| Author | Message | ||
     kathleen Citizen Username: Symbolic Post Number: 469 Registered: 3-2005 |
Yes, Hank, I actually have. If you can find a link to odes in praise of artificial turf that isn't written by the artificial turf industry, I'd be glad to read it. What I posted about injuries and problems for kids is serious stuff,. So are the costs, and the idea of committing what little grant money we can get to this. I want the TC to look at this information and ask whether given the expense and the unanswered questions, we should be committing the taxpayers to this at this point in time. | ||
| toad Citizen Username: Toad Post Number: 135 Registered: 6-2001 |
According to Dr. Norman Hummel of Hummel and Co., synthetic turf field expert, G-max testing should be performed at the time of installation to establish a baseline. Thereafter, fields should be tested annually conforming to ASTM F355. G-max testing assesses the risk of life threatening injuries. It does not assess the risk of bone and joint injuries. The $900 figure I previously stated is at the low end. Testing can be as high as $2000. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7188 Registered: 5-2001 |
I just spoke with a friend who coached kids' soccer in the Maplewood/South Orange Recreation League for several years. Turns out he is very opposed to the idea of putting artificial turf down on fields the kids will be using. He gave the following reasons: 1. Kids don't have their muscles and ligaments fully developed and are therefore much more prone to muscle and ligament injuries than adults. Such injuries are far more likely to occur on artificial turf than on a natural surface. 2. Kids falling, sliding, etc. will suffer a high incidence of burns from sliding/rubbing against the artificial surface. 3. To significantly reduce the incidence of artificial turf induced injuries, kids will have to be taught how to play on artificial turf. According to him, some of the techniques used by athletes on artificial turf are significantly different from those used on natural surfaces. Coaches may be able to provide this instruction but what about untrained kids using the artificial turf fields for pick-up games? 4. A high incidence of turf toe which I gather is some form of injury to the toe which results from playing on artificial surfaces. It would appear that the safety and well being of our kids, should they be required to play on artificial turf, is even greater than short and long term costs, maintenance, drainage and other site-specific considerations mentioned above. Does anyone have any solid information as to accident statistics for kids playing on artificial as opposed to natural turf surfaces? | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 375 Registered: 5-2001 |
Joan, Please visit the following fields: Chyzowych, New Waterlands, DeHart Park, Memorial, and Maplecrest. Take a hard look at the conditions. One visitng soccer coach whose team was playing at Chyzowych recently asked if "we were playing on the moon". The injuries that our kids could suffer as a result of playing on highly compacted uneven dirt fields are what concerens me. Hard dirt and rocks can cause nasty "burns" as well. Our kids are far more at risk for muscle and ligament injuries from uneven playing surfaces than from the consistant surface that artificial turf provides. With all due respect to your friend, I too, have coached soccer, and would have to stongly disagree with him. In fact, so would the vast majority of soccer/lacrosse coaches, and professional trainers who work with our kids. The nature of the games do not change and I am not aware of different training techniques for artificial turf vs natural turf. Most concerns with artificial turf still lie with the misconception that AstroTurf is artificial turf. AstroTurf is bankrupt and, I must say , good riddance. That is where the term turf toe originated. The new artificial turf fields are far superior. If these surfaces are so dangerous why are rec departments and schools around the state and nation installing them? There are at least 25 facilities within a 10-15 mile radius of Maplewood, including Livingston, Montclair, West Orange, Summit, Newark, Oradell, Teaneck, Hoboken and Westfield to name a few. Westfield's rec director can't speak highly enough of his fields. It is impossible for Maplewood and South Orange to provide properly maintained natural turf fields without severely curtailing the use of those facilities by the recreational community. I, for one, want to expand opportunities for recreation not restrict them and IMHO this represents the best way to solve some of the problems the rec community faces. Others may disagree, but I have been involved with the scheduling nightmares for field time for five years and I can tell you it isn't getting any easier. I will try and dig up some statistics from my files and post them later. | ||
| The BARD Citizen Username: The_bard Post Number: 35 Registered: 5-2004  |
Under the cool shade of a sycamore I thought to close mine eyes some half an hour. How lush and lusty the grass looks! how green! Speed open your purse, that the money and the matter may be both at once delivered. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4860066.stm | ||
