Just looked into this for how Hong Kong's civil service handles this. The metric regarding maintaining a grass pitch over an artificial one is whether or not two games per day are played on it seven days a week. So if it's fewer than 60 games, real grass is maintained and if it is more than 60 games, then artificial turf is installed.
To the classrooms and the buildings. That’s what, I gather, people are arguing for with comments like “My thing is why should we spend 5,000,000 for something that’s not as important as fixing up the school” and this one: “I think this amount of money could/should be put to better use.”
That is a reasonable position to hold. So please come out and say something along the lines of: “sorry kids, we can’t afford to provide space for all of you to play”. In fact, I wish everyone who opposes this expense would do that.
To the classrooms and the buildings. That’s what, I gather, people are arguing for with comments like “My thing is why should we spend 5,000,000 for something that’s not as important as fixing up the school” and this one: “I think this amount of money could/should be put to better use.”
That is a reasonable position to hold. So please come out and say something along the lines of: “sorry kids, we can’t afford to provide space for all of you to play”. In fact, I wish everyone who opposes this expense would do that.
If you think that $5M is better spent on other school facilities and not on playing fields, that is what you are saying. In fact, you might even have kids who plays sports. You aren't saying, "Sorry kids..."
The number of HS kids who play sports is a small % of the student body. Participation is youth sports in good through 8th grade and then it nosedives.
Another hidden benefit is the kids don’t run the risk of getting mud or dirt on them and their uniforms. There will be additional benefits to the environment when kids and their clothes don’t get stains and have to use harsher detergents, excess additives and more water to maintain them.
To the classrooms and the buildings. That’s what, I gather, people are arguing for with comments like “My thing is why should we spend 5,000,000 for something that’s not as important as fixing up the school” and this one: “I think this amount of money could/should be put to better use.”
That is a reasonable position to hold. So please come out and say something along the lines of: “sorry kids, we can’t afford to provide space for all of you to play”. In fact, I wish everyone who opposes this expense would do that.
If you think that $5M is better spent on other school facilities and not on playing fields, that is what you are saying. In fact, you might even have kids who plays sports. You aren't saying, "Sorry kids..."
The number of HS kids who play sports is a small % of the student body. Participation is youth sports in good through 8th grade and then it nosedives.
I don't know enough about the school budget; what items are prioritized, and have no kids in the schools so I have specifically not taken a position for or against this expense. That said, I've been here through 2 cycles of debate at DeHart, and am of the opinion that if we are going to do a field, it should be synthetic. We don't have enough parkland for our population, and it has been clearly demonstrated that our DPW does not have the resources (manpower, equipment, expertise - I don't know which) to sustain natural grass for the density of usage our population requires. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the school's grounds team is similarly under-resourced so the success of a natural turf installation at Ritzer will be similar to DeHart. My gripe is that too many hide behind the convenient environmental consequences argument instead of standing up like adult decision makers and telling the kids NO. That I could live with. I could also live with doing nothing and using the field as it is.
Another hidden benefit is the kids don’t run the risk of getting mud or dirt on them and their uniforms. There will be additional benefits to the environment when kids and their clothes don’t get stains and have to use harsher detergents, excess additives and more water to maintain them.
I can’t speak for June Cleaver or Donna Reed, but our son’s baseball uniform got the same treatment no matter how dirty it was. If the stains didn’t come out, we could handle the public shame.
My gripe is that too many hide behind the convenient environmental consequences argument instead of standing up like adult decision makers and telling the kids NO. That I could live with. I could also live with doing nothing and using the field as it is.
I do think it's interesting that there are all types of projects in the two towns that have the potential to cause some type of negative environmental impact, yet the only ones that seem to attract this type of vehement opposition are those involving youth team sports.
I don't know enough about the school budget; what items are prioritized, and have no kids in the schools so I have specifically not taken a position for or against this expense. That said, I've been here through 2 cycles of debate at DeHart, and am of the opinion that if we are going to do a field, it should be synthetic. We don't have enough parkland for our population, and it has been clearly demonstrated that our DPW does not have the resources (manpower, equipment, expertise - I don't know which) to sustain natural grass for the density of usage our population requires. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the school's grounds team is similarly under-resourced so the success of a natural turf installation at Ritzer will be similar to DeHart. My gripe is that too many hide behind the convenient environmental consequences argument instead of standing up like adult decision makers and telling the kids NO. That I could live with. I could also live with doing nothing and using the field as it is.
