The Turf War Returns
joan_crystal said:
@SZM I completely agree with your above post. The one point I would add is that all of our playing fields were placed by design in areas prone to flooding. This has exacerbated the drainage issues at DeHart, Maplecrest, and Memorial parks.
Chyzowych (yes, that is the field I was referring to) may be physically located in Maplewood but it is leased to South Orange, which maintains it. There is a reason why Chyzowych was named New Waterlands when my son was playing sports on it over 30 year years ago. It was aptly named since that park is prone to flooding. The other field @tjohn mentions is Waterlands, located in and maintained by South Orange. Again, as the name implies prone to flooding.
Any discussion of putting down artificial turf at Waterlands or New Waterlands (now called Chyzowych) would need to involve South Orange. To the best of my knowledge they have not been part of the discussion regarding putting down artificial turf at DeHart Park.
Regarding the issue @SZM raises of apportioning playing time at DeHart Park, to the best of my recollection (someone please correct me if I am wrong), that facility was created using green space funds. This would preclude restricting use of the fields there.
@joan_crystal - yes, I know about the inter-town arrangement with Chyzowych. I've only played there once and didn't know it was in an area that floods, but now that I think about it, it's just next to the tracks like parts of Memorial, which also floods.
I would like to see South Orange be a part of the discussion, and all options be explored. There are lights at Waterlands, with a bit more green space around that neighborhood, just because that park is kind of bordered by green space. Don't know if the flooding there is worse than at DeHart, but yes, drainage has always been an issue at DeHart.
As for restricting the field, I didn't mean any kind of de jure restricted usage, I meant more de facto restriction. When one group has a permit to play, another group can't (and it's not available for people to just enjoy in an unstructured way as well).
So my point/question is more about which groups get priority for field permits, and how to make sure that is equitable. I would prefer to see Rec programs get priority over private clubs (and maybe even CHS teams) as Rec programs are always open to all (with maximum enrollment limits and sometimes age/gender limits as well, but much more limited fees to participate than private clubs.) I think private clubs are pushing hard for this (or at least historically have.) What if they were last in line to get access? Why should they have priority when the bonding will be paid for by all taxpayers, should any field be artificially turfed? These are the political pieces of the puzzle that I would like to see addressed before moving forward with any field being turfed over.
A few times during the discussion it was brought up that they're not removing all of the grass. I haven't seen the diagrams - would it be like a rectangular space next to the baseball diamond? Would there still be a baseball diamond? Does someone have a PDF of the plan?
jamie said:
A few times during the discussion it was brought up that they're not removing all of the grass. I haven't seen the diagrams - would it be like a rectangular space next to the baseball diamond? Would there still be a baseball diamond? Does someone have a PDF of the plan?
Good question, Jamie. Would love to see the plan. It's a pretty big space - you can easily fit two 110 (even longer) x 40 yard fields with a good walking/viewing space between them on the grass without going into the infield. If they are not planning to remove all the grass, it will be interesting to see if the way it goes in actually limits how many games can comfortably be played there at one time, which would be counterproductive, so hopefully that is not the plan. With the two fields I describe, there is still a good strip of grass not used closer to the apartments.
According to the Director of Community Services, the artificial turf covered fields would be fenced in. All of the space inside the fence would be covered with artificial turf. She did not say whether the new fence line would be the same as the existing fence line. If the existing fence line remains, there would be a narrow strip of grass at best between the fence and the foot path. I like the idea of providing for a grass covered viewing area so spectators can watch the games. Something those in favor of the proposal should suggest.
I agree with @SZM that the town should issue permits with preference given to town scheduled activities whenever possible. Private clubs using the athletic fields, while revenue producing, clearly complicates the matter and adds considerably to the overuse of the fields. If the proposal does carry, there are a lot of conditions that would need to be placed on the use and maintenance of the fields if there is to be any chance of advancing the proponent's goal of having virtually unlimited playing time for those permitted to use the fields.