| indi13 Citizen Username: Notupset Post Number: 14 Registered: N/A |
We currently don't really have playing fields. We have dirt and rocks and mud and bumps. The fields are dangerous and are likely to be closed down with just a little bit of rain. My son and daughter and I have all played lots of soccer on artificial turf and it is far and away superior to any of the fields we have to play on in Maplewood. I am sure that lacrosse and field hockey players would tell you the same. You can't compare maintenence costs between the 2 types of fields, because we can't maintain the natural fields we have because of the amount of use they get. | ||
| mickey Citizen Username: Mickey Post Number: 420 Registered: 10-2001 |
I have kids who play soocer, softball and baseball. My kids are both on traveling soccer teams and my elder has played on numerous (at least 6) outdoor turf fields throughout the state. They have also played (as recently as today!) on Dehart, Chyzowich, Cameron, Waterlands, and Borden fields in Mpwd/So. Orange. Last weekend my son played at Morris Catholic HS and last fall, both kids played at WO High School on Pleasant Valley Way. (Both artifical turf fields). As soon as I walked onto them and felt the cushiony give to them, I knew my kids were much LESS likely to be injured on these fields. If you compare the grass at let's say, Shea stadium, and a turf field, I'd vote for grass in a heartbeat. But we will never ever have beautiful grass fields. I have to say the "natural" fields in our two towns are downright DANGEROUS. True story: Last year, my daughter was playing a regularly scheduled home soccer game. The ref arrived, walked the field, and recruited the home team and their parents to pick up all the rocks on the field, citing potential danger of falling on sometimes jagged rocks. Know what was left? Dirt. Someone mentioned the learning curve necessary to play on a different field surface. Joan, I think it was you. And I know you really care about the kids in town so let me address that because I have witnessed it. It's a piece of cake. If you want to talk about a learning curve, watch soccer players alter their strategies second by second because the soccer ball has moved from a grassy patch to a baseball infield to a rock/dirt patch all in one pass. I certainly can understand why Maplewoodians (myself included) would do due diligence regarding tax dollars going to the fields if it's not your high priority. But to apply for a GRANT? It's a no brainer. Turf fields will be much more common as the years go by. Right now, Summit, West Orange, Montclair, Newark, and many more NJ towns have seen the light. It's our turn now, for the sake of our kids and their sports programs. Oh, by the way (and I know this post is way too long): I have seen firsthand the tension between soccer and baseball coaches when playing soccer on a wet or damaged field may render it unplayable for baseball. Sometimes the coaches are neighbors, even spouses (no kidding!) Artificial fields are always ready and waiting for all sports....with a LOWER incidence of injury to the players. Please support the artificial turf fields and come on out to cheer on Maplewood's baseball, soccer and lacrosse players. | ||
| toad Citizen Username: Toad Post Number: 136 Registered: 6-2001 |
Google up a satellite photo of Dehart Park. The only "green" area amongst the rooftops and asphalt on south side of Maplewood is Dehart Park. The proposal is to make this field plastic and crushed rubber? Does this make any sense at all? I'm all for having decent playing fields for our young athletes but synthetic turf at Dehart Park is not the answer. Synthetic turf will benefit some people but natural conditions will benefit more. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4931 Registered: 9-2001  |
Dear Toad, the truth is the synthetic turf does make sense and will benefit more people more often, and for less cost over time. And, from Google, the rest of the world will still see green and never know the difference. | ||
| rssounds Citizen Username: Rssounds Post Number: 376 Registered: 5-2001 |
DeHart Park, Game Day 4/2/06  | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4939 Registered: 9-2001 |
...those kids should be wearing face masks to protect their lungs. It help make the point though. | ||
| John Citizen Username: Jdm Post Number: 30 Registered: 3-2006 |
ajc, Right, because the air in NJ is otherwise so clean.  A more serious question: do we currently spend on DeHart the amount per year the turf will cost us? | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4941 Registered: 9-2001 |
John, that's a good question that I don't have the answer for... I believe the plan is to have fund raising and grants make up the difference between what the town would have had to pay out anyway over the life of the new synthetic turf. In the meantime, if the town agrees to go forward with this plan, it will pay big dividends to thousands of children and families who will benefit from it in years to come. | ||
