Dehart Athletic Field
It's bad because voters rejected a referendum to install artificial turf. A handful of people were able to convince voters that there was a "green" alternative that could stand up to the extensive use the field gets. Nature had the last word of course. Real grass can't stand up to that level of use (or abuse, if you prefer)
notupset said:
I recall reading a puff piece about our outgoing Rec director in Maplewood and someone being happy about the workout equipment at Dehart. It is a shame that he and everyone else in local government and the rec and public works department have allowed our primary township athletic fields at Dehart to remain in horrible shape, often unusable to the folks who like to play sports and usually dangerous since I have been in town for 20 plus years. I am not really surprised by this anymore, as sports has never been a priority in town and isn't apt to be anytime soon. But damn, that field is terrible still after all these years.
The new grass field was never properly installed. It doesn't drain correctly and it was closed for several months at one point to "fix" the problem but it wasn't fixed. I don't recall the contractor that installed the original field ever being held accountable for the mess.
alias said:
OhNoTurf?
Interesting that you mention that. There is one person in particular in common with both projects.
Such a shame. All you have to do is drive a half mile down the road to see the brightly lit, constantly used field in Union.
ml1 said:
It's bad because voters rejected a referendum to install artificial turf. A handful of people were able to convince voters that there was a "green" alternative that could stand up to the extensive use the field gets. Nature had the last word of course. Real grass can't stand up to that level of use (or abuse, if you prefer)
There are thousands of these fields across the country and dozens in our area. Whether you were for it or not, I love the idea that it failed because many people believed that we had some special green alternative which would solve everything. All those other towns were suckers or just not enlightened enough to find that alternative.
alias said:
OhNoTurf?
There were commonalities in the opposition to both the DeHart artificial turf and the post office development. Both relied on the dissemination of questionable information, and both sets of opponents were adamant that Maplewood is somehow special and "deserves better." They both also pushed the narrative that our town is too green and progressive to allow such projects to move forward.
It turns out no one in town had a green alternative to the turf athletic field that actually works. It was all b.s. And no one has been held accountable in town for being sucked into whatever sales pitch they bought into.
Anthem said:
It turns out no one in town had a green alternative to the turf athletic field that actually works. It was all b.s. And no one has been held accountable in town for being sucked into whatever sales pitch they bought into.
It was a good illustration of the problem with some of the more vocal people in town. They can't integrate their concerns with reality. The reality is that everybody prefers a nice grass field to turf but the demand for playing fields is such that grass fields can't sustain the use.
tjohn said:
Anthem said:
It turns out no one in town had a green alternative to the turf athletic field that actually works. It was all b.s. And no one has been held accountable in town for being sucked into whatever sales pitch they bought into.
It was a good illustration of the problem with some of the more vocal people in town. They can't integrate their concerns with reality. The reality is that everybody prefers a nice grass field to turf but the demand for playing fields is such that grass fields can't sustain the use.
It's very easy to shout "No!"
It's very difficult to actually come up with ideas and plans that are workable and deliver a positive outcome.
Unfortunately, in my experience the "no" message is usually much more powerful than any positive constructive message.
ml1 said:
It's very easy to shout "No!"
It's very difficult to actually come up with ideas and plans that are workable and deliver a positive outcome.
Unfortunately, in my experience the "no" message is usually much more powerful than any positive constructive message.
See all of the political attack threads.
When this got put on the ballot, all we were given was a choice between some sort of "organic" turf field and an "artificial turf" one. The sports whackdoodles and the green whackdoodles dominated the debate, got their ways, and there was virtually no discussion whether (a less expensive ?) a plain old fashioned grass field would have the durability to meet the demands.
Slight thread drift, but now it seems that the green whackdoodles are at it again and attempting to get the township to pass an ordinance requiring the use of 'organic' fertilizers, etc. It it didn't work in an expensive redo of the sports fields, why should we anticipate that this will better for our taxpayers?
tjohn said:
Anthem said:
It turns out no one in town had a green alternative to the turf athletic field that actually works. It was all b.s. And no one has been held accountable in town for being sucked into whatever sales pitch they bought into.
