaps the ideas about using that tax money for artificial grass only came later? |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7078
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 5:05 pm: |
|
"My only lingering question about the politics, given some of the timeline you've posted, is whether it was known last year, when people were given the chance to vote on the ballot referendum to tax themselves additionally for parks maintenance that a large amount could be earmarked for an artificial turf project. If those putting forward the measure for a vote had artificial turf in mind, I don't think the voters were made aware of that -- and should have been. But perhaps the ideas about using that tax money for artificial grass only came later?"
Excellent point Kathleen. I did not vote for that tax because frankly I did not trust that the money would be used correctly. Artificial turf proves I was correct.
Anyway, keep up the fight, Kathleen. Maybe someone can finally drill some common sense into Hank. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5517
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 5:59 pm: |
|
never thought Id see the day when I preferred to respond to Kathleen rather than another poster, but I tend to ignore the little ones who post on MOL...
Kathleen,
The Open Space Trust Account is something a number of towns, including South Orange, has voted for. It allows for major capital expenditures related to recreational programming and facilities. It also shows that the community is doing their part in making a commitment to recreation, something that groups like Green Acres look for during the grant application review process (you may see the point of all this, whereas other posters in this thread may not because their view is generally simple, I mean, simplistic). Before the TC voted to put the Open Space Trust Account Referendum on the ballot, it passed at least three resolutions in support of early grant applications for this project, at least two of them unanimous. I believe the vote to place the Trust Account vote on the ballot was 5-0, and most of the TC distanced themselves from it before Election Day. I may be wrong about the first part (the vote being unanimous), but not about the second. The trust account funds can be used for various recreation major projects, like for a youth center for example (not something that is in the works, but an example of something that is also much needed in my opinion), not just artificial turf.
Oh, and an advisory committee is being formed or has been formed comprised of representatives from a number of advisory committees, at-large citizens who have filled out a form and left it at Town Hall saying they were interested in sitting on a committee and various ex-officio members as well, to oversee and determine how the fund will be spent. Of course, despite that, some folks just will still not trust how the money will be spent...maybe they should get involved instead of just bitching. |
Aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 870
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 8:56 pm: |
|
Hank Zona,
I voted for the Open Space Trust Account Referendum with the assumption (assumption! Silly Moi!) that the money would be wisely invested to improve and maintain open spaces that serve the majority of the citizens of Maplewood.
Maplecrest Park, the faded jewel in Maplewood's crown would be an excellent place to start.
Artificial turf?
Smells like pork to me.
|
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7079
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Pork is Hank's middle name. |
kws
Citizen
Username: Kws
Post Number: 133
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Kathleen,
If your concern is ambient surface temperature on a warm Summer day then we should look at our basketball and tennis courts which can get ungodly hot for anyone foolish enough to play a sport during the heat of the day.
I spent many a Summer playing unsupervised pick-up sports with my friends. We did it in the morning and then in the late afternoon/early evening. Mid-day was for laying low and chilling. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5520
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
ah yes..no need to raise the bar with someone as small as you commenting, Diminuitive One. Hey, by the way, how much can you benchpress? Come on..tell us again. Try to impress the good readers of MOL.
now back to responding to adults...
AMan,
the Open Spaces Trust Account can go towards a lot (I spelled it correctly just for you) of different projects...including the one you mention. The advisory committee I believe not only includes one representative from the Rec Advisory Committee, but from the Historic Preservation Committee, the Environmental Advisory Committee, a rep from the school district, four residents with an interest in recreation and/or parks, the Directors of Rec and Public Works (ex officio) and a member of the TC (also ex-officio). Seems pretty spread out to me.
The role will be to recommend to the TC the prioritized use of the funds for acquistion of lands for rec and conservation purposes; development of lands already utilzied or acquired for rec and conservation purposes; maintenance of lands already utilized or acquired for rec and conservation purposes; historic preservation of historic properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects and the acquisition of such properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas, or objects for historic preservation; or payment of debt service or indebtedness issued by or incurred by the Township for any of the above purposes.
The committee will write an annual report for recommendations; solicit input from residents including open public hearings; fulfill study requests by the TC.
Call Town Hall Monday...toss your hat in the ring. Help to make sure the money is well spent.
|
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7080
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 8:23 am: |
|
Can someone other than Hank explain what bench pressing has to do with the fact that taxpayers are once again being cheated by a lack of fiscial restraint here in Maplewood?
Bottom line: Anyone who agrees with the Hank Zona's of the world on this issue is either a complete moron or to a lesser degree, misguided.