This won’t advance the turf discussion in any way, and I think I can anticipate the counterpoints (including “hey, old man” barbs), but the public comments at the TC meeting brought home to me our culture’s reliance on organized sports for outdoor activity. During my surburban youth in the ’70s (hey to you, too, sonny), Little League and organized soccer made up a tiny fraction of our outdoor sports activity. Three or four of us were enough for Wiffleball games and touch football, which we played relentlessly in our own yards. You couldn’t walk or drive around my neighborhood on any given day, mid-Atlantic winters included, without seeing kids outside playing these, plus dodgeball, kick the can, flashlight tag, foursquare, etc. Does anybody see much of this around SOMA?
The ever-increasing demand for fields is no surprise when everyday pickup games like those of my childhood seem to have gone by the wayside in favor of organization.
When we moved into our Maplewood house in the early 80's we were told that our front yard was used by the local youngsters as an athletic field. If that happened after we moved in, we never saw any evidence of it being used that way. What we did see most days was an on-going ball game held in the middle of our street.
We used to play pickup games in my neighborhood when we were kids, as my father did in Brooklyn when he was a kid. There are way more cars on the road now and people drive too fast.
we walk in the reservation a lot. You can still walk around a turf field. I hope this passes.
DaveSchmidt said:
This won’t advance the turf discussion in any way, and I think I can anticipate the counterpoints (including “hey, old man” barbs), but the public comments at the TC meeting brought home to me our culture’s reliance on organized sports for outdoor activity. During my surburban youth in the ’70s (hey to you, too, sonny), Little League and organized soccer made up a tiny fraction of our outdoor sports activity. Three or four of us were enough for Wiffleball games and touch football, which we played relentlessly in our own yards. You couldn’t walk or drive around my neighborhood on any given day, mid-Atlantic winters included, without seeing kids outside playing these, plus dodgeball, kick the can, flashlight tag, foursquare, etc. Does anybody see much of this around SOMA?
The ever-increasing demand for fields is no surprise when everyday pickup games like those of my childhood seem to have gone by the wayside in favor of organization.
This is how I grew up also - we had Orchard park in our backyard. Football in the field. Stickball under the Park house. Then we also had the tennis courts and basketball net. Climbing trees was a big part of the day also. We had a few really good ones - they're gone now. We played kickball in the street also.
Here's a side by side view of the 2 fields:
DaveSchmidt said:
This won’t advance the turf discussion in any way, and I think I can anticipate the counterpoints (including “hey, old man” barbs), but the public comments at the TC meeting brought home to me our culture’s reliance on organized sports for outdoor activity. During my surburban youth in the ’70s (hey to you, too, sonny), Little League and organized soccer made up a tiny fraction of our outdoor sports activity. Three or four of us were enough for Wiffleball games and touch football, which we played relentlessly in our own yards. You couldn’t walk or drive around my neighborhood on any given day, mid-Atlantic winters included, without seeing kids outside playing these, plus dodgeball, kick the can, flashlight tag, foursquare, etc. Does anybody see much of this around SOMA?
The ever-increasing demand for fields is no surprise when everyday pickup games like those of my childhood seem to have gone by the wayside in favor of organization.
As someone without kids who grew up never having played an organized sport outside of school phys ed, I agree, old man.
DaveSchmidt said:
This won’t advance the turf discussion in any way, and I think I can anticipate the counterpoints (including “hey, old man” barbs), but the public comments at the TC meeting brought home to me our culture’s reliance on organized sports for outdoor activity. During my surburban youth in the ’70s (hey to you, too, sonny), Little League and organized soccer made up a tiny fraction of our outdoor sports activity. Three or four of us were enough for Wiffleball games and touch football, which we played relentlessly in our own yards. You couldn’t walk or drive around my neighborhood on any given day, mid-Atlantic winters included, without seeing kids outside playing these, plus dodgeball, kick the can, flashlight tag, foursquare, etc. Does anybody see much of this around SOMA?
