The Turf War Returns

yahooyahoo said:

The grants only covered part of the cost.

Back to the current debate.  A petition for a referendum on artificial turf has been submitted.

https://www.tapinto.net/towns/soma/sections/sports/articles/maplewood-clerk-gets-petition-for-artificial-turf-referendum

By ALIA C. COVELPublishedAugust 10, 2021 at 7:33 PM

MAPLEWOOD, NJ — A petition to put the bonding ordinance that would fund artificial turf at DeHart Park on the ballot as a debt referendum was submitted to the Maplewood Clerk’s Office yesterday, Aug. 9.

Some 45 community members made “a total group effort” to collect the 1,080 signatures submitted, said Camilla Flannery, who helped to organize the effort. Being the heart of summer vacation, “it was a tough time period to do this,” she said, but finding volunteers wasn’t as hard as she feared it would be. “Everybody came together for this issue.”

Flannery said she got involved because she was shocked that it passed in the first place.

“No one I knew knew about [the vote] and everyone I knew was against it, so it was like, how could this happen?” she said. She said she had not seen any public outreach about the topic, and it frustrated her. “Now we have to petition to get this to be a conversation, because it wasn’t before,” she said.

Volunteer Bob McCoy agreed. He said that, from his engineering background, he knows that “when you talk to all the stakeholders, you get a better decision. That didn’t happen here.”

The volunteers canvassed their neighborhoods and at the park for signatures. “In the hundreds of conversations I had,” Flannery said, “I only had one family who didn’t see the issue” with having artificial turf installed.

McCoy explained that to get it on the ballot, they had 20 days after the posting of the approved ordinance for the bonding to submit the signatures of 15 percent of the number of Maplewood residents who cast votes in the most recent general election in which members of the state Assembly were elected. That number was 765, and “we passed that number in about 10 days,” said McCoy. “It was a remarkable community volunteer effort.”

McCoy, a 27-year resident of Maplewood, has been involved with this issue before. A similar bond ordinance was passed in 2007, with an ensuing petition and a debt referendum in 2008, wherein the bonding for artificial turf was voted down.

Unfortunately, McCoy said, “after that win, there was very little support for [maintaining] high quality fields.” He said the idea that an organic field was tried in the intervening years is “a distorted narrative.” The fields were “not consistently cared for,” nor were they executed well, he added.

The petition is now in the hands of Maplewood Township Clerk Liz Fritzen. She and her staff will vet the signatures, and in five days will announce whether the debt referendum will be on a ballot in the future. It is unknown if there is enough time to get it on this November’s ballot.

 Exactly! The TC decided this without reaching out to the residents 

steel said:

A. The state and county was never going to pay in full for that bond. To make it sound as though it was going to be a free field is as false assertion now as it was then and when pointed out was one of the main reasons it was voted down.

B. Ah math, millions is still millions no matter how teeny you try to slice it up to make it sound more palatable, much like the false narrative that someone else was going to pay for it all in the past. 

C: "increased recreational opportunities" is such an attractive yet vague catchy catch-all. Sounds like it should be in a political ad.

I used to coach my daughter's soccer team and continue to be amazed at the presumed preeminence of many sports parents expectations for what their kids "need", no MUST HAVE and that thus all others should bow and provide no matter what the objections.

PS: I wonder how hot it would have been on a turf field today.

 yeah, math. 

Millions do get sliced up across thousands of taxpayers. That's reality. Throwing around big numbers without context is misleading. 

steel said:

 I presume that you mean "Borden" Park (a common mistake) -surrounded closely by dozens of homes. There is also zero parking there except on the streets of those same residents.

 Sorry, my mistake.  I meant DeHart, on Burnet Avenue.

DeHart Park is on Burnet Avenue not Boyden.

joan_crystal said:

DeHart Park is on Burnet Avenue not Boyden.

 Thanks for the correction. 

Any thoughts on the points made?

Jaytee said:

Why should we lay down artificial turf on precious green space for athletes only? I coached my son’s soccer team back in the early 90’s in dehart. Rain or shine. If some people didn’t like their kids getting muddy, they took them out of the sport. Their loss. 

@Jaytee

Things are different now. The township closes all fields when it's raining, as well as the next day if it's still muddy from the previous rain. This is where the 'loss of game time' comes in, especially during the short mid-April to mid-June spring season. 