It was a good illustration of the problem with some of the more vocal people in town. They can't integrate their concerns with reality. The reality is that everybody prefers a nice grass field to turf but the demand for playing fields is such that grass fields can't sustain the use.
krnl said:
When this got put on the ballot, all we were given was a choice between some sort of "organic" turf field and an "artificial turf" one. The sports whackdoodles and the green whackdoodles dominated the debate, got their ways, and there was virtually no discussion whether (a less expensive ?) a plain old fashioned grass field would have the durability to meet the demands.
Slight thread drift, but now it seems that the green whackdoodles are at it again and attempting to get the township to pass an ordinance requiring the use of 'organic' fertilizers, etc. It it didn't work in an expensive redo of the sports fields, why should we anticipate that this will better for our taxpayers?
tjohn said:
Anthem said:
It turns out no one in town had a green alternative to the turf athletic field that actually works. It was all b.s. And no one has been held accountable in town for being sucked into whatever sales pitch they bought into.
It was a good illustration of the problem with some of the more vocal people in town. They can't integrate their concerns with reality. The reality is that everybody prefers a nice grass field to turf but the demand for playing fields is such that grass fields can't sustain the use.
technically, the "green" option was not on the ballot. the question was yes or no to the artificial turf field project. the sports "wackadoodles" as you call them (others might call them the unselfish volunteers who give their time to our youth programs), didn't get their way at all. They had spent a great deal of time on proposals and trying to get funding, and in the end, the "nos" had their way.
and the reason that there wasn't a discussion of natural field options is that there really aren't any. at least none that could stand up to the amount of anticipated use.
and with regard to expense, virtually all of the expense was to be paid out of state, county and local open space trust funds. the taxpayers of Maplewood would have paid only a relatively small amount of interest on bonds that would be paid back by the state trust fund over time. That was another bit of misinformation that was tossed out at the time -- that the township would be on the hook for the full cost if the state backed out of the commitment, which is something that the state has NEVER done, before or since.
I'll be forever pi**ed off about DeHart. What a shame that was voted down. It was a civil war in my neighborhood. My team lost.
jeffl said:
I'll be forever pi**ed off about DeHart. What a shame that was voted down. It was a civil war in my neighborhood. My team lost.
as I've said about the Post Office development, and I said about DeHart -- if the side I prefer goes down in a vote, or if a protest stops it, I don't mind as long as the debate was conducted honestly, with good information, presented in logical, fact-based arguments. But I can't stand when misleading arguments, misinformation, disinformation and junk science win the day. That's what happened with DeHart.
I think there was an argument that our kids would get cancer if they played on that field.
ml1 said:
jeffl said:
I'll be forever pi**ed off about DeHart. What a shame that was voted down. It was a civil war in my neighborhood. My team lost.
as I've said about the Post Office development, and I said about DeHart -- if the side I prefer goes down in a vote, or if a protest stops it, I don't mind as long as the debate was conducted honestly, with good information, presented in logical, fact-based arguments. But I can't stand when misleading arguments, misinformation, disinformation and junk science win the day. That's what happened with DeHart.
yup. people were crazed that the kids would be exposed to crumb rubber. They seemed to forget where the tons and tons of rubber that wears off car tires goes. it's everywhere. it's in the soil in our yards, it's in the air. the extra exposure from playing on it a few hours a week would be minimal. But we were told if we had artificial turf, our kids would get cancer. And MRSA too.
jeffl said:
I think there was an argument that our kids would get cancer if they played on that field.
ml1 said:
jeffl said:
I'll be forever pi**ed off about DeHart. What a shame that was voted down. It was a civil war in my neighborhood. My team lost.
as I've said about the Post Office development, and I said about DeHart -- if the side I prefer goes down in a vote, or if a protest stops it, I don't mind as long as the debate was conducted honestly, with good information, presented in logical, fact-based arguments. But I can't stand when misleading arguments, misinformation, disinformation and junk science win the day. That's what happened with DeHart.
