The Turf War Returns

Jaytee said:

 Btw… seniors are the biggest voting block. Carry on.

I'm not sure what your point is about seniors. I support increased funding for senior programs in town even though I don't benefit from them directly. 

chalmers said:

I'm not sure what your point is about seniors. I support increased funding for senior programs in town even though I don't benefit from them directly. 

 I support senior programs too. But fwiw, seniors aren't a huge voting block in Maplewood. People over age 65 make up 11% of the population. The township's median age is 39.6. 

And also fwiw, 43% of households have a child under age 18. 

ml1 said:

 "delete your account" doesn't literally mean to delete your account. It means stop trolling us with idiotic nonsense.

 So, the statements on the flyer circulating around town are untrue? The flyer says we are about to take on a $1.8 Million dollar tax obligation.  Is that not true???

Seniors are considered to be a major voting block nationally because they vote in elections in proportionately larger numbers than other age groups.  That written, I do not see seniors voting as a block on this referendum.  

At the Township Committee meeting on Tuesday, the Mayor said that a turf field could be used for other events, in addition to sporting events.  He specifically mentioned music events such as a Rent Party, MAPSO Funk Fest, and the Porchfest.

Link To Mayor's Comments at TC Meeting - YouTube

Would an artificial turf field be utilized for large-scale events like that? It seems, at least to me, that any such fields usually have restrictions on access.

nohero said:

At the Township Committee meeting on Tuesday, the Mayor said that a turf field could be used for other events, in addition to sporting events.  He specifically mentioned music events such as a Rent Party, MAPSO Funk Fest, and the Porchfest.

Link To Mayor's Comments at TC Meeting - YouTube

Would an artificial turf field be utilized for large-scale events like that? It seems, at least to me, that any such fields usually have restrictions on access.

 some of these are events people bring dogs to. which would require more than picking up - the turf would, I think, needm rinsing and some disinfecting.woiukldtown want to alllow that?

Rinsing and disinfecting turf fields is also known as rain and sun.  Kind of like disinfecting grass fields.

tjohn said:

Rinsing and disinfecting turf fields is also known as rain and sun.  Kind of like disinfecting grass fields.

Except grass fields have that absorbent dirt thing going on from underneath, too.

joan_crystal said:

Seniors are considered to be a major voting block nationally because they vote in elections in proportionately larger numbers than other age groups.  That written, I do not see seniors voting as a block on this referendum.  

we don't have exit polls for just Maplewood, so there's no way to know if any group votes disproportionately.  But given the exceptionally high voter turnout in Maplewood overall, year after year, I don't think it's likely that any one group is overrepresented by any substantial amount.  If I was betting my own money I wouldn't bet seniors are substantially overrepresented compared to the 35-64 year old age group for instance.

and of course the group that is among the most likely to use our athletic facilities doesn't get a vote in this referendum - people under 18.

RichEW said:

 some of these are events people bring dogs to. which would require more than picking up - the turf would, I think, needm rinsing and some disinfecting.woiukldtown want to alllow that?

 Leaving aside the dog poop issue - I was asking about the level of public access to and public use of a dedicated artificial turf field, for non-sports related activities.

ml1 said:

and of course the group that is among the most likely to use our athletic facilities doesn't get a vote in this referendum - people under 18.

Well, they also don't vote in Board of Education elections.  However, their parents do.

DaveSchmidt said:

Except grass fields have that absorbent dirt thing going on from underneath, too.

 except rain and sun isn't considered sufficient for artificial turf. 

ml1 said:

I don't dispute any of this. And I respect your position.

But -- all of those substances are being used and consumed by almost all of us all the time, every day.  We consume mountains and mountains of plastic. We drink from it. We wear it.  We sit on it.  We walk on it. 

that's where I diverge from your position (respectfully).  I include myself in this -- have we banished plastic from our homes?  Have we torn out the carpets?  Do we still commute alone on the highway in a large SUV? Do we still travel on airplanes?  Are we replacing the carbon sequestering grass in our yards with an addition on our homes?

If anyone is doing those things (and I'm guilty of a few), why do we draw the line at an athletic field?  To me, if I'm not willing, and other people aren't willing to make personal sacrifices for the environment, why should I demand that other people make the sacrifice?

It's easy to feel good about being "progressive" and environmentally conscious if one only asks other people to make the sacrifices.