I happen to agree. However, our town has an above-average amount of virtue signaling when it comes to turf fields. So, we are stuck pretending that, with proper maintenance, grass fields are just as good.
I don't know enough about the school budget; what items are prioritized, and have no kids in the schools so I have specifically not taken a position for or against this expense. That said, I've been here through 2 cycles of debate at DeHart, and am of the opinion that if we are going to do a field, it should be synthetic. We don't have enough parkland for our population, and it has been clearly demonstrated that our DPW does not have the resources (manpower, equipment, expertise - I don't know which) to sustain natural grass for the density of usage our population requires. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the school's grounds team is similarly under-resourced so the success of a natural turf installation at Ritzer will be similar to DeHart. My gripe is that too many hide behind the convenient environmental consequences argument instead of standing up like adult decision makers and telling the kids NO. That I could live with. I could also live with doing nothing and using the field as it is.
The density of usage for a turf will be less than a grass field. That field will be fenced and padlocked, no community spirit there. The only time you will see activity there will be the school kids playing sports…. No dog walking … no parties… no tents and chairs…. It will be off limits to the community.
As for parkland spaces? I sometimes wonder if some people in this town actually gets around this town….
I don't know enough about the school budget; what items are prioritized, and have no kids in the schools so I have specifically not taken a position for or against this expense. That said, I've been here through 2 cycles of debate at DeHart, and am of the opinion that if we are going to do a field, it should be synthetic. We don't have enough parkland for our population, and it has been clearly demonstrated that our DPW does not have the resources (manpower, equipment, expertise - I don't know which) to sustain natural grass for the density of usage our population requires. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the school's grounds team is similarly under-resourced so the success of a natural turf installation at Ritzer will be similar to DeHart. My gripe is that too many hide behind the convenient environmental consequences argument instead of standing up like adult decision makers and telling the kids NO. That I could live with. I could also live with doing nothing and using the field as it is.
The density of usage for a turf will be less than a grass field. That field will be fenced and padlocked, no community spirit there. The only time you will see activity there will be the school kids playing sports…. No dog walking … no parties… no tents and chairs…. It will be off limits to the community.
As for parkland spaces? I sometimes wonder if some people in this town actually gets around this town….
Do you know that for a fact. I see that the Millburn BOE has a turf field next to the library and I see kids using it all of the time for sports.
And school fields aren't really for the general public in any case.
As for parkland, Maplewood has a number of parks and has many tree-lined streets and 2,000 acres of woodland just to the west.
I do think it's interesting that there are all types of projects in the two towns that have the potential to cause some type of negative environmental impact, yet the only ones that seem to attract this type of vehement opposition are those involving youth team sports.
The plastic bag ban is a good example. Well intended. Poorly thought out and executed. Few "one-use" plastic bags received only a single use. They were used to protect water-sensitive materials when it rained, line garbage bags (garbage bag liners now have to be purchased separately), store a variety of items in the home, transport a variety of items from the home, list goes on. These bags, especially when double bagged proved to be sturdy and reusable. One could even bring them when shopping and reuse them numerous times. Then there was the lack of coordination with food delivery services, whose use increased during lockdown and remains high. Those who use these services are literally drowning in bags and unable to find enough repurposing use for them. Emphasis should have been placed on reducing packaging, encouraging reuse of the existing plastic bags, and requiring food delivery services to pick up and reuse the "reusable" bags they were supplying. Intent is important. So is adjusting to address unintended consequences as they emerge. Artificial turf fields will also have unintended consequences which could be even more harmful to the environment than the tribble-like multi-use plastic bags we are now dealing with.
I do think it's interesting that there are all types of projects in the two towns that have the potential to cause some type of negative environmental impact, yet the only ones that seem to attract this type of vehement opposition are those involving youth team sports.
Like the Maplewood post office demolition, which also generated environmental opposition, turf fields are (1) seen as optional and (2) subject to some form of public vote. That may distinguish them from other types of projects.
I do think it's interesting that there are all types of projects in the two towns that have the potential to cause some type of negative environmental impact, yet the only ones that seem to attract this type of vehement opposition are those involving youth team sports.
Like the Maplewood post office demolition, which also generated environmental opposition, turf fields are (1) seen as optional and (2) subject to some form of public vote. That may distinguish them from other types of projects.
