| Author | Message | ||
     mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 926 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: We already voted last fall to accept the gift. As pointed out last night, we would have to rescind the acceptance of the gift first before voting on "finalizing" the gift. Four residents (at least one is an architect) are going to review the designs and try and come up with one that is less "ugly". They will have to also meet with SHU and their architect and contractor. The only issue right now before the BOT is the design, not if we are going to go ahead with the dugouts. Due to ADA requirements it is not practical to put dugouts below ground. | ||
| jmfromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 26 Registered: 7-2003 |
what do you mean there aren't homes by the field? sure there are! who's doing the complaining about the dugouts at the waterlands? the people in the condos / apartments? maybe they should build them at farrell field and put the animal shelter at the waterlands! Citizen Username: Bobk Post Number: 4284 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 12:33 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. | ||
| jmfromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 27 Registered: 7-2003 |
why is this? >>>> Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 926 Registered: 4-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:30 am: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MHD: We already voted last fall to accept the gift. As pointed out last night, we would have to rescind the acceptance of the gift first before voting on "finalizing" the gift. Four residents (at least one is an architect) are going to review the designs and try and come up with one that is less "ugly". They will have to also meet with SHU and their architect and contractor. The only issue right now before the BOT is the design, not if we are going to go ahead with the dugouts. Due to ADA requirements it is not practical to put dugouts below ground. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 933 Registered: 4-2002 |
JMfromsouthorange: The N-R reported that the dugouts are going in Waterlands which is incorrect. They are to be at Field M-3 near the baird center. Check previous posts in other threads or send me an email if you want the whole history. Farrell Field is not big enough to support little league baseball or women's softball. | ||
| jmfromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 41 Registered: 7-2003 |
mrosner- which thread has the story about the dugouts? i can't seem to find it. is m-3 the field near the paddle tennis courts? do the people who live on meadowbrook know about the dugouts? how is this any diffent then them being built at the waterlands? both are about the same distance from the houses in the area. what these baseball fields really need are bathrooms (portapotties)! especially farrell field. i don't understand the big deal about the dugouts, how are they much different then the bleechers at some of the fields? the farrell field suggestion about the dug outs was more injest. i figured with all the complaining by a few of the neighbors concerning the animal shelter taking away 'park', they'd be unable to complain about the dugouts because they'd be part of the 'park.' if the town | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 934 Registered: 4-2002 |
jmfrom SO: The field is near the paddle courts and the baird center. There are bathrooms in the baird center. The argument is that there is the dugouts would be permanent whereas the bleachers are not. Of course the bleachers have been on the fields as long as I have lived in S. Orange, so they might as well as be permanent. | ||
| jmfromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 55 Registered: 7-2003 |
hi mrosner- i understand the baird center has bathrooms, it's some of the other fields (ie farrell) that don't. it's tuff for the little kids playing baseball when they have to go... | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 937 Registered: 4-2002 |
I am sure you realize that it is not practical to build restrooms in every park. Somehow we all grew up and played in parks without bathrooms. Most kids won't even use the bathrooms at school let alone a public restroom. | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 88 Registered: 6-2001 |
Somehow we all grew up and played in parks without dugouts too. I think the Big East is going to make restrooms a requirement soon anyway. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 938 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dan: I played on a field with dugouts as a kid (and they were used by the soccer players too). Also, the dugouts will be used far more by our kids than by SHU. | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 89 Registered: 6-2001 |
Mark: I played on a field with restrooms as a kid (and they were used by the soccer players too). I have no doubt that the dugouts will be used far more by kids than by SHU. The question is what will they be used for. | ||
| NCJanow(akaLibraryLady) Citizen Username: Librarylady Post Number: 1195 Registered: 5-2001 |
I played stick ball in the street with no restrooms and no dugouts (and lots of cars). But I would have like to have it better for my own kids when they played here. Maybe my grandkids will benefit, once all this haggling is done. NCJ aka LibraryLady On a coffee break..or something like it. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 940 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dan: I sent you the name (privateline email) of one of the volunteers who has been very active with the little league program. I think after speaking with him you will find that there is a lot of support for dugouts from S. Orange residents. Just because a few people misues something does not mean we should not have it. For instance, the quarry was a favorite hangout of high school students (who were using it for what you think the dugouts will be used for )yet you felt it should remain as "open space" (technically it was private property). I would also guess from you comments that you still have not seen the designs of the dugouts. | ||
| arizona Citizen Username: Arizona Post Number: 2 Registered: 2-2004 |
Last fall SHU girls tennis was very reluctant to share the SO tennis courts with the CHS girls team. Several parents apparently spoke up and eventually the situation was resolved. The SHU team sometimes made the CHS girls wait for up to 1 hour before they turned over the courts. What makes us think that SHU will be more willing to share the ball field after having paid for the dugouts? Why aren't they building a field (and tennis courts, for that matter) on their tax free property? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 947 Registered: 4-2002 |
The village controls the field. Their paying for the dugouts does not change that. We are under no obligation for accepting this gift. The baseball coaches (S. Orange volunteers that is) stated at a meeting in public that they have not had any problems with SHU (players or coaches) and in fact that SHU has been very helpful with maintaining the fields. Furthermore, it was the coaches from our baseball program that were most in favor of the dugouts. This was a way for our kids to get dugouts without the village having to pay for them. | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6320 Registered: 4-1998  |
Will these dugouts be branded with SHU logo? | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 352 Registered: 9-2003 |
I don't get it. I read here that the little league coaches are happy to have dugouts - they will get the benefit far more than the few home games SHU softball will play there. I see on the TV while watching the Trustees meeting that SHU has tried to satisfy the Village as far as astethics of the building. I read in the News Record that SHU is now meeting with a Village task force for design. Why are you so negative? Is this a NIMBY thing? | ||
| guessagain Citizen Username: Guessagain Post Number: 15 Registered: 12-2003 |
SoOrLady, Yup! NIMBY all the way! | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6328 Registered: 4-1998 |
How is asking if they'd be branded being NIMBY? My guess is that SHU would be more pro-acitve in keeping them clean and grafitti-free if they had their name visibly tied to them. Simple question, really, but I can see why people who don't live in the neighborhood wouldn't care. I'd like to think I'd stick up for you if there were changes in your neighborhood, too. | ||
| SoOrLady Citizen Username: Soorlady Post Number: 353 Registered: 9-2003 |
Because branding is a negative image and denotes "ownership". As I understand it the dugouts are basically a gift. If I heard correctly at one of the town meetings, SHU contributes manpower to the upkeep of the field, but the maintenance of the dugouts would be the town's responsibility. So Dave - are you on this task force or do you just not want the dugouts period? |