The ever-increasing demand for fields is no surprise when everyday pickup games like those of my childhood seem to have gone by the wayside in favor of organization.
This was true for me too, however I grew up in a more exurban town in Putnam County, NY - Mahopac to be exact. Our yards were bigger and it was easier to find space to play. We were generally within earshot of a cowbell my Mom used to ring at dinner time.
Different environment here. Not sure how easy it would be to replicate, unless very close to a park, as Jamie mentioned.
Our kids did play four square in the street, and skateboarded a bit. But to try to set up pickup games would be tough, I’d think.
Yeah, in the Baby Boom days non-organized self motivated street sports and games were the norm. Also, as I recall, to the extent kids played organized sports like little league, parents were a lot more hands off. But for whatever combination of reasons - fewer kids, overbearing parents - those days are long gone.
bub said:
Yeah, in the Baby Boom days non-organized self motivated street sports and games were the norm. Also, as I recall, to the extent kids played organized sports like little league, parents were a lot more hands off. But for whatever combination of reasons - fewer kids, overbearing parents - those days are long gone.
I grew up in NJ in the 70s and the only outdoor organized sports for young kids that I remember were baseball, Pop Warner football and girls' softball. No soccer, no lacrosse for kids younger than middle school. And far, far fewer girls competing than there are now. Even if kids today played more pickup games, our fields would still probably see about twice the per capita use for organized sports that we did when I was a kid.
Yeah, we had just a couple of kids in Little League. We'd play touch football in the street. Hockey using a flattened soda can. Pickup baseball/softball. basketball in Johnny's driveway ( he was the only guy with a net). stick ball. whiffle ball. Neighborhood-wide hide and seek with teams which for some reason we called "mummy".
sigh....
Several years ago, SOM Baseball brought sports parenting expert Rick Wolff here to give a presentation to coaches. He told this story:
Though his sons were accomplished baseball players, he realized that they had no real experience with the fun, casual games that most of us grew up with. He told them he'd reserve a field for four Sunday mornings in the fall and bring the equipment, but otherwise they were on their own as far as inviting friends, choosing up sides, making calls, etc.
There weren't enough players to field full sides, but in classic pickup style, they made do. Still, some kids had no idea what to do with the freedom. Though he was standing far away, a couple came over to ask him if they could pitch or play a new position or try switch-hitting. Yes, he told them, everything was up to them.
Most of the kids returned week two and many brought friends, so the game got bigger.
By week three, they had enough for full sides. Also, there were now a few parents watching the action.
Week four was the biggest group yet and now a lot of parents, mostly fathers, were watching and commenting on the action to the point where the game was beginning to resemble Little League. Wolff thought to himself that things were ending at just the right time.
When the game ended, a father of one player caught up to him and said, "Thanks for what you did here. My son really enjoyed it. For next year, we've got to get this ORGANIZED."
chalmers said:
Several years ago, SOM Baseball brought sports parenting expert Rick Wolff here to give a presentation to coaches. He told this story:
Though his sons were accomplished baseball players, he realized that they had no real experience with the fun, casual games that most of us grew up with. He told them he'd reserve a field for four Sunday mornings in the fall and bring the equipment, but otherwise they were on their own as far as inviting friends, choosing up sides, making calls, etc.
There weren't enough players to field full sides, but in classic pickup style, they made do. Still, some kids had no idea what to do with the freedom. Though he was standing far away, a couple came over to ask him if they could pitch or play a new position or try switch-hitting. Yes, he told them, everything was up to them.
Most of the kids returned week two and many brought friends, so the game got bigger.
By week three, they had enough for full sides. Also, there were now a few parents watching the action.
Week four was the biggest group yet and now a lot of parents, mostly fathers, were watching and commenting on the action to the point where the game was beginning to resemble Little League. Wolff thought to himself that things were ending at just the right time.