I recall the Post Office controversy being much more about aesthetic and planning issues than any environmental impact. Besides, that controversy disappeared once the Township Committee election went the way that a few of the biggest Post Office protesters wanted it to go. After that, the Clarus went up, and continues to operate, with nary a peep.
I recall the Post Office controversy being much more about aesthetic and planning issues than any environmental impact.
It was. That didn’t prevent its opponents from also making vehement environmental arguments unrelated to youth sports.
Joan mentions the bag debate. Also unrelated to youth sports.
Put an issue up for a vote that has nothing to with youth sports but has apparent environmentally friendly and unfriendly options and see how quietly it goes.
I do think it's interesting that there are all types of projects in the two towns that have the potential to cause some type of negative environmental impact, yet the only ones that seem to attract this type of vehement opposition are those involving youth team sports.
The plastic bag ban is a good example. Well intended. Poorly thought out and executed. Few "one-use" plastic bags received only a single use. They were used to protect water-sensitive materials when it rained, line garbage bags (garbage bag liners now have to be purchased separately), store a variety of items in the home, transport a variety of items from the home, list goes on. These bags, especially when double bagged proved to be sturdy and reusable. One could even bring them when shopping and reuse them numerous times. Then there was the lack of coordination with food delivery services, whose use increased during lockdown and remains high. Those who use these services are literally drowning in bags and unable to find enough repurposing use for them. Emphasis should have been placed on reducing packaging, encouraging reuse of the existing plastic bags, and requiring food delivery services to pick up and reuse the "reusable" bags they were supplying. Intent is important. So is adjusting to address unintended consequences as they emerge. Artificial turf fields will also have unintended consequences which could be even more harmful to the environment than the tribble-like multi-use plastic bags we are now dealing with.
I am sorry, but I have to completely disagree with this. The bag ban has removed 8 billion, yes billion, plastic bags from the waste stream in NJ per year. When you drive along the highway the sides of the road are no longer strewn with plastic bags. Yes, plastic goes in to reusable bags, but those are not trashed like the grocery bags were. And each small dog waste bag that I use can't be more than one tenth the size of a grocery bag.
I have great memories of playing a college intramural soccer game in the rain on a muddy field under the lights.
I do as well. Our football field wasn’t perfect but knowing it from practice gave us a real home field advantage, and 1 very memorable what became known as mud bowl game. I realize children are different now. My kid might throw up in his mouth a little if I gave him a garden hose to drink out of
I have great memories of playing a college intramural soccer game in the rain on a muddy field under the lights.
I do as well. Our football field wasn’t perfect but knowing it from practice gave us a real home field advantage, and 1 very memorable what became known as mud bowl game. I realize children are different now. My kid might throw up in his mouth a little if I gave him a garden hose to drink out of
Did you walk about mile and a half from school to get to the field? Did you change into your uniforms at the field? Columbia softball players do.
When you practiced, was the field level or was it on a large slope? Did you ever have a season with 10 games canceled due to field conditions? Columbia girls' soccer did this year.
Did you have to practice a half hour's drive away and play nearly all of your games on the road? Columbia field hockey did.
Did you ever have a season with 10 games canceled due to field conditions? Columbia girls' soccer did this year.
According to the article, it was the freshman team. When my son played baseball at CHS, the freshman team itself was canceled.
The pro-turf speakers quoted in the article make a strong case about unequal facilities. But when the girls’ soccer captains told the board, “Each fall, 11 teams have to share one turf field,” my thought was: That’s a lot of teams.
Do CHS softball, soccer, and field hockey all play their home games and have all their practice sessions at Ritzer? What about other CHS teams? How does the CHS athletic department manage all those demands on a single field, even if that field is covered with artificial turf? The problem may be that we have too few fields and not enough green space to hold all the games and practices that CHS needs to schedule.
Do CHS softball, soccer, and field hockey all play their home games and have all their practice sessions at Ritzer? What about other CHS teams? How does the CHS athletic department manage all those demands on a single field, even if that field is covered with artificial turf? The problem may be that we have too few fields and not enough green space to hold all the games and practices that CHS needs to schedule.