| indi13 Citizen Username: Notupset Post Number: 15 Registered: N/A |
It is somewhat irrelevant what we currently pay to "maintain" Dehart Field. We don't maintain it adequately and we cannot without perhaps re-sodding the field every year. I didn't realize until yesterday that Dehart was originally set up by a Green Acres grant as a recreation facility. Clearly this project is merely trying to improve the current facilitiy, not change its purpose. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4943 Registered: 9-2001 |
In all fairness, we need to listen carefully to "all" sides of this issue... Be there tonight at the Township Committee or be square! | ||
| indi13 Citizen Username: Notupset Post Number: 16 Registered: N/A |
Has anyone who is opposed to this project come up with a better idea to solve our playing field problems? How about anyone on the Township Committee, past or present, who is not currently on board. I would have loved to listen to their good ideas about this problem at any point in this process. Anything that could actually get acccomplished in the next 5 years? | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 834 Registered: 8-2001  |
Yeah, I got one. Crop rotation. Field rotation. Close one field every 11 years. Re-seed, regrow, install drainage to 1 field per year for the next decade. In time, we'll have an inventory of greenery that will be the envy of soccer moms and lacrosse dads everywhere. At the cost of 1 field per year. After 11 years, all the fields will be done, then the closing and re-seeding is all that'll have to be done one field at a time. | ||
| max weisenfeld Citizen Username: Max_weisenfeld Post Number: 31 Registered: 9-2001  |
Fields don't last 11 years. Maplecrest is closed now for the second time in eight years. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4944 Registered: 9-2001 |
Gentlemen, come to the meeting tonight and we'll see what we see... | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4945 Registered: 9-2001 |
I have never been more impressed by the ability of our Township Committee to work together, and to find a way to work through the very difficult process of passing RESOLUTION 77-06 GREEN ACRES ENABLING RESOLUTION. Congratulations to the entire Township Committee and to all the many volunteers who have worked so hard over the past two years to bring this project to this point. This was truly a joint Township/Community project to be proud of...  The result is Maplewood will receive wide-ranging dividends in many different areas of daily community life, as will thousands of children and families who will also benefit greatly for many years to come. | ||
| John Citizen Username: Jdm Post Number: 31 Registered: 3-2006 |
Indi, Of course it's relevant what we pay now and what we will pay for turf. If the turf costs more, what would happen if we spent that money on the grass instead? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1883 Registered: 3-2004  |
in regards to last nights meeting, in my opinion Huemer and DeLuca were voices of executive restraint and reason and Profeta spent 2 hours pandering to his base. I would also like to know why, as a hilton area resident, why I and ALL of my neighbors have never heard a word about this plan? I only found out about the day before the meeting. I asked 10 of my neighbors and they had never heard a word about it. Seems like nother example of those on one side of Springfield ave trying to tell the those of us on the Hilton side how to run our community. The Hilton community group was against this plan and was completely ignored. It was easy for all of those people to support the plan since ithey will not have a huge mass of astro turf in their back yards. I hope and pray that the feasibilty studies smartly demanded by Huemer and DeLuca find a problem and torpedo this particular episode. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4946 Registered: 9-2001 |
“I would also like to know why, as a Hilton area resident, why I and ALL of my neighbors have never heard a word about this plan?” Well, as long as you’re asking, I’ll tell you... Actually, it’s elementary; you and ALL your neighbors are not involved in the Hilton community or the town you ALL live in. You also are not in touch with the Township Committee’s thinking on the matter. All five members were and are in favor of the turf project, and all five played an important role in seeing it move forward. This was a great team effort, and was a win win for the Township Committee and for Maplewood. The Hilton Neighborhood Association has never been ignored! It is the most active and effective association of its kind in our town. FWIW, they never said they were all against the plan, only that they were interested in getting more answers to their concerns. I believe last night it was made clear that those concerns would all be addressed. Your comments are clearly politically motivated and are totally uninformed. If it’s more information you’re looking for, I suggest you get more involved in the town, the whole town, and stop trying to stir the pot…. BTW, the feasibility study recommendations were the result of previously requested instructions to the town engineering department from the committee. IMHO, it was no coincident that the recommendations from our town engineer were identical to those given by members of the Township Committee last night... | ||