When the game ended, a father of one player caught up to him and said, "Thanks for what you did here. My son really enjoyed it. For next year, we've got to get this ORGANIZED."
Not surprising.
It is clear that kids are on much shorter leashes than they used to be, given some awful events as well as media sensationalism.
I touched on the smaller lot issue around here, which Wolff’s reservation got around. A bit of organization, dare I say.
Do you think there’s a way to do something different?
SZM said:
Chyzowych (yes, that is the field I was referring to) may be physically located in Maplewood but it is leased to South Orange, which maintains it. There is a reason why Chyzowych was named New Waterlands when my son was playing sports on it over 30 year years ago. It was aptly named since that park is prone to flooding. The other field @tjohn mentions is Waterlands, located in and maintained by South Orange. Again, as the name implies prone to flooding.
Any discussion of putting down artificial turf at Waterlands or New Waterlands (now called Chyzowych) would need to involve South Orange. To the best of my knowledge they have not been part of the discussion regarding putting down artificial turf at DeHart Park.
@joan_crystal - yes, I know about the inter-town arrangement with Chyzowych. I've only played there once and didn't know it was in an area that floods, but now that I think about it, it's just next to the tracks like parts of Memorial, which also floods.
For the record, South Orange does absolutely nothing to maintain Chyzowych and neither does Maplewood.
The field, the road going in, and the lot where buses are put are all an embarrassing disaster. Both Towns should be ashamed at the condition of that area.
According to tax records, it belongs to "Village of South Orange Water Works / Township of Maplewood."
I have no idea what that means.
yahooyahoo said:
For the record, South Orange does absolutely nothing to maintain Chyzowych and neither does Maplewood.
The field, the road going in, and the lot where buses are put are all an embarrassing disaster. Both Towns should be ashamed at the condition of that area.
I haven't been to that field in a while, but IIRC, it was also surrounded by a huge amount of poison ivy.
If we didn't have organized sports, there would be no sports. Kids would be playing with their electronics and running around on battery assisted bikes and hover boards.
tjohn said:
If we didn't have organized sports, there would be no sports. Kids would be playing with their electronics and running around on battery assisted bikes and hover boards.
I don't believe that is true. I look at the little children on my block (pre-schoolers mostly) and I see children who are running around and riding child-powered bikes, tricycles, and scooters. Without adult intervention and rule books, these children do just fine enjoying outdoor exercise on their own terms.
Organized sports are good for the community. It’s a way for parents and children to meet kids and families from all areas in town, be involved and engaged, make friends. It’s not just about competition, it’s about team work, understanding a game, responsibility, statistics, etc. Older kids mentoring their younger teammates.
it’s not the same as preschoolers riding tricycles down the street.
Both have their place, but one doesn’t replace the other and even alluding to that is ridiculous, sorry Joan.
Organized sports = it takes a village to raise a child.
How many coaches or other parents pick up kids who have parents who can’t get to the games? Hang out with them until a late parent can get them? Even take them home for dinner?
My two younger daughters, in particular, always had other adults in their lives they felt comfortable with because of all the times they spent playing sports.
My husband as a coach had a young player thank him one day when we went out to eat, saying his coaching made a big difference in her life.
My husband even coached my nephew’s team a few years back and when he sees those parents they still remember the impact he had on their kids for one season.
We have such a wonderful community of parents who are involved in organized sports, touching thousands of lives each season. Comparing it to pick up games or playing in the street, it’s just not the same thing.
shh said:
Organized sports are good for the community. It’s a way for parents and children to meet kids and families from all areas in town, be involved and engaged, make friends. It’s not just about competition, it’s about team work, understanding a game, responsibility, statistics, etc. Older kids mentoring their younger teammates.
it’s not the same as preschoolers riding tricycles down the street.
Both have their place, but one doesn’t replace the other and even alluding to that is ridiculous, sorry Joan.