The reasoning is that playing on the fields when they are muddy destroys the grass and creates dangerous uneven terrain when the mud areas dry (as well as being 'unsafe' conditions to play on when muddy).

I do understand the need for these field closures, as I wear 2 ankle braces now from all the times I sprained my ankles on uneven fields as a teen+.

jimmurphy said:

 Thanks for the correction. 

Any thoughts on the points made?

I don't think we have the green space necessary to meet the demand presently being placed on our fields that are used for athletic purposes.  I don't think we have the open space needed to develop additional playing fields within our borders.  We need to ask ourselves as an entire community how we can best meet the green space needs of the entire community, not just those engaged in field sports.  None of the answers will please everyone, especially those who are pushing for placing artificial turf on the two fields at DeHart Park.  

While I recognize the importance of team sports towards children's development and providing balance in the too sedentary lives of most adults, I also recognize the need to preserve what natural green space we have, provide opportunities for more passive forms of recreation, direct our resources to a variety of infrastructure needs which extend far beyond field sports and have been equally neglected for a variety of reasons, recognize that with the location of the Community Center and the Senior Center at DeHart Park plus the expansion of multifamily housing in the adjacent area have changed the usage of the park from an athletic complex to a much more broadly used municipal park, consider the impact of social and infrastructure changes since the town was built up 100 years ago, the list goes on.  

In an earlier post, I have suggested considering rationing what field space we have through limiting the permits issued for using our fields to what they can sustain and limiting playing seasons so more teams can have an opportunity to use the fields while limited the amount of playing time each team will receive.  This is one way of trying to enable our limited resources to serve as many residents as possible and as equitably as possible.  Obviously, this approach, which it resolves the overuse problem, does not satisfy those pressing for more playing time than they have now.  I have suggested reducing demand for playing time on the fields by encouraging children and adults to consider other forms of outdoor exercise that do not require using an athletic field.  This would require expanding offerings by both the school district and the recreation department.  This suggestion is not popular with those who have a vested interest in perpetuating our private teams and sports clinics.  Again these are precisely the people who are pushing for artificial turf at DeHart Park.

If we cannot reduce demand successfully, the other option is to increase supply.  Since we do not have the undeveloped land necessary to build additional fields and since pressure for increased ratables has lead to taking what land becomes available  for building additional multi-use structures, it does not appear that we will be able to do this within our own borders.  The remaining option is to enter into agreements with other municipalities, the county, not for profit organizations, and/or private enterprise to develop a more regional approach to development and management of recreational facilities not just sports fields.  We already have a long standing agreement with South orange in this regard.  Could this approach be expanded?

If we address neither the supply nor the demand issue, we will continue to hear complaints about the condition of our fields and the lack of available playing time far into the future, whether or not we install artificial turf at DeHart Park.

steel said:

It can be noted that if the town had bonded and installed the turf field the last time this issue was voted down we would now still be paying for THAT bond while that same field, having exceeded it's usable life span would now have to be torn up and replaced with a new one at equal cost and with a new bond. 

But hey, what's a few million dollars here and there if our kids can kick a ball around more often on an over-heated planet.

I disagree with your stance, but acknowledge that it might represent the consensus: Maplewood has other priorities besides organized youth sports and muddling along with substandard fields and frequent closures is better than making the investment needed to improve things. At least you're honest about it. At a minimum, I hope this process ends with the town being honest with current and prospective residents.

Families with means whose kids want to play organized sports will find a place where they can do so safely and consistently. For everyone else, there's always video games. 

chalmers said:

Families with means whose kids want to play organized sports will find a place where they can do so safely and consistently. For everyone else, there's always video games. 

A rhetorical flourish: The choice is organized sports or video games.

Then again, 20 minutes earlier:

joan_crystal said:

I have suggested reducing demand for playing time on the fields by encouraging children and adults to consider other forms of outdoor exercise that do not require using an athletic field.

DaveSchmidt said:

chalmers said:

Families with means whose kids want to play organized sports will find a place where they can do so safely and consistently. For everyone else, there's always video games. 

A rhetorical flourish: The choice is organized sports or video games.

Then again, 20 minutes earlier:

joan_crystal said:

I have suggested reducing demand for playing time on the fields by encouraging children and adults to consider other forms of outdoor exercise that do not require using an athletic field.

