Time to say ENOUGH--VOTE NO on Artificial Turf archived
Oct 25, 2008 at 4:08pm Edited
Well as you said you posted the same thing on another thread. Here was my response:
cel, did you read the articulate and knowledgeable posts by chipnolet and others? We're talking about ONE field for G-Ds sake. One field which will help rest the other GRASS fields. One field which will increase green space based on the presented plan. Please try to keep at least half an open mind. I too am concerned about our global environment. It's not as simple as you make it seem. I don't want our ice caps to melt even if I want ONE field to help increase safety and maintain the demand for sport in our town. Sheesh.
Wendy Lauter
cel, did you read the articulate and knowledgeable posts by chipnolet and others? We're talking about ONE field for G-Ds sake. One field which will help rest the other GRASS fields. One field which will increase green space based on the presented plan. Please try to keep at least half an open mind. I too am concerned about our global environment. It's not as simple as you make it seem. I don't want our ice caps to melt even if I want ONE field to help increase safety and maintain the demand for sport in our town. Sheesh.
Wendy Lauter
Huh. For almost all the same thoughts you have, I came up with Yes to artificial turf. Everyone I know who is involved with the YES initiative is very into being green and feels it's the way to go.
Having a safe place for our children to enjoy a competetive sports program is one of the few pure and simple joys of life, in light of all the horror and dispair of the world. I hope we can at least give them this.
Having a safe place for our children to enjoy a competetive sports program is one of the few pure and simple joys of life, in light of all the horror and dispair of the world. I hope we can at least give them this.
I'm just not seeing the correlation between ONE TURF FIELD and stronger hurricanes or the melting of the ice caps.
Actually, it is a lot of artificial turf fields in the tri-state area, and across the united states. I believe China is into these fields too. And, if you look at satellite pictures that show hot spots, you may begin to understand.
Al Gore has spoken up, and he gets ridiculed too. He is over-reacting, right, and adding one, two, three more fields won't make a difference, or will it? Let's just be green when it is convenient!!!
Maybe it is like Jenga. Just keep giving up natural space, and at some point, things will topple.
Al Gore has spoken up, and he gets ridiculed too. He is over-reacting, right, and adding one, two, three more fields won't make a difference, or will it? Let's just be green when it is convenient!!!
Maybe it is like Jenga. Just keep giving up natural space, and at some point, things will topple.
Oct 25, 2008 at 3:42pm Edited
No, Al Gore is over reacting by taking clips from the day after tomorrow and putting them into his films as if thats what is actually happening. Climate change is a whole 'nother discussion, but I personally don't believe that a turf field being put down in Maplewood is going to do the world in.
Why don't we cut the politically correct BS already. Put in the damn field. The world will survive. And our kids need it.
I am opposed to the installation of artificial turf at DeHart Park. Here are some of the reasons for my personal decision which I have posted to a previous thread. Whether the reader agrees with these points or not, I hope each of you reading this will give serious thought to these and other related considerations posted by both factions in this debate.
1. I have never bought into the argument that the artificial turf field can be installed, maintained, and replaced without the expenditure of tax money beyond that which we are presently spending for upkeep of our natural turf fields. I do not see installation of artificial turf at DeHart as a pressing expenditure which needs to be made NOW. There are far more pressing needs the township is facing which will demand funding from regular and open space trust fund tax sources now and in the immediate future. Imposed limits on municipal spending will prevent our addressing all of them, even if a dire need exists.
2. The township only recently made an organizational shift which moved maintenance of our playing fields from the DPW to the Department of Recreation. For the first time that I can recall, we now have a team of dedicated workers assigned specifically to parks maintenance. I would like to give this policy change a little time to see if the quality of our fields improves as a result. I would also like to see how our present use of open space trust fund money for park improvements contributes to the condition of our natural turf fields.