| pmart Citizen Username: Pmart Post Number: 161 Registered: 7-2001 |
I think it's a little unfair to imply that these discussions have been a big secret. I am a Hilton resident and, while not having a really strong opinion one way or the other on this topic, have been aware of this proposal for quite some time now. There have been ongoing articles (some front page) and editorials (including one from the HNA within the last two weeks), in the News Record since the turf was first recognized as a possibility. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1886 Registered: 3-2004 |
All five members were and are in favor of the turf project, and all five played an important role in seeing it move forward. while they voted yes, it was obvious that three members did so reluctantly and with stated reservations. The Hilton Neighborhood Association has never been ignored! It is the most active and effective association of its kind in our town. FWIW, they never said they were all against the plan, only that they were interested in getting more answers to their concerns. I believe last night it was made clear that those concerns would all be addressed. the fact that these concerns exist shows a lack of due diligence on the matter in terms of keeping the affected community informed. it also shows a lack of true information about the plan itself. If it’s more information you’re looking for, I suggest you get more involved in the town, the whole town, and stop trying to stir the pot…. i am involved, i was at the meeting last night, i spoke to council members about my objections and was gratified to see that 3 of the council memebers agreed with my concerns and demanded that the appropriate studies be done as opposed to the rubber stamp acceptance that the mayor requested. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1887 Registered: 3-2004 |
I think it's a little unfair to imply that these discussions have been a big secret. I am a Hilton resident and, while not having a really strong opinion one way or the other on this topic, have been aware of this proposal for quite some time now i never said that they were a secret. your awareness of the proposal is great. you shoul be aware of it. i did an informal poll of the 5 houses on either side of mine and not one of the 10 homes had heard anything about this proposal. | ||
| Hank Zona Supporter Username: Hankzona Post Number: 5417 Registered: 3-2002 |
As a member of the Recreation Advisory Committee, I did reach out to an HNA member last year during the summer through personal conversation and email to inform them that this was on the table for discussion with the Advisory Committee and asked for input or questions...I was told that they were going to take a "wait and see" attitude. While it may not have been a "formal" invitation, it was direct and clear enough and the offer was extended a few times. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1889 Registered: 3-2004 |
i agree that the HNA should have taken a more active role and your attempt to draw them into the discussion was commendable. however, they did "wait and see", and the end result was a raft loa of concerns that, in my opinion, should have been addressed long before this issue came up for town vote. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4948 Registered: 9-2001 |
...so who are you blaming? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1891 Registered: 3-2004 |
i dont feel the need to play the blame game. i have never liked the idea of dropping a big plastic carpet onto an area that could be made to grow grass and be natural. in terms of the proposal, i have a problem with the town going ahead with a plan that seems to be very incomplete in terms of information at this point. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13421 Registered: 1-2003  |
How would you like the township or the HNA to contact everyone? | ||
| pmart Citizen Username: Pmart Post Number: 162 Registered: 7-2001 |
Unfortunately, IMO, most people really don’t become involved in the goings-on in their neighborhood and local government until something directly affects them. By then, of course, it’s too late to have any real impact. I bet if you polled the other 10 or so houses on my street, maybe 2 others would be aware of the turf issue or, for that matter, anything else that’s being proposed for the Hilton area. If you or your neighbors want to hear the buzz or be heard, the HNA usually meets on the third Thursday evening of every month (see calendar on MOL). If you join for a small fee, they will send you a monthly newsletter. Just recently, they started some type of listserv/discussion group on-line. Perhaps someone from the group can post that information -- I received the invite to join but couldn’t because of firewall issues at work. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 1011 Registered: 2-2002 |