There is some question as to how well the artificial turf fields have held up. According to a news article today, artificial turf fields in NYC are falling apart, even when they are still under warranty. The only workable solution to having playable sports fields may be eliminate the over use these fields, artificial or "natural" turf, receive.
ml1 said:
yup. people were crazed that the kids would be exposed to crumb rubber. They seemed to forget where the tons and tons of rubber that wears off car tires goes. it's everywhere. it's in the soil in our yards, it's in the air. the extra exposure from playing on it a few hours a week would be minimal. But we were told if we had artificial turf, our kids would get cancer. And MRSA too.
jeffl said:
I think there was an argument that our kids would get cancer if they played on that field.
ml1 said:
jeffl said:
I'll be forever pi**ed off about DeHart. What a shame that was voted down. It was a civil war in my neighborhood. My team lost.
as I've said about the Post Office development, and I said about DeHart -- if the side I prefer goes down in a vote, or if a protest stops it, I don't mind as long as the debate was conducted honestly, with good information, presented in logical, fact-based arguments. But I can't stand when misleading arguments, misinformation, disinformation and junk science win the day. That's what happened with DeHart.
No, no, no. They'd be burned to death by the searing heat of a thousand suns emanating from the surface first.
krnl said:
When this got put on the ballot, all we were given was a choice between some sort of "organic" turf field and an "artificial turf" one. The sports whackdoodles and the green whackdoodles dominated the debate, got their ways, and there was virtually no discussion whether (a less expensive ?) a plain old fashioned grass field would have the durability to meet the demands.
Slight thread drift, but now it seems that the green whackdoodles are at it again and attempting to get the township to pass an ordinance requiring the use of 'organic' fertilizers, etc. It it didn't work in an expensive redo of the sports fields, why should we anticipate that this will better for our taxpayers?
I can't tell you how offensive this post is.
I am far from a "sports wackadoodle," yet I supported the artificial turf field because it was what was right for our town.
If you are going to insult people, try to get your facts right first. Or go work for Trump.
IMHO, the main financial problem was that 20 year bonds were going to be issued for Maplewood's portion of the cost for a field with a 10 year life span. Maplewood would have been on the hook for the replacement field and still paying interest on the previous field (unless bonds were retired early).
ml1 said:
krnl said:
When this got put on the ballot, all we were given was a choice between some sort of "organic" turf field and an "artificial turf" one. The sports whackdoodles and the green whackdoodles dominated the debate, got their ways, and there was virtually no discussion whether (a less expensive ?) a plain old fashioned grass field would have the durability to meet the demands.
Slight thread drift, but now it seems that the green whackdoodles are at it again and attempting to get the township to pass an ordinance requiring the use of 'organic' fertilizers, etc. It it didn't work in an expensive redo of the sports fields, why should we anticipate that this will better for our taxpayers?
tjohn said:
Anthem said:
It turns out no one in town had a green alternative to the turf athletic field that actually works. It was all b.s. And no one has been held accountable in town for being sucked into whatever sales pitch they bought into.
It was a good illustration of the problem with some of the more vocal people in town. They can't integrate their concerns with reality. The reality is that everybody prefers a nice grass field to turf but the demand for playing fields is such that grass fields can't sustain the use.
technically, the "green" option was not on the ballot. the question was yes or no to the artificial turf field project. the sports "wackadoodles" as you call them (others might call them the unselfish volunteers who give their time to our youth programs), didn't get their way at all. They had spent a great deal of time on proposals and trying to get funding, and in the end, the "nos" had their way.
and the reason that there wasn't a discussion of natural field options is that there really aren't any. at least none that could stand up to the amount of anticipated use.
and with regard to expense, virtually all of the expense was to be paid out of state, county and local open space trust funds. the taxpayers of Maplewood would have paid only a relatively small amount of interest on bonds that would be paid back by the state trust fund over time. That was another bit of misinformation that was tossed out at the time -- that the township would be on the hook for the full cost if the state backed out of the commitment, which is something that the state has NEVER done, before or since.
This is true. But given how low interest rates were and continue to be, those interest payments would have been quite small. I don't recall too many people raising that as an objection. I recall people trying to scare voters by claiming the state and county would cut off the funding, which wasn't going to happen
yahooyahoo said:
IMHO, the main financial problem was that 20 year bonds were going to be issued for Maplewood's portion of the cost for a field with a 10 year life span. Maplewood would have been on the hook for the replacement field and still paying interest on the previous field (unless bonds were retired early).
ml1 said:
krnl said:
When this got put on the ballot, all we were given was a choice between some sort of "organic" turf field and an "artificial turf" one. The sports whackdoodles and the green whackdoodles dominated the debate, got their ways, and there was virtually no discussion whether (a less expensive ?) a plain old fashioned grass field would have the durability to meet the demands.