@shh I agree with you. I was questioning @tjohn's statement that children would not leave their screens and battery operated toys if access to organized sports were limited or eliminated. Nobody is advocating eliminating access to organized sports or questioning the value that participating in organized sports can have for children as they develop mentally and physically. In citing young children at play, I was hoping to show that screens and battery operated vehicles are not the sorts of activities that children would engage in without being taught to enter into this form of behavior.
My concerns with the artificial turf proposal expressed here and elsewhere are in the areas of cost (especially in a year when municipal taxes in Maplewood were raised close to six percent due to revenue lost during the pandemic and given testimony by the town administrator at a township committee meeting suggesting that we would still be paying off the bond after the artificial turf field was no longer playable); need for flexibility of land use (recognizing that not everyone in town seeks out organized sports as their preferred use of our municipal parks and recreation facilities); concern that placing artificial turf at DeHart or any other field in town will be insufficient to solve our overuse of athletic fields given present level of demand; concern that drainage and other issues impacting proper installation of the artificial turf fields will not be resolved adequately enough for the artificial turf fields to be playable for expected lifespan of the fields or that the town will maintain them as needed; environmental concerns regarding heat island, air, and water pollution concerns raised by some of those speaking in opposition to artificial turf; placing plastic on a field at a time when the town is advocating ceasing the use of disposable plastic within the township; and loss of passive recreation space at DeHart park.
I would appreciate knowing your take on these aspects of the issue. I am also interested in knowing if you and the other South Orange residents on this thread would support placing artificial turf at Waterlands or New Waterlands. Both of these green spaces are currently used primarily for organized sports and both are grass fields.
If they go with artificial turf at dehart, they would end up fencing the park’s playing field. You just can’t leave artificial turf open to the general public. People would walk their dogs in there, people would throw trash in there. It will be destroyed. You have to fence it, with a locked gate and people will have to get permission to use the turf. I honestly don’t like that idea.
I remember back in the day when the local police departments would have baseball games there during the summer months. I remember when kids used the hockey rink. It’s a different time now. With people from all over just using the park even after dusk, makes it so much more challenging to monitor.
no turf
Jaytee said:
If they go with artificial turf at dehart, they would end up fencing the park’s playing field.
DeHart's playing field is already completely fenced in, and even already has a gate with a "closed" sign on it (that they lock) when the field is too wet to play on.
And we already get permits from the Rec dept to use the field for organized sports.
Joan, thank you for clarifying. I’m actually a Maplewood resident (again) for over three years but if it was feasible to turf new waterlands or create a multi use turf field elsewhere id go along with it knowing it’s sorely needed.
Jaytee said:
If they go with artificial turf at dehart, they would end up fencing the park’s playing field. You just can’t leave artificial turf open to the general public. People would walk their dogs in there, people would throw trash in there. It will be destroyed. You have to fence it, with a locked gate and people will have to get permission to use the turf. I honestly don’t like that idea.
Artificial turf field is fully open to the public at Cadman Plaza in Brooklyn.
No fences. No gates. No locks.
Oh look, people playing frisbee and picnicking on the unfenced, unlocked, ungated turf field.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
-
'Beethoven's Wrong Note: A Steampunk Opera'
May 12, 2024 at 2:00pm
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
Ha, yes, I have seen people fly kites and sit on blankets, at least in Maplecrest Park. And I have probably seen you in the reservation - love hiking there (without earbuds!).
That was a good article you posted (I think we are in agreement? But not sure?) But it just highlights the issues here - It's hard for me to see how turfing over one field (really DeHart can be two fields depending on the sport, it's big) will fix the technical issues (especially the flooding issues Joan points out). We're not TX. We don't have practice fields, let alone enough fields to go around. We are not going to be putting sod over areas that get messed up from rain play, and then removing that sod to get ready for the next season. And while technical and political shouldn't be mixed up, the article clearly shows how both technical AND political approaches need to be used to have well maintained fields. It doesn't seem to me that our TC is really dealing with the political side of things well here - it all feels pretty rushed.