 I understand what you are saying, and, in turn, respect your comments.  I think, though, it misses the huge scale of the material we are using in these fields. Not doing something because we are not doing everything doesn't make sense to me.

RichEW said:

ml1 said:

I don't dispute any of this. And I respect your position.

But -- all of those substances are being used and consumed by almost all of us all the time, every day.  We consume mountains and mountains of plastic. We drink from it. We wear it.  We sit on it.  We walk on it. 

that's where I diverge from your position (respectfully).  I include myself in this -- have we banished plastic from our homes?  Have we torn out the carpets?  Do we still commute alone on the highway in a large SUV? Do we still travel on airplanes?  Are we replacing the carbon sequestering grass in our yards with an addition on our homes?

If anyone is doing those things (and I'm guilty of a few), why do we draw the line at an athletic field?  To me, if I'm not willing, and other people aren't willing to make personal sacrifices for the environment, why should I demand that other people make the sacrifice?

It's easy to feel good about being "progressive" and environmentally conscious if one only asks other people to make the sacrifices.

 I understand what you are saying, and, in turn, respect your comments.  I think, though, it misses the huge scale of the material we are using in these fields. Not doing something because we are not doing everything doesn't make sense to me.

 it's not that we aren't doing everything, a lot of people aren't doing anything for the environment.  Except asking the athletes to be the ones to do something.

ml1 said:

 it's not that we aren't doing everything, a lot of people aren't doing anything for the environment.  Except asking the athletes to be the ones to do something.

 So if I can find 10 people with solar panels and Electric Vehicles we're ok?

RichEW said:

 So if I can find 10 people with solar panels and Electric Vehicles we're ok?

 I'd bet that if the only people who voted "No" on the field referendum were those who were making any personal sacrifices for the environment, it would be a shoo-in to pass.

Many Maplewoodians today received a postcard mailer urging a vote of "Yes" for field improvements.

It can and should be duly noted that the mailer somehow casually neglects to mention either the $1.8 million cost of the artificial turf or to even use the words "artificial turf" -just, ya know, good ol "turf". 

Nor does it mention the intended DeHart Park. -Just "A usable field". A magical field of dreams.

The word "obfuscate" comes to mind.

Apparently those advocating for this so-termed "environmentally friendly" (wow) product would understandably prefer for folks to buy something without mentioning exactly what it is, where it is going or how much it costs. No need to confuse folks with pesky controversial details.

Boy, I tell ya that Trucoat!

ml1 said:

 I'd bet that if the only people who voted "No" on the field referendum were those who were making any personal sacrifices for the environment, it would be a shoo-in to pass.

 Their are many folks who live in Hilton & Lightning Brook who feel that they will be making significant sacrifices if the bond wins.

steel said:

Many Maplewoodians today received a postcard mailer urging a vote of "Yes" for field improvements.

It can and should be duly noted that the mailer somehow casually neglects to mention either the $1.8 million cost of the artificial turf or to even use the words "artificial turf" -just, ya know, good ol "turf". 

 Yeah - I always thought grass was turf.  Also, it's connecting with "Made from recycled materials" as being environmentally friendly.  That's a bit of a stretch.

I also got a flier form the "Don't turf" people.  Their argument is Green Space vs plastic turf, tax dollars and health.

I think it's going to be a very close vote.

jamie said:

I also got a flier form the "Don't turf" people.  Their argument is Green Space vs plastic turf, tax dollars and health.

I think it's going to be a very close vote.

My sense is that the "we need usable athletic fields for our children" and "this thing is an environmental and neighborhood menace" groups are about even and the referendum will fail because of the "I'm not paying for something I won't use" crowd. 

ml1 said:

RichEW said:

 So if I can find 10 people with solar panels and Electric Vehicles we're ok?

 I'd bet that if the only people who voted "No" on the field referendum were those who were making any personal sacrifices for the environment, it would be a shoo-in to pass.

"Sure! I'll put this 'No Turf' lawn sign right next to the one reading 'This property is protected against mosquitoes by Ultrachem.' It's a great service I got after I was bitten the other evening, especially because we've been spending more time outside while doubling the size of our house." 

chalmers said:

jamie said:

I also got a flier form the "Don't turf" people.  Their argument is Green Space vs plastic turf, tax dollars and health.

I think it's going to be a very close vote.