No, I think finding other ways besides organized sports to get kids (and adults) outside and moving is a great idea. Of course, it's one that we could be doing already regardless of the field situation.

Programs like Girls on the Run do a good job of this privately, though I've never seen a real town-wide effort to do so. Maybe, the presumed rejection of the turf could be an impetus for that, but I'm skeptical. When the last referendum lost, that was going to be the impetus for a real effort to take care of the grass fields, but once the result was in, the passionate grass advocates moved on to other things.

It might seem silly to adults, but for many kids there are several things that appeal to them about team sports that you don't get from, say, tween jazzercise. Whether it's the uniforms or trophies, or the camaraderie with teammates or just the structure of having a practice or two a week and a friend's parent who can drive them there and back, for some (though by no means all), that's what motivates them to get outside and (yes) stop playing video games for a while. 

Green space: the reservation is acres and acres of green space, tons of places to walk, wander, sit, even toss a frisbee or other “unorganized” sports and no artificial turf. Free. Lots of parking. 

Uniforms, trophies, camaraderie with teammates can all be achieved through group exercise that does not require an athletic field; but  do require some organization.  This could be said for just about any form of exercise you can think of up to and including jazzercise.  Just throw in a regular meeting time/place, an activity leader who emphasizes the same goals as team field sports , a "team" tee-shirt and recognition for meeting a set of age appropriate goals.  If you can find the elements that encourage kids and adults to exercise outdoors and build them into a program you can get the same benefits.

chalmers said:

DaveSchmidt said:

chalmers said:

Families with means whose kids want to play organized sports will find a place where they can do so safely and consistently. For everyone else, there's always video games. 

A rhetorical flourish: The choice is organized sports or video games.

Then again, 20 minutes earlier:

joan_crystal said:

I have suggested reducing demand for playing time on the fields by encouraging children and adults to consider other forms of outdoor exercise that do not require using an athletic field.

No, I think finding other ways besides organized sports to get kids (and adults) outside and moving is a great idea. Of course, it's one that we could be doing already regardless of the field situation.

Programs like Girls on the Run do a good job of this privately, though I've never seen a real town-wide effort to do so. Maybe, the presumed rejection of the turf could be an impetus for that, but I'm skeptical. When the last referendum lost, that was going to be the impetus for a real effort to take care of the grass fields, but once the result was in, the passionate grass advocates moved on to other things.

It might seem silly to adults, but for many kids there are several things that appeal to them about team sports that you don't get from, say, tween jazzercise. Whether it's the uniforms or trophies, or the camaraderie with teammates or just the structure of having a practice or two a week and a friend's parent who can drive them there and back, for some (though by no means all), that's what motivates them to get outside and (yes) stop playing video games for a while. 

 I'm repeating myself, but IMHO the worst possible answer to the issue of athletic field capacity would be to tell people to get used to fewer opportunities for organized recreation.  Telling kids that there's nothing the township can do to make things better, so instead of playing baseball or soccer, they should go ride a bicycle or go on a hike seems pretty callous.  Particularly in an upper-middle class town that should be able to find the resources to support adequate recreation facilities.  

I hope that if (although my gut tells me it's "when" not "if) the bond referendum is defeated, the opponents of artificial turf have a real and REALISTIC alternative solution. Because it would be a shame if in five years or ten years our athletic facilities are still in the poor condition they're in now, and we really do end up in the position of having to reduce opportunities for people to participate in sports.

joan_crystal said:

Uniforms, trophies, camaraderie with teammates can all be achieved through group exercise that does not require an athletic field; but  do require some organization.  This could be said for just about any form of exercise you can think of up to and including jazzercise.  Just throw in a regular meeting time/place, an activity leader who emphasizes the same goals as team field sports , a "team" tee-shirt and recognition for meeting a set of age appropriate goals.  If you can find the elements that encourage kids and adults to exercise outdoors and build them into a program you can get the same benefits.

 this is simply not true on its face.  I get that some people don't care about sports or maybe even actively dislike team sports. But there are things that kids learn in team sports that they don't learn in an organized exercise class, or a dance class or other physical activity.

Learning how to compete fairly, develop teamwork, experience winning and losing, playing by the rules of the game, as well as abiding by the norms of sportsmanship (we need a new word for that.  maybe "sportspersonship") don't come without the structure of the games, the keeping of scores and records.  There are a lot of things wrong with youth organized sports, I'm not going to deny that.  But there are also a lot of opportunities for personal growth and learning that only come from playing competitive sports.