The point of expanding from the original Ritzer renovation is to add a second softball field so that all softball could be played there, where the girls could change in a locker room and avoid having to walk to the Little League field in Meadowland Park. As far as I know, some JV/Frosh games for both boys and girls soccer are at Ritzer (varsity games for both are at turfed Underhill). Field hockey is supposed to be played on turf, so I'm not sure I've ever seen it at Ritzer. The extra durability of a turf field would allow increased play that would address some (though not all) of the issues I mentioned.
But your overall point is correct. The school district does not have the facilities to meet the current demand of students interested in playing team sports. (Same can be said for the towns, but that's a different matter). Turfing Ritzer is a potential partial solution. Another potential solution is cutting back on CHS sports. Or just continue on with shoddy, often unusable, sometimes dangerous fields, which votes have shown to be the preference of area residents.
However, the "I used to walk uphill both ways" comments represent a feeling that it's just those modern, coddled kids who want a sports palace like high schools have in some other towns. The problem isn't an occasional mud game on an imperfect grass field, but not being able to play at all a significant amount of the time and conditions that the district seems to acknowledge violate the law, given the unfortunate fact that the lack of resources affects the girls' teams most.
The point of expanding from the original Ritzer renovation is to add a second softball field so that all softball could be played there, where the girls could change in a locker room and avoid having to walk to the Little League field in Meadowland Park. As far as I know, some JV/Frosh games for both boys and girls soccer are at Ritzer (varsity games for both are at turfed Underhill). Field hockey is supposed to be played on turf, so I'm not sure I've ever seen it at Ritzer. The extra durability of a turf field would allow increased play that would address some (though not all) of the issues I mentioned.
But your overall point is correct. The school district does not have the facilities to meet the current demand of students interested in playing team sports. (Same can be said for the towns, but that's a different matter). Turfing Ritzer is a potential partial solution. Another potential solution is cutting back on CHS sports. Or just continue on with shoddy, often unusable, sometimes dangerous fields, which votes have shown to be the preference of area residents.
However, the "I used to walk uphill both ways" comments represent a feeling that it's just those modern, coddled kids who want a sports palace like high schools have in some other towns. The problem isn't an occasional mud game on an imperfect grass field, but not being able to play at all a significant amount of the time and conditions that the district seems to acknowledge violate the law, given the unfortunate fact that the lack of resources affects the girls' teams most.
We are back to the limited resources to meet the demand argument that was one of several factors considered by voters when the DeHart question was on the ballot. Even Ritzer has come to serve multiple purposes. It has become a lunch spot, an event space, and a space for programs held by the Adult School in the summer. It is highly likely that these uses would cease to exist if two fields at Ritzer were covered with artificial turf. Community use would likely end too. With grass, all non-athletic uses could continue. As for girl's sports being adversely impacted because boy's get preference, that is wrong. If CHS has to ration team use of Ritzer, the boy's and girl's teams should get equal playing time, or proportionately equivalent playing time if one group has significantly larger participation in team sports than the other.
To your walking uphill both ways comment: The high school I attended did not have any athletic fields. Team sports were limited and exclusively for boys. Girls, if they were selected, got to be cheerleaders. We didn't even have the space in the girls gym for sports at physical education. Each girl got a arms length of standing space on the gym floor for exercising. Field sports were played on the parade grounds at Prospect Park which was some distance away and not that accessible from the high school by public transportation. I am not advocating that this is the the ideal way to provide exercise for high school students. It is simply the way things were for my generation.
As I have written every time the artificial turf question comes up, we are left with a question of priorities. Those who have family members playing team sports on local fields want to see their family member get as much playing time as possible regardless of the impact this may have on the rest of the community. Those who don't have a family member playing team sports on local fields raise other considerations such as alternative or shared use of the existing fields, environmental impact, health considerations, budgetary considerations, etc. Occasionally, there is some cross pollination.
If you are interested in sports, here is something that can exercise, and also educate our high schoolers on life-saving lessons. When I was a Columbia student there was an indoor pool and classes were mandatory. Of course, due to various reasons (read upkeep) it fell into disrepair and is no more. If you want to toss around spending this amount of money, there is a use that should be considered.
It is an idea for what to do with a pile of money, if you really feel you want to spend that much on plastic.
The pool issue of course is long dead. For many reasons, not least of which is that it was unusable for modern competition. But we have dodged spending money on the schools for the last 40 years, and now we justify not spending what's needed by saying our neglect has made it too expensive. Perfect.
Month