Slight thread drift, but now it seems that the green whackdoodles are at it again and attempting to get the township to pass an ordinance requiring the use of 'organic' fertilizers, etc. It it didn't work in an expensive redo of the sports fields, why should we anticipate that this will better for our taxpayers?
tjohn said:
Anthem said:
It turns out no one in town had a green alternative to the turf athletic field that actually works. It was all b.s. And no one has been held accountable in town for being sucked into whatever sales pitch they bought into.
It was a good illustration of the problem with some of the more vocal people in town. They can't integrate their concerns with reality. The reality is that everybody prefers a nice grass field to turf but the demand for playing fields is such that grass fields can't sustain the use.
technically, the "green" option was not on the ballot. the question was yes or no to the artificial turf field project. the sports "wackadoodles" as you call them (others might call them the unselfish volunteers who give their time to our youth programs), didn't get their way at all. They had spent a great deal of time on proposals and trying to get funding, and in the end, the "nos" had their way.
and the reason that there wasn't a discussion of natural field options is that there really aren't any. at least none that could stand up to the amount of anticipated use.
and with regard to expense, virtually all of the expense was to be paid out of state, county and local open space trust funds. the taxpayers of Maplewood would have paid only a relatively small amount of interest on bonds that would be paid back by the state trust fund over time. That was another bit of misinformation that was tossed out at the time -- that the township would be on the hook for the full cost if the state backed out of the commitment, which is something that the state has NEVER done, before or since.
Curious - given that the base preparation is a major portion of any turf project, does anyone know how much re-skinning such a field costs, as a percentage of the first-cost of the project?
It looks like Glen Rock went through the same process as Maplewood (see links).
I think the takeaway from this Forbes column is that the cost will depend on how one decides to approach the analysis (e.g. total cost versus cost/event or cost/hour) and over what timeline.
So many of these turf fields are relatively new. It will be interesting to see how they hold out over time and what the real costs are.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2014/09/28/how-taxpayers-get-fooled-on-the-cost-of-an-artificial-turf-field/#46c3df231bca
http://www.northjersey.com/news/nj-state-news/elections-in-nj/glen-rock-voters-reject-turf-field-referendum-1.1126423
krnl said:
When this got put on the ballot, all we were given was a choice between some sort of "organic" turf field and an "artificial turf" one. The sports whackdoodles and the green whackdoodles dominated the debate, got their ways, and there was virtually no discussion whether (a less expensive ?) a plain old fashioned grass field would have the durability to meet the demands.
Slight thread drift, but now it seems that the green whackdoodles are at it again and attempting to get the township to pass an ordinance requiring the use of 'organic' fertilizers, etc. It it didn't work in an expensive redo of the sports fields, why should we anticipate that this will better for our taxpayers?
tjohn said:
Anthem said:
It turns out no one in town had a green alternative to the turf athletic field that actually works. It was all b.s. And no one has been held accountable in town for being sucked into whatever sales pitch they bought into.
It was a good illustration of the problem with some of the more vocal people in town. They can't integrate their concerns with reality. The reality is that everybody prefers a nice grass field to turf but the demand for playing fields is such that grass fields can't sustain the use.
An ordinance to limit the use of toxic pesticides on lawns for purely cosmetic purposes will not limit your use of fertilizer. There are already regulations limiting the kinds of fertilizer sold to the public and used by landscapers in NJ. Personally, this green whack doodle may prefer an artificial turf sports field to one laden with toxic chemicals designed to kill living things. Probably better for the kids when they are not getting brain injuries from concussions and ruining their joints at the age of ten for the sake of their parents lost dreams of being a sports star. 
I recall reading a puff piece about our outgoing Rec director in Maplewood and someone being happy about the workout equipment at Dehart. It is a shame that he and everyone else in local government and the rec and public works department have allowed our primary township athletic fields at Dehart to remain in horrible shape, often unusable to the folks who like to play sports and usually dangerous since I have been in town for 20 plus years. I am not really surprised by this anymore, as sports has never been a priority in town and isn't apt to be anytime soon. But damn, that field is terrible still after all these years.