My sense is that the "we need usable athletic fields for our children" and "this thing is an environmental and neighborhood menace" groups are about even and the referendum will fail because of the "I'm not paying for something I won't use" crowd. 

Interestingly enough, one of two arguments against artificial turf that has any merit is that it doesn't represent the best way for the town to spend money.  On this point, you can agree or disagree.  It isn't a point of view based on irrefutable facts.

The other argument that has some merit is the one of disproportionate impact on the surrounding neighborhood.  For various reasons, I get the impression that if the T.C. had spent more time working with the Hilton residents, this argument would have been defused.

Another person took me to task for environmental racism, but I don't really buy this given that the Hilton neighborhood, unlike a lot of densely built urban neighborhoods, actually has shade trees.  So it isn't like the last oasis of green for miles around is being removed.

Something I was wondering about is participation in our towns youth sports programs.  Is participation balanced or is it skewed based on demographic factors.

tjohn said:

Something I was wondering about is participation in our towns youth sports programs.  Is participation balanced or is it skewed based on demographic factors.

I know a few people on both sides of the turf question have brought up issues of recreational equity and assessing the appropriate role of youth sports in our towns. Cougar Soccer, and I assume other sports organizations, do offer assistance so that no child is denied because they can't pay the registration fee.

Is that enough? Having been around youth soccer for a while, including coaching great kids who benefited from financial assistance, I don't believe so. Access to organized sports is about more than the registration fee. It's about being able to get rides to and from practice, paying for the equipment and other extras, even just hearing about opportunities to play if your parents aren't part of a social group where other families are involved in youth sports.

Your point about the cost is a good one. I respect the people who say they think that money could be used better elsewhere. However, I think there is the potential for a substantial community benefit. IMO, the best thing to do would be to leverage the DeHart field improvement as the focal point in planned, intentional effort to broaden youth sports participation. In other words, now that we have a field kids can actually play on, let's get more of them playing on it and make a true effort to get kids playing on it who might not have done so before. 

chalmers said:

"Sure! I'll put this 'No Turf' lawn sign right next to the one reading 'This property is protected against mosquitoes by Ultrachem.' It's a great service I got after I was bitten the other evening, especially because we've been spending more time outside while doubling the size of our house."

Hey, get off my lawn.

If only the anti-turf folks could live hypocrisy-free lives like the pro-turf folks, what a world this would be.

DaveSchmidt said:

chalmers said:

"Sure! I'll put this 'No Turf' lawn sign right next to the one reading 'This property is protected against mosquitoes by Ultrachem.' It's a great service I got after I was bitten the other evening, especially because we've been spending more time outside while doubling the size of our house."

Hey, get off my lawn.

If only the anti-turf folks could live hypocrisy-free lives like the pro-turf folks, what a world this would be.

I'm not going into their house demanding that they stop the mosquito treatment and halt construction on that giant third-floor play area for their kids. 

Our research has shown that people don't like either the name "artificial turf" or the price tag so we've put out a whole campaign for it that doesn't mention either! It's genius!

chalmers said:

My sense is that the "we need usable athletic fields for our children" and "this thing is an environmental and neighborhood menace" groups are about even and the referendum will fail because of the "I'm not paying for something I won't use" crowd. 

I think it's an unknown with respect to how much anyone may know, or try to learn, about the referendum if they're not already in one of the first two groups.  Referenda often are skipped by many voters.

nohero said:

chalmers said:

My sense is that the "we need usable athletic fields for our children" and "this thing is an environmental and neighborhood menace" groups are about even and the referendum will fail because of the "I'm not paying for something I won't use" crowd. 

I think it's an unknown with respect to how much anyone may know, or try to learn, about the referendum if they're not already in one of the first two groups.  Referenda often are skipped by many voters.

 This is true. Last time around, I think more than 3,000 did. 

chalmers said:

nohero said:

chalmers said:

My sense is that the "we need usable athletic fields for our children" and "this thing is an environmental and neighborhood menace" groups are about even and the referendum will fail because of the "I'm not paying for something I won't use" crowd. 

I think it's an unknown with respect to how much anyone may know, or try to learn, about the referendum if they're not already in one of the first two groups.  Referenda often are skipped by many voters.

 This is true. Last time around, I think more than 3,000 did. 

 this is true.  I posted the vote tallies in this thread.  Nearly as many people didn't cast a vote on the referendum as cast a vote to reject it.