3. I don't buy the argument that installing artificial turf at DeHart will reduce the stress being placed on our remaining fields to the extent that they will permitted to rest adequately as needed. Discussion on other threads has revealed that there are segments of our community who view themselves as under-served and who would jump in to fill any additional playing time which might be created by placing artificial turf at DeHart.
4. I would rather err on the side of caution from a long term health, safety and environmental perspective, especially since it appears (from posts made by those who are closely involved in this process) that we do not know for certain what type of material will actually be used for the playing surface should the field be approved and installed. It seems to me that at the very least, voters should be given an opportunity to research available information regarding the fill material prior to casting their vote.
5. I am in favor of multi-use spaces for all of our parkland. An artificial turf field would have to be limited in its use to the sports it supports and would have to be fenced, gated, and locked when not in authorized use to prevent intentional or unintentional vandalism. This would remove a significant portion of the general use parkland from a community is sorely lacking in public green spaces (apart from the reserve).
6. I do not think that (contrary to the prevalent interpretation of the wording defining the use of our open space trust fund) it was the intent of most voters and supporters that the open space trust fund be used to cover a significant portion of our remaining green space in carpeting which could contain materials harmful to our health and our environment in the long or short term. The expressed need for recreation space is just not great enough for us to take this chance.
7. I don't think that our need for increased recreation and exercise opportunity necessarily leads to the proliferation of organized sports teams favoring the more athletic members of our population. We are still a community of backyards and bike-able streets. We need to broaden our approach to recreational activities to meet the needs of a broader segment of our population rather than place our emphasis on turning all available open space into ball fields. Placing artificial turf at DeHart would negate that aim.
Vote NO or YES but please vote.
1. I have never bought into the argument that the artificial turf field can be installed, maintained, and replaced without the expenditure of tax money beyond that which we are presently spending for upkeep of our natural turf fields. I do not see installation of artificial turf at DeHart as a pressing expenditure which needs to be made NOW. There are far more pressing needs the township is facing which will demand funding from regular and open space trust fund tax sources now and in the immediate future. Imposed limits on municipal spending will prevent our addressing all of them, even if a dire need exists.
2. The township only recently made an organizational shift which moved maintenance of our playing fields from the DPW to the Department of Recreation. For the first time that I can recall, we now have a team of dedicated workers assigned specifically to parks maintenance. I would like to give this policy change a little time to see if the quality of our fields improves as a result. I would also like to see how our present use of open space trust fund money for park improvements contributes to the condition of our natural turf fields.
3. I don't buy the argument that installing artificial turf at DeHart will reduce the stress being placed on our remaining fields to the extent that they will permitted to rest adequately as needed. Discussion on other threads has revealed that there are segments of our community who view themselves as under-served and who would jump in to fill any additional playing time which might be created by placing artificial turf at DeHart.
4. I would rather err on the side of caution from a long term health, safety and environmental perspective, especially since it appears (from posts made by those who are closely involved in this process) that we do not know for certain what type of material will actually be used for the playing surface should the field be approved and installed. It seems to me that at the very least, voters should be given an opportunity to research available information regarding the fill material prior to casting their vote.
5. I am in favor of multi-use spaces for all of our parkland. An artificial turf field would have to be limited in its use to the sports it supports and would have to be fenced, gated, and locked when not in authorized use to prevent intentional or unintentional vandalism. This would remove a significant portion of the general use parkland from a community is sorely lacking in public green spaces (apart from the reserve).
6. I do not think that (contrary to the prevalent interpretation of the wording defining the use of our open space trust fund) it was the intent of most voters and supporters that the open space trust fund be used to cover a significant portion of our remaining green space in carpeting which could contain materials harmful to our health and our environment in the long or short term. The expressed need for recreation space is just not great enough for us to take this chance.
7. I don't think that our need for increased recreation and exercise opportunity necessarily leads to the proliferation of organized sports teams favoring the more athletic members of our population. We are still a community of backyards and bike-able streets. We need to broaden our approach to recreational activities to meet the needs of a broader segment of our population rather than place our emphasis on turning all available open space into ball fields. Placing artificial turf at DeHart would negate that aim.
