| Author | Message | ||
     scollins Citizen Username: Scollins Post Number: 42 Registered: 8-2001 |
There is an RFP being prepared by the Village to put a bubble over some of the tennis courts to facilitate year round play. From talking to some people, who may or may not have all the facts, I gather that it will be built and operated by a contractor on a for profit basis. The contractor with the current inside track to get the job is a local tennis coach with connections to the BOT. Some folks in the neighborhood are concerned about the noise that will be generated by the compressors required to keep the bubble inflated. Other people expressed concern that recent governmental attempts at deals that couldn't go wrong, did (The Shop-Rite with the contamination and the Midas property flip were mentioned). Still other folks expressed dismay at the way the lights on the little league field are left all night on occasion and use of the platform tennis courts sometimes goes on until 1:00 AM. One guy in the know even mentioned that the tennis courts were built with Green Acres monies which might preclude a for profit operation. Another SHU old-timer mentioned the trouble they had with vandalism on their bubble. On the plus side, I guess it would allow for more tennis in bad weather and it might actually make money to fund our recreation department which needs more money. It is also interesting to note that Orange Lawn, just up the hill, recently met resistance from their neighbors when they proposed a similar plan. That plan is currently on hold. Does anyone have any opinions on this plan? I hope that the BOT is not just going to do this without public input. Allan, Mark, Patrick: When will this be discussed? When will agendas be posted on line? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 572 Registered: 4-2002 |
Scollins: It is on the agenda for Monday night (9/8)and as always, there will be a chance for public input about this or any item. Orange Lawn withdrew the application because many of their own members were not in favor of the bubble and it was going to be much closer to homes on the two streets that surround the tennis club. From what I was told, the light/glow was as much of a concern as was any possible noise. As for the baseball lights, I was told there was only one time when they were left on too late. First of all, I do not know the contractor nor as far as I know have "connections to the BOT". He had met one BOT member at some event and that was mentioned at the meeting. If you have some other info, I would like to know about it. The agenda will be posted later this week. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 24 Registered: 5-2003 |
I object to spending even one cent of my outrageously high tax money on a bubble for the tennis courts. I object even more strenuously to allowing private commercial interests to run a profit-making enterprise at the tennis courts. I do not live near the courts, but I can see how the added noise and light would annoy those who do live there. South Orange has needs that are much more pressing than a bubble for the tennis courts, for example, repairs to the pool. The courts are free for the use of residents, and should remain so. Private entrepreneurs should not be allowed to establish themselves at the on public courts. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 573 Registered: 4-2002 |
lizziecat: I hope that you will be at the meeting on monday night to express your thoughts after hearing and getting all the facts about the proposed bubble. Scheduled starting time is 7:30p.m. next Monday (Sept. 8th). If you can't make it, maybe you can send an email to John Gross or myself with your concerns. I can make it part of the public record if you give your name and address. I can't really give you definitive answers to any of your comments because nothing has been presented to the board yet and no facts have been given. We had one short discussion in July. From what I have been told, the noise is minimal and the lights should not bother any of the residents, but they would not be on all night anyway. If it turns out that the village could "profit" from this venture the money could be earmarked for the recreation department including improvements to the pool. The courts are currently not available during the winter and this would not interfere with the free usage during the spring/summer/fall (assuming it stops raining long enough). | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5080 Registered: 5-2001  |
I think the effective privatization of public park space is a hugely bad idea and probably legally questionable. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 574 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: So far, there has only been speculation about the bubble. The details have not been presented yet and there has been no public discussion. The question is not about privitization (if legal), the questions should be whether a bubble will be a benefit to the residents of the village without causing an inconvenience to homeowners in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bubble. The village if it decides to go ahead would obviously have to consider all the options and make sure that it is all done correctly (legally). | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5081 Registered: 5-2001 |
