| Author | Message | ||
     SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 273 Registered: 9-2003 |
BobK - do I understand that if the dugouts were designed to be closed and locked unless they were in use they would be acceptable to you and the other residents who cited safety issues as their concern? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 890 Registered: 4-2002 |
Wash: I have already responded to every one of your questions (many of them online). The maintenance of the field is paid by the village (taxpayers ) and will continue to do so. The dugouts will not result in a manpower increase for the maintenance. SHU does clean up the field before and after games and they do help with the maintenance of the fields with volunteers. Safety: The police already patrol the parks and will continue to do so. There will not be a change in the budget or the manpower because of the dugouts. There are often some people who loiter in the park and there will always be some who do. I doubt the number of people will change, just the location. The field is used as a baseball field and will continue to be used exactly the same. For those who saw the plans last night, I think most will say while not beautiful they are certainly not the ugly "bunkers" that some described them as. There will be trees and bushes planted behind the dugouts. Several years ago some little league coaches asked about dugouts. We told them we did not have the money in the budget. A lot of other towns have dugouts and some of the coaches and players wanted them also. SHU came along because they wanted dugouts too and offered to pay for them. They are reccomended as part of the big east program. The recreation committee met, discussed and reviewed the options. They then reccomended that the village go ahead. It was first discussed at a BOT meeting this past September. The first vote was going to be in October was postponed because Trustee Rosen made a public announcement that he felt we could hold off for ONE month and see if we could use this to force their hand to contribute more money to the village. After two months, it was clear that was not going to make a difference in the amount of money we were going to get from SHU. SHU never made any conditional statement about the dugouts in regards to SOPAC or any other payments they make to the village. As much as I agree that SHU should contribute more to the village financially, this was not a factor and they did not try to strongarm the village. Since this is coming out of the SHU athletic department budget, it really has no connection to the rest of the school's budget and I doubt the athletic director has had any input into the SOPAC negotiations and I am sure does not want to interfere with those negotiations. The dugouts will have to be maintained as do the fields. They can be hosed down if (when) needed. The dugouts will be owned by the village. It does not oblgate the village to continue to let SHU use the field. If we decide next year (or at any time) that we no longer want to let SHU use the field, then we can tell them to get lost. So far, both Andy Brady and the little league coaches have stated that the relationship has been good. They stated SHU has done everything that has been asked in regards to helping clean and maintain the fields and working with the recreation department to make sure they don't interfere with the children when they are using the field. In fact, SHU has helped coach and train some of the little league players. I think we should continue to negotiate with SHU but in the long run if we really want more money from them, we need legislative change. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4280 Registered: 5-2001 |
SoOrLady, I don't live near Meadowlands. The only reason I posted here is that the field has changed so much in a couple of years and I sympthise with the neighbors. I am usually very anti-Nimby as MHD and Duncan will attest since I have enraged them both on Nimby issues. However, I feel that this is a different situation, because a reasonable person would not expect that a youth baseball field to become a Division 1 standard mini-stadium when they bought in the area. Locked dugouts might keep the neckin' and drinkin' down.  | ||
| Waldo Citizen Username: Discowaldo Post Number: 14 Registered: 12-2003 |
The only thing I can really contribute to this post is my prior little league experiences. When I played I looked foward to the games on the fields with dugouts and was disappointed when I went to a field without them. I think everyone is missing the main point here, the kids are going to love these dugouts. Sitting inside during an inning and goofing off with friends are some of my best childhood memories. Sitting in a dugout with my friends during a rain delay, be it only 5 minutes, was still enough to leave an impression on me after all these years. Lets not forget who is really benefitting the most from these dugouts, the children. If people are worried about safety, then that should be an issue brought up with the police department. It is their job to patrol the town, and they should check in and around the dugouts, and I have faith that they will. If they dont patrol them it isn't the dugouts fault it is the SOPD's fault. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 891 Registered: 4-2002 |
gozerbrown: The coaches from the little league teams certainly had input in the dugout conversations. There were residents who also had input at recreation committee meetings. If I based the decsision on what the majority have indicated to me, it would be a slam dunk to build the dugouts. If I based the decision from people who lived near the ball field then the dugouts would not be built. | ||