Hank, my concern here is you've taken the lead on this issue and I'm not so sure this is something they taught you at bartending school. Maybe, you should listen to those such as Kathleen who have successfully completed at least one college course. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1032
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 8:23 am: |
|
As a point of information:
I believe that our "Open Space Trust Account" is not being looked at to pay for any portion of the turf project outright but only as a possible means to pay the interest on the presumed $600K, (20 year?) loan that we may be getting from state Greeeeen Acres, (is the place to be) money at 2%. -In other words not "a lot" annually, (relatively speaking).
Play ball. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5522
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 8:42 am: |
|
Straw,
We all know you once before had to brag about your alleged benchpressing acumen when you felt you were being demeaned for your physical stature..and I pointed out then as I will now...if I were to make fun of your physical stature, Id be no better than you, and that is pretty darn low..but no, you continue to show yourself to be incredibly short in the area of personal character, an area that we all suspect you'll never grow in. Im sure someone can dig up the thread, but I cant be bothered..you once again have come up way short in the area of class.
By the way, for any of the decent folks reading this board, which means most of you..I am not taking lead on this but am on the Rec Advisory Committee and passing along information that I think is important for people to know regarding the project. The people responsible for taking lead on this really are the town employees and elected officials. Like many of you good folks, I try to be involved in the community. I appreciate that even if someone like Kathleen disagrees with the project, she has at least shown civility and I hope, appreciation that I responded to her. (I also hope she is cringing that Straw seems to be agreeing with her.) Now that theres an outline of what has to be studied for the project, Im waiting for the results of the studies. |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7081
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 9:24 am: |
|
Kathleen will be happy when this turf issue goes away. So will the the rest of the responsible tax payers in town WHO VALUE THE HEALTH AND WELL BEING OF OUR CHILDREN.
|
mickey
Citizen
Username: Mickey
Post Number: 433
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
Straw,
You are saying that proponents of the turf field, the great majority of whom are parents, do not value the health and well being of our children.
You have finally figured us out! You are a genius. After having these little buggers for 10-15 years, we were looking for an out. Enough of this loving concern for their health and safety. Who cares about their happiness??! Or their physical well-being??
We were secretly planning their spontaneous combustion on our new turf fields. It was an expensive plan, but no one would have been the wiser. But our ingenious plot has been foiled!
All that work..... |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7083
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:37 am: |
|
"You have finally figured us out! You are a genius."
I agree.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 495
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Hank,
I appreciate information but no thanks for adding your loud voice to the self-appointed "good and decent people of Maplewood," who never fail to appall me with their bottomless capacity for thinking themselves so much better than other residents for all the time they spend non-judgementally volunteering for community projects irrespective of content or merit. It seems to be a self-feeding-self machine. Will you next be giving up time to sell tickets to the animal act circus too? Next time you find yourself befuddled to be answering "somebody like Kathleen" -- I'd like to meet the others, actually -- do me and yourself a favor and go answer somebody else, please. That way, you can cling to your self-image for being faultlessly civil and decent and I won't be insulted gratuitously.
I never read Straw's posts. Why do you bother?
Steel,
Money is money, green stuff is green stuff. Voters deserved to know whether they were voting to tax themselves extra to pay for artificial turf. No doubt many thought they were making the extra sacrifice of the green stuff for more authentic green stuff.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1980
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 1:21 pm: |
|
kathleen is a voice of reason in a sea self righteous insanity |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5525
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Kathleen,
Ive no need to sell tickets to the circus as long as you continue to post on this free forum. And frankly, I wasnt just responding to you specifically but putting out information that anyone interested in this topic and reading this board, regardless of their stance on it, ought to know. As far as people who volunteer thinking they are better, I suspect that is true for some of them...and the same may be said for some people who never get involved at all. Keep posting on the topic though...your style is certain to sway some folks who are on the fence on this one...it certainly has worked that way in the past, much to the chagrine of some you have supported, no doubt. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1034
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 4:08 pm: |
|
It is certainly possible that many folks presumed that "Open Space" money would be used only for "real" green things but I think that it would have been just that, -a presumption and to my knowledge there was no thought to "keep it from the voters" since I don't believe that at that time it had been considered.
Also, the use of a bit of it to pay the loan interest for the turf is not really that "far-a-field". I mean it IS for "open space".
I would perhaps feel differently if a HUGE chunk of such a fund where to be used "flat-out" to such a purpose as frankly I still find the whole idea oddly ridiculous for the money but it seems possible that it could be a good thing in it's use, sort-of, maybe, considering all the little feet that trample those fields into dust.
I truly hope that proponents of the turf are correct about the heat issues not being "too bad", (or whatever) and not glossing over it even in their own minds in their rush to have shiny green fields. (I remember when "Lawn Darts" seemed like a good idea too. Wheeeee, such fun! Whoops).
Been there as the coach on hot days and the munchkins already get near-fainting hot during a non-stop soccer game. I think that if the field temp were even hotter on such a day that I could not even allow a game to go on for safety reasons and then what good is a "nice field"? Apparently we shall see.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page