It's a distraction for the BOT. They should focus on the SOPAC. The question of "benefit" seems inappropriate here if it's a question of legality. Why should large areas of the Village's open space be cordoned off for private interests if that means people less able to afford the prices can no longer play tennis? Government cannot only concern itself with perks or benefits for the wealthy and public land shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Call it what it is: a government-sponsored private club funded by tax dollars. Unlike many issues facing us, this one's a real no-brainer. | ||
| Eric DeVaris Citizen Username: Eric_devaris Post Number: 32 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mr. Rosner, Your post above of 11:20 am. leads me to assume that a contractor had a great money-making idea for himself, met one of the Village trustees at some event, presented him with his idea, and the next thing we know is that the Village trustees are seriously discussing the implementation of that idea. I would call this “acting re-actively” rather than "pro-actively". There is a Village Recreation Space Plan in the works; does that plan mention the need, and does it provide funds in its budget, for the installation of a bubble over the Baird tennis courts? There is a Village Open Space Plan in the works; does that plan address the environmental impact of a tennis bubble in that location? the impact of the inflating compressors' noise on the neighborhood? the visual impact of the bubble on the River Corridor Project? If these two plans, which have been drawn by interested citizens and professionals knowledgeable in the fields, do not address a tennis court bubble at Baird, I suggest that the Village trustees request from the same group of citizens and professionals, a study of the environmental impact of the bubble before any public discourse takes place. When the results of that study are made public, then the trustees can expect an intelligent public input on the issue. I would call this “acting pro-actively” rahter than "re-actively". Eric DeVaris | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5082 Registered: 5-2001 |
FIX THE TAX BUBBLE. BUILD SOPAC. SEE THE GOURMET MARKET THROUGH. GET SOMETHING ON THE BEIFUS TUNDRA. THEN we can talk about a tennis bubble. :-) | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 575 Registered: 4-2002 |
Eric: You can stop with your insinuations. The recreation advisory board discussed a bubble many times over the years. The bubble issue came up again last year and there appears to be a great interest in having one by many residents. As an elected official, we need to listen to ideas from others and I feel it is fair to have an open discussion of those ideas. A trustee heard the idea presented in a different way. He reacted and made a pro-active decision to present it to the full board. Your implication that acting re-actively is not always good is plain wrong anyway. It is fair that we as a BOT need to do both and certainly I try to listen to any resident who wants to discuss an idea. I have never heard that there could be an "environmental impact" but I will be sure to ask the envrionmental committee if they have a concern or if they want to look further into the matter. The bubble would not change the scope of the open space or the recreation plan. The tennis courts would remain as tennis courts only now residents would be able to play in the winter. As I understand the proposal, there would not be a cost to the village. There is going to be a public discussion of the bubble proposal on Monday night. If you come to voice your concerns and thoughts after hearing the proposal instead of guessing, you would be pro-active and be able to re-act with a better understanding of the situation. Dave: The board (at least I do) try to listen to any and every idea a resident or another trustee has. I try to learn about it. In the case of the bubble, I would think it would be fair to wait till a presentation is made before attacking it. A bubble would be put up only in the winter months and would NOT impact on the ability for anyone who plays tennis now in the spring/summer/fall. Many government programs are seen as perks. There has been many requests for the village to provide indoor tennis and this would fill a void in the recreation program. By the way, there are charges for many of the activities and this would be another one. Those who use the facility will pay for it. Maybe, you live too close to the proposed bubble to have an unbiased opinion on the subject. Since there seems to be a genuine interest by many residents in having a bubble, I would agree that is a no-brainer for us to try and accomodate those residents as long as it does not cost the village any money or cause any inconvenience for the homeowners that live near the proposed bubble. At the very least, I would think that you should have an open mind and at least see/hear the proposal before jumping to conclusions and making judgements. SOPAC has it's own board which has mostly non-elected officials and by the end of the year the village president will probably be the only elected official. At this time, they need to make their own decisions and proceed without interference from the BOT. It is better to let professionals and volunteers who have experience to get this much delayed project moving forward. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5083 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thanks for the info, Mark. I will wait and see the plan, but I do have to say that the trend of encroaching on open space is becoming more than a bit disturbing. My point is that the BOT seems to have a knack for losing focus on important things.