STEEL's TAKE on TIMELY TOUGH TC TURF-TALK TUESDAY: (I was once-upon-a-time a Maplewood soccer coach and today I'm waiting for someone to email me files so it's a long one). I believe, (ok I'm certain) that it was actually Mr Pettis who first brought up the fact that greater "due diligence" should by applied by the TC before thoroughly committing to this project. David followed Ken's concerns by listing what studies he thought should be done including parking and such, (there are only 60 spots at DeHart). Fred thought that if Ken's concerns were expressed within the town application for state money that we would never get the money in the first place. Ken was happy to withdraw his amendment to the application in that regard if an additional resolution of "due diligence" could be made. -And so the TC basically voted to keep the application "pure" of such concerns and keep our concerns to ourselves and deal with them in time. Kathy also pointed out that the relatively small annual interest payments that would result from the low-interest state "Green Acres" loan, (2% interest) portion of this project could easily be payed out of our locally raised Green Acres monies, (that Maplewoodians ballot-voted to tax themselves), (that was her initiative) which is precisely the sort of use that the initiative was devised for. Meanwhile, Vic for all his prudence on this matter seems to my impression to have the gift of simultaneously speaking words of conciliatory compromise while ringing an odd tone of accusation. I can't explain it exactly but it's kind-of magical really. -Also, not-fer-nuthin' but Vic lives in the Hilton section. I would think that he, better than most, would know what the opinions presently where on the matter in that neighborhood although Kathy seems to have done the most door-to-door opinion taking in that area. But fear not Hilton, David has rightly voiced his strong conviction that a neighborhood meeting should take place, (and probably the sooner the better). At the end of last nights meeting, after a maximum display of support for the fields from the audience speakers, (and after a minimum of animus displayed between the TC members which seemed unnecessary but I'm sure is fueled in part by some frustration and posturing related to the upcoming primary), the TC managed to come to wise agreement as to how to go forward. _________________________________________ Personally I confess that when I first heard about this project I found it preposterous, ridiculous and amazing that so many persons could find so much time to raise or ask to have raised so MUCH money, -$1.6 million dollars! (holy crap!) for, ya know, -fake grass. -Grass which is made of, (as our town health official described), -"basically the same stuff as the bags that you bring your groceries home in". Since the abiding concern seems to be "help our children" I found it ironic that with so many problems at the schools such as decrepit text books, (I've had to use duct tape on my daughter's books) and freezing or sweltering classrooms at Columbia etc, that people managed to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for what I, (last night) heard mostly described as an "embarrassment", (of field conditions). Yes, the subject of "dangerous" hard-packed and dusty fields was also mentioned but the word that I heard most often, (including several times from the Mayor) was "embarrassment". -It sort-of struck me as a "Oh dear, what will the neighbors, (towns) say?" I suppose I could tell stories of how Dominican kids play on crappy dirt lots and then come up here and make millions playing for the Yankees but nobody around here wants their kids playing on dirt when Livingston has shiny green fields, (of course the Livingston parents don't SEE our textbooks whilst we stand there "embarrassed"). BUT, The fields DO suck, and speaking as a former soccer dad/coach I would like to see the kids have a great place to safely have games. It is a quite valuable experience and most often a great deal of fun. As the finances seem to (presently) place little or no additional tax burdens on our burdened citizens I say go for it. ___________________________________ Often when proposals such as this are put forth in the light of seeming limited resources people speak in terms of priorities. -what to do first? This year it is fake grass. The overall lesson here seems to be that if enough people put in enough effort for a cause that they collectively deem worthy then they will most often get-out ahead of a governing body and successfully press the project home in a wave. In a sense much of the work on this issue has been done. With a bit more "due diligence", (albeit such things are also often, "dull diligence"), many of the towns children will no doubt, one day, gleefully be playing on a giant green glued-down shredded polyethylene grocery bag. Ain't nature grand? -Play ball. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1894 Registered: 3-2004 |
well said | ||
| mplwdian Citizen Username: Mplwdian Post Number: 127 Registered: 3-2003 |