Vote NO or YES but please vote.
Thread 16 on turf!
This is totally crazy.
As the saying goes: a pox on both your houses!
This is totally crazy.
As the saying goes: a pox on both your houses!
Yes, this is a topic a lot of people feel strongly about. Funny, it makes me glad to live here, knowing that people care enough to participate in the debate. As Joan stated, continue to pay attention, and vote!
Thank you, Joan. I didn't have a strong opinion, but now I will vote no.
Oct 26, 2008 at 9:34pm Edited
There is not a greater gift we can give our youth than an opportunity to play ball on a first rate surface. It's what this town lacks and there's no justifiable reason why a bunch of dopes continue to get in the way.
Posted By: Tom ReingoldThank you, Joan. I didn't have a strong opinion, but now I will vote no.
Tom, before you cast your "no" vote I suggest you do a search on all of Chip Nolet's comments. He addresses point by point each one of Joan's points above. His points, along with what I learned from reading others' comments, particularly Hank Zona's, have convinced me to vote "Yes."
Straw, you said "There is not a greater gift we can give our youth than an opportunity to play ball on a first rate surface."
I strongly disagree. First, a loving supporting family. Second, access to a great education. Third, the encouragement to be physically fit by many kinds of activity: running, biking, hiking, swimming and yes, sports that involve a ball. But, anything involving a ball is not the center of my priorities, nor everyone in the community.
As I read these threads I become increasingly distressed. Our middle-schoolers seem like a lost generation as far as organized physical activities, both in school and after-school. There seems to be no coordination between the sponsors of organized youth sports: the two towns have recreation programs, there are high school teams and then there are other 'leagues' that cater to team sports. Then there are some random adult teams which may or may not be from the communities. The only pick-up sports I see are on the basketball courts and, perhaps, the u-frisbe players. As a community we seem to be focussed on this one issue--an expensive one that is likely to consume the balance of the taxes we already have paid for 'open fields' and divert future tax dollars from maintenance of the other ourdoor facilities in the town.
I love sports and regret that when I was growing up my community did not have sports programs anywhere near as wonderful as those available to our children. Yet, I do have a strong feeling that my schools provided a more comprehensive PE program than is common is schools today. I don't get how artificial turf helps encourage the two young girls next door expand their physical activities. I do understand how the middle schooler accross the street who worships all sports involving balls may have an expanded opportunity to play on a good field. What % of our kids will really benefit from this field--10%, 50%?
I strongly disagree. First, a loving supporting family. Second, access to a great education. Third, the encouragement to be physically fit by many kinds of activity: running, biking, hiking, swimming and yes, sports that involve a ball. But, anything involving a ball is not the center of my priorities, nor everyone in the community.
As I read these threads I become increasingly distressed. Our middle-schoolers seem like a lost generation as far as organized physical activities, both in school and after-school. There seems to be no coordination between the sponsors of organized youth sports: the two towns have recreation programs, there are high school teams and then there are other 'leagues' that cater to team sports. Then there are some random adult teams which may or may not be from the communities. The only pick-up sports I see are on the basketball courts and, perhaps, the u-frisbe players. As a community we seem to be focussed on this one issue--an expensive one that is likely to consume the balance of the taxes we already have paid for 'open fields' and divert future tax dollars from maintenance of the other ourdoor facilities in the town.
I love sports and regret that when I was growing up my community did not have sports programs anywhere near as wonderful as those available to our children. Yet, I do have a strong feeling that my schools provided a more comprehensive PE program than is common is schools today. I don't get how artificial turf helps encourage the two young girls next door expand their physical activities. I do understand how the middle schooler accross the street who worships all sports involving balls may have an expanded opportunity to play on a good field. What % of our kids will really benefit from this field--10%, 50%?
"Some folks think that opposing the new artificial turf field means opposing organized sports. Maybe there's some truth to that; but maybe that not a bad thing in the long run..."