The SOPAC deal is government at its worst: giving away hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars to an organization that we have no political say in any more (what you call "interference" some call "oversight and accountability"). | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 576 Registered: 4-2002 |
Dave: We still have oversight with regards to the money which is why the SOPAC board is required to have more non-elected officials than elected officials. Otherwise there could be a conflict. I won't disagree that the SOPAC does not do much for showing how government should work. It was created when I came on the board and I am just trying to get it on track. I really don't think the bubble changes the open space. It just allows people to play tennis year round. I try never to lose focus of anything. | ||
| Dave Ross Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 5089 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well, not to make too fine a point, but it won't really be "open space" if it's not "open". Anyway, you'll probably find me playing on it in January, so I won't carp that much about it. My primary objections are aesthetics-based and after that a concern for privatizing public property for private gain. Having enormous balloon buildings next to the wonderful architecture of the Baird Center will really take something away from the area. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 268 Registered: 3-2003 |
I watched the original presentation of the bubble idea to the BOT several months ago on cable (the audio is now excellent; thank you very much Allan Rosen). As I recall, there were three reasons given for the bubble: (1)there is a lot of demand for indoor tennis, (2) a bubble would pro-long the life of the tennis courts since they would be protected in the winter, and (3)it would be a cash cow that would fund other recreation programs. The fact that there was such opposition to a bubble at OLTC was mentioned and the BOT said this would have to be considered. I'm posting this by way of information for those who may have missed that particular meeting. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 577 Registered: 4-2002 |
Doublea: The opposition at Orange Lawn came from neighbors who would have a bubble literally in their back yards. That probably would not have stopped them, but most of the residents in those same homes were also members of the club. This bubble would not be right in a person's backyard, but would be in the field of vision for several homeowners. All things being equal, I would prefer to see the bubble put on the courts next to the pool. There were several reason why that would not work but as Dave pointed out, it would not take away from the Baird center and there would be fewer homeowners who would have to see it. And if Mr. Beifus ever gets his building finished, the new apartment dwellers can have the glow of the bubble to act as their nightlight. | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 97 Registered: 7-2003 |
I notice in the South Orange pool thread that a few people felt that paying a little more to have improvements done on the pool was a good idea. Now when someone is suggesting paying for an improved tennis center some people are complaining that the town is selling out. Are there other courts to play on that will stay free? How much are they really talking about? The compressors are pretty quite though I’ve worked around them a lot and doubt that you would really hear them from more then 100 yards. I understand how the bubble could be an issue, I saw on in Maryland that had advertisements all over it, looked like hell. Notice I used the words “few people” and “some people” to avoid pointing fingers. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 269 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark: Just to let you know that you're appreciated, that "glow of the bubble to act as a nightlight" comment was good.  | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 579 Registered: 4-2002 |
Thanks... | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 1842 Registered: 9-2001 |
"As an elected official, we need to listen to ideas from others and I feel it is fair to have an open discussion of those ideas." Mrosner, This subject has sparked my interest, especially how it deals with privatization of town property. I’ll agree it’s important to listen, but how quick the Trustee’s can distinguish between a good idea and a bad one is what separates the men from the boys… IMHO, at this point anyway, I feel Dave has presented the better argument...  | ||
| Washashore Citizen Username: Washashore Post Number: 61 Registered: 4-2003 |
Mr. Rosner: Several of your comments suggest that no decision has been reached by the BOT as to whether or not to build the bubble, and that people are encouraged to attend Monday's (Sept 8) meeting to voice their opinion for BOT consideration. How then, could a Request for Proposal for construction of a bubble already have appeared in the paper, if the BOT is still fact-finding, hearing resident concerns, etc? Hey Dave Ross, I vote for you for BOT. |