The opposition of the Hilton area residents to this project is a fiction manufactured by Vic DeLuca for political purposes. Divide and conquer. That's his MO. If Hilton residents were opposed to the project they sure didn't voice that last night. The HNA and their chief supporter on the TC, Mr. DeLuca, as well as the Environmental Advisory Committee which is full of Huemer appointees, fancy themselves as the spokespeople for people who cannot speak for themselves and I find that to be very patronzing. Yes, Libertarian, I fear that the "feasiblity study" concocted by DeLuca, Huemer and Pettis for political cover will be used to try to defeat the project down the road. So supporters of this project should not assume it's a done deal after last night's resolutions. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1896 Registered: 3-2004 |
Yes, Libertarian, I fear that the "feasiblity study" concocted by DeLuca, Huemer and Pettis for political cover will be used to try to defeat the project down the road. So supporters of this project should not assume it's a done deal after last night's resolutions. we can only hope. VIVA DELUCA!! VIVA PETTIS!! VIVA HUEMER!! The opposition of the Hilton area residents to this project is a fiction i am a hilton area resident and i am opposed to this project. so much for your "fiction" idea. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 4949 Registered: 9-2001 |
...very well said Steel. It's nice to see such a well thought out response, especially around a topic that on the surface would appear to many to be a useless waste of time and money. The truth is this project is the glue that binds our community. And, as was so eloquently pointed out by both Fred and Kathy, this is the time to deal with not only the issues of the safety and the welfare of our children, but with the embarrassment and past neglect of our Green Acres recreational spaces. I might add that Ken was also impressive as he stood firmly behind his convictions of the need for more due diligence. He was clearly focused on the importance of having this done right and deserves credit for the positive end result. This initiative will clearly enable our town the opportunity to repair and bring our other fields up to acceptable standards. We just can't discount the importance of having good recreational fields, equipment, and coaches and the part this all plays in that process. All in all, it was their collective efforts that produced the desired results... Yes, lets play ball. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1899 Registered: 3-2004 |
Since the abiding concern seems to be "help our children" I found it ironic that with so many problems at the schools such as decrepit text books, (I've had to use duct tape on my daughter's books) and freezing or sweltering classrooms at Columbia etc, that people managed to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for what I, (last night) heard mostly described as an "embarrassment", (of field conditions). Yes, the subject of "dangerous" hard-packed and dusty fields was also mentioned but the word that I heard most often, (including several times from the Mayor) was "embarrassment". -It sort-of struck me as a "Oh dear, what will the neighbors, (towns) say?" I suppose I could tell stories of how Dominican kids play on crappy dirt lots and then come up here and make millions playing for the Yankees but nobody around here wants their kids playing on dirt when Livingston has shiny green fields, (of course the Livingston parents don't SEE our textbooks whilst we stand there "embarrassed"). | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14882 Registered: 10-2001  |
David Huemer gave a speech last night thanking the many volunteers for their hard work on the project, yet when it came time to bless this thing, all of a sudden there were claims that not enough people knew about it. Huh? If anything, Mr. Huemer and Mr. Pettis deserve a big boo for not opening their mouths until they ran out of options to delay the project - using self-blame as the last resort. Where were these guys when the Rec Advisory Comm gave the project a 6-0 yay vote months ago? Where were they with these issues (parking/drainage) when the project was first brought up or at any time in the last year? Parking is an issue if we use the field? The only reason it's not a problem now is because the field is in such sh**ty shape that it's underutilized. To raise parking as an issue is reminiscent of Yogi Berra's quote "No one goes to that place anymore-it's always too crowded.". It's high time that these guys - all of them - stop outsourcing decisions to community volunteers when tough choices have to be made. And they've also got to stop stringing things along endlessly because they don't want to take action. We elected these guys to lead, instead, they're playing political nonsense games. And it is hurting the community. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1920 Registered: 3-2004 |
i agree! they should have the courage to say that this plan has not been properly researched and put an end to it. this stalling rather than doing the expedient thing and putting the kibosh on it is unfair to those who are working on this project. |