Having been one of those kids who rode the bench because I was poor at organized team sports, I know how demoralizing it can be for the kids who do not get chosen for the team; or, if the team is forced to take them, do not get any time to play.   If it is true that opportunities for personal growth and learning only come from being good enough to play competitive sports, we need to come up with meaningful alternatives for the kids, some as young as tee-ball hopefuls,  who suffer because they are told repeatedly that they do not make the cut.  Alternatives to competitive team sports that would enable these children to engage in other forms of outdoor exercise at which they can excel is at least equally important to placing sole emphasis on field sports. I am not advocating eliminating team sports altogether, simply recognizing that there are individual differences and individual skill sets some of which are not being met by our present recreation program.

Joan, your experience is much different than my many years of experience as a soccer and softball parent. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but Rec sports at younger ages are less competitive to allow everyone on the bench to play. There are no cuts for younger kids. Everyone who signs up for tball, softball and soccer can play. And it’s not about the recognition or any random activity. (Jazzercise?!). We are talking about real team sports. Your arguments about finding alternative activities sound nonsensical. No one is saying organized youth sports is the gateway to the pros or even to play in college, but it’s the norm around here and an expected option. 

“Sorry honey, I know your cousin in Livingston plays soccer, but we are going to play duck duck goose on this small circle of grass instead.” Or maybe musical chairs. Want to lower a kid’s self esteem? That sounds like a great way to do it.

As a kid I never had the opportunity to play organized sports until high school. Very few of the girls I knew my age did, but those who did had a big advantage and definitely more confidence.

This undecided voter needs no convincing about the value of organized youth sports, but if I end up favoring the turfing of DeHart, the argument that kids deserve more opportunities than local grass fields can accommodate won’t be the one that gets me there.

It’s as if kids in maplewood can not be involved in sports unless the grass is plastic. We had some pretty good teams over the decades, the girls lacrosse team from Columbia comes to mind. Played on grass. The fields just need to be maintained properly that’s all. You just can’t throw away natural grass because plastic grass is available on Amazon. Maintenance is the solution, like everything else in life. 

Jaytee said:

It’s as if kids in maplewood can not be involved in sports unless the grass is plastic. We had some pretty good teams over the decades, the girls lacrosse team from Columbia comes to mind. Played on grass. The fields just need to be maintained properly that’s all. You just can’t throw away natural grass because plastic grass is available on Amazon. Maintenance is the solution, like everything else in life. 

 If it were easy to maintain the local fields in light of the increased demand on them, that would have been done years ago. I find the anti-turf people over the top.  The proposal is for one field in a community where there will still be other grass fields, where people can picnic or do whatever they want.  The turf would help the young people in town play team sports safely and with more frequency just like our neighboring towns. For a “progressive” town, many people in Maplewood are pretty backwards-thinking.  I really don’t see how opposition to  a useable playing field helps the children in our community.

.

Mom270 said:

For a “progressive” town, many people in Maplewood are pretty backwards-thinking. 

 That's hysterical. FYI: "Progressive" values do not include covering a public park with rubber and plastic. Quite the opposite.

shh said:

Green space: the reservation is acres and acres of green space, tons of places to walk, wander, sit, even toss a frisbee or other “unorganized” sports and no artificial turf. Free. Lots of parking. 

And Maplecrest Park is less than 5 city blocks away. Walking there might be good exercise. 

steel said:

 That's hysterical. FYI: "Progressive" values do not include covering a public park with rubber and plastic. Quite the opposite.

 The park would not be “covered” as there would still be basketball, a walking path, a playground, skateboarding, etc. but let’s distort the facts because that’s how people here roll.  For people concerned about the (unproven) environmental impact, the Union turf field is a stone’s throw from DeHart, even 1 mile away.  The longer I live here, the less I like the local politics.

Jeez Mom, you're right, I didn't mean "cover the entire park" but that was hardly my point which you clearly missed i.e. the absurd notion that "progressive" somehow means embracing the idea of plastic grass.

It seems the unspoken subtext of the pro-turf argument can be read thusly:

“This planet and our taxes are already f_ucked so just let me and mine take another piece of limited green space so my kid can kick a ball around without getting dirty.”