| NCJanow(akaLibraryLady) Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 1143 Registered: 5-2001 |
I have to agree with Waldo. My son is 21 now, but was a super baseball addict when he was younger. We went to all the neighboring towns, and were so disappointed to return home to no dugouts. The kids really loved having them, felt that they were "real ballfields" as opposed to our thrown together ones. The Rec Dept and Andy Brady has done a terrific job upgrading the field since then, lights, fences, scoreboard. We no longer have to be ashamed when visiting teams come to South Orange. Only wish it was this way 10 years ago! Seton Hall has really tried to accomodate our needs in the design of the dugouts. True, it benefits them as well, but in the long run it is our future Hall of Famers who come out ahead. NCJ aka LibraryLady On a coffee break..or something like it. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 274 Registered: 9-2003 |
I agree with NCJanow - the kids will love it, and it will give them a great sense of pride when they host a game. What does SHU benefit for footing the bill for upgrades? No more than a dozen home softball games in the spring. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4284 Registered: 5-2001 |
Why wasn't the stadium built at Cammeron Field in the first place where it would be isolated from nearby homes? This location would make a lot more sense. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 694 Registered: 5-2001  |
What I don't understand is why isn't this done on Seton Hall property? Are there no baseball fields THERE? | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 276 Registered: 9-2003 |
They don't have much open space left - they have a baseball field and a soccer field. Since baseball and softball play at the same time of year, I'll assume that they can't share a field - or maybe there's different parameters/regulations for the individual sports. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4287 Registered: 5-2001 |
Youth baseball and softball use the same field dimensions and I believe the new stadium is shared by Seton Hall and the youth baseball program. I don't know who has priority. | ||
| Marc Citizen Username: Bautisma Post Number: 65 Registered: 9-2003 |
I have to agree with everyone who says that the kids will love the new dugouts. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 895 Registered: 4-2002 |
bobK: Whomever has a permit has priority for that time period. If we are talking long-term, the children are going to come first as far as I am concerned. You are right about the field dimensions being the same for the youth baseball and college women's softball. This field was the only one that would not have an impact on other athletic events with a fence in the outfield. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 737 Registered: 5-2001 |
I am hearing talk around town that a decision on the "Dugouts" will be addressed at the Trustee Meeting tonight. However, I do not see it currently on the agenda. Will this be discussed & what is the current status of the project? | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 56 Registered: 4-2003 |
mhd: As the dissident on this issue, my understanding is that the "decision" will be taken at the Feb 9 Special mtg. Actually the majority view is that the decision was already taken and that the dugouts will go ahead unless Village Counsel rules that putting the dugouts int the ground will not violate the ADA law. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 741 Registered: 5-2001 |
thank you, Allan | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 923 Registered: 4-2002 |
Allan: You stated that you were in favor of the dugouts, but preferred to delay them as a negotiating tool. The vote is to confirm that the board voted to accept the donation from SHU. We are also considering a proposal from two residents who will work with SHU on improving the design of the dugouts. | ||
| Allan J Rosen Citizen Username: Allanrosen Post Number: 59 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mark I must apparently correct myself as I now learn that we do indeed have a resolution on tonight's agenda confirming resolution 279-03 accepting the donation for the constructionof dugouts for Diamond M3 form Seton Hall U. Without having heard anything further on the ADA situation, as it now stands I will vote against the resolution. While it is true that my original position for postponing a vote on the dugouts was for the purpose of encouraging negotiations with Seton Hall on a number of issues, including SOPAC, when it became obvious that the dugouts were above-ground standing structures, I then opposed those structures. What I said last week was that I was willing to support the compromise proposed by Bill C that the dugouts should be below ground. That I am still willing to do. The dugouts would not be a problem in Waterlands Park. Like others I will keep an open mind on modifications to the currently proposed structures. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 743 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thank you, Allan. I see that the agenda posted online has now been updated, as well. I am glad I raised the question, so people who are interested in this subject can decide whether to make their presence known at the meeting tonight. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 746 Registered: 5-2001 |
I saw the public remonstrances & the BOT discussion last night regarding the dugouts, but did not see what happened when it came time to decide whether or not to vote on the issue last night. I think Patrick & Allan made good arguments for waiting until a more palatable design was agreed upon before finalizing the "gift". What ultimately happened? |