Oh, speaking of children, let’s not forget the childish argument of “But other towns have it mom!”.

PS: This is one discussion which does not require the inclusion of politics.

I don't have a position on this subject yet but as to team sports we had an Olympic Bronze Medalist in a sport played indoors. Years ago we had a guy an Olympic Swimmer who trained at the Maplewood Town Pool.

DaveSchmidt said:

This undecided voter needs no convincing about the value of organized youth sports, but if I end up favoring the turfing of DeHart, the argument that kids deserve more opportunities than local grass fields can accommodate won’t be the one that gets me there.

 Can someone summarize the pros and cons for the undecided in a clear dispassionate way? Thank you.

jimmurphy said:

shh said:

Green space: the reservation is acres and acres of green space, tons of places to walk, wander, sit, even toss a frisbee or other “unorganized” sports and no artificial turf. Free. Lots of parking.

And Maplecrest Park is less than 5 city blocks away. Walking there might be good exercise.

I’m picturing myself having a community park like DeHart, enjoying informal recreational use of its expansive, grass-and-dirt field. Now I’m imagining how I’d feel if told that to avoid the aesthetic, environmental (heat, runoff, rubber granulate dispersal, all proven) and significantly more active (because that’s the whole point, right?) intrusion of artificial turf I could just walk an extra half-mile to another neighborhood or drive to a county reservation.

STANV said:

Can someone summarize the pros and cons for the undecided in a clear dispassionate way? Thank you.

My previous comment describes a con argument that resonates with me. The main pro argument I can’t dismiss is the equity of accommodating enough organized sports to meet needs without relying on private or otherwise outside options. (My personal caveat there is that rising demand isn’t a justification in and of itself; it, too, is subject to some tough choices.)

the environmental arguments against artificial turf are undeniable and perfectly reasonable. But my reaction to drawing a red line in opposition to artificial turf is that it seems kind of arbitrary.  If we really want to preserve green space, we should probably be lobbying the township to change zoning laws so people can't put large additions on their homes. Over the past decade, it's almost certainly true that the township has lost far more square footage of green space through additions on people's homes than would be lost to a soccer field.  Does anyone know the temperature of roof shingles in the summer compared to an artificial turf field, compared to grass?

the environmental argument is a strong one. But making it against only artificial turf and not other construction doesn't seem fair, IMHO.

ml1 said:

the environmental argument is a strong one. But making it against only artificial turf and not other construction doesn't seem fair, IMHO.

Unfair, perhaps,* in the context of the larger environmental argument. In the context of “I don’t want more heat radiating onto me in my local park or rubber granules tracked into my house,” there’s not much of a comparison to the zoning of private property. (Then again, maybe that environmental argument doesn’t sound as strong to some as the larger one.)

* For one thing, there’s the higher motivational bar for opposing the status quo vs. opposing a proposed change.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

the environmental argument is a strong one. But making it against only artificial turf and not other construction doesn't seem fair, IMHO.

Unfair, perhaps, in the context of the larger environmental argument.* In the context of “I don’t want more heat radiating onto me in my local park or rubber granules tracked into my house,” there’s not much of a comparison to the zoning of private property. (Then again, maybe that environmental argument doesn’t sound as strong to some as the larger one.)

* Even then, there’s the higher motivational bar for opposing the status quo vs. opposing a proposed change.

the argument about the effects on the park are not the same as the ones people are making about a heat island adding to global warming.  It is a good argument, and it would hold even if global warming and plastic waste weren't issues.

but my point about the people claiming a "progressive" town shouldn't be building an artificial turf field because of global warming and plastic waste are IMHO being kind of selective.  And I'm not criticizing because I'm no better on this issue than anyone else, but if I look around Maplewood, it's pretty obvious that most of us are terrible offenders with regard to our carbon footprints.  A lot of us drive vehicles far bigger than we "need" and live in homes much bigger than our families "need."  How many of us really do anything about the amount of plastic we use?  How many of us eat a diet that adds tremendously to the production of greenhouse gases?  I admire the people who are doing their part for the environment.  But looking around, it certainly doesn't seem like those people are anything near a majority in Maplewood.

the average Maplewoodian has a pretty big carbon footprint, but we're going to claim we're too "progressive" on the environment to build one artificial turf soccer field?  It does seem arbitrary to me.  Or maybe even hypocritical.