Cel, it sounds like you were never involved in organized sports. There are huge benefits to sports. While I am opposed to a "jock" mentality, I did swim, play tennis & soccer for many years at a pretty decent level in NJ, including the Varisty level at Rutgers. There is no way you can argue against sports, health, or fitness being bad things. Heck, libraries cost money, use air conditioning, use paper, consume heat, you can make an argument that we should close the libraries to save energy, paper, taxes, and money, too.
Have you every played sports on a turf field? I actually preferred soccer on a turf field, since in South Jersey where I grew up most of the schools had poor quality grass/dirt fields. Of course, the most wealthy school districts has "gold course" quality grass fields, which was like playing on the grass at Yankee Stadium, but those grass fields are insanely expensive to maintain that level of quality, drainage, etc.
Cel, it sounds like you were never involved in organized sports. There are huge benefits to sports. While I am opposed to a "jock" mentality, I did swim, play tennis & soccer for many years at a pretty decent level in NJ, including the Varisty level at Rutgers. There is no way you can argue against sports, health, or fitness being bad things. Heck, libraries cost money, use air conditioning, use paper, consume heat, you can make an argument that we should close the libraries to save energy, paper, taxes, and money, too.
Have you every played sports on a turf field? I actually preferred soccer on a turf field, since in South Jersey where I grew up most of the schools had poor quality grass/dirt fields. Of course, the most wealthy school districts has "gold course" quality grass fields, which was like playing on the grass at Yankee Stadium, but those grass fields are insanely expensive to maintain that level of quality, drainage, etc.
krnl:
I just want to make a couple of comments on what you've said:
1) Part of the reason it's so impossible to keep the fields in good shape is because a tremendous number of kids use them. I can't give you a percentage, but it's a lot, and I'm sure it's more than 10%. The creation of turf fields at Underhill and DeHart will benefit the grass fields in our community because the grass fields will get a bit more rest. We can "overuse" the turf fields to the benefit of grass elsewhere.
2) I don't know why you think there is no coordination between programs. There is a lot of movement toward combining the rec programs of M/SO into one, and a lot of the programs have already been combined. The vast majority of school-associated teams play their games on school fields (Ritzer, Underhill, etc.) Underhill Field was just renovated for this purpose, and other plans for slowly upgrading school fields are progressing.
3) I see pick up soccer, football, and baseball quite frequently. Maybe because I live very near an active field I'm more aware of it, but I also see pick up games played frequently at Maplecrest Park, Flood's Hill, and elsewhere.
I just want to make a couple of comments on what you've said:
1) Part of the reason it's so impossible to keep the fields in good shape is because a tremendous number of kids use them. I can't give you a percentage, but it's a lot, and I'm sure it's more than 10%. The creation of turf fields at Underhill and DeHart will benefit the grass fields in our community because the grass fields will get a bit more rest. We can "overuse" the turf fields to the benefit of grass elsewhere.
2) I don't know why you think there is no coordination between programs. There is a lot of movement toward combining the rec programs of M/SO into one, and a lot of the programs have already been combined. The vast majority of school-associated teams play their games on school fields (Ritzer, Underhill, etc.) Underhill Field was just renovated for this purpose, and other plans for slowly upgrading school fields are progressing.
3) I see pick up soccer, football, and baseball quite frequently. Maybe because I live very near an active field I'm more aware of it, but I also see pick up games played frequently at Maplecrest Park, Flood's Hill, and elsewhere.
mjh,
I got carried away from the middle-schoolers on my coordination between programs comments. Joan Crystal has mentioned this in a different way too. Among the reasons that there were so many middle-schoolers hanging around the library last year was that there seemed to be few after school options--including sports. I've heard that there is basket ball after school and it is very popular. But, what about other physical activities for the kids? I don't hear about it. When I was middle school age we had after school activities sponsored by the park district..some indoors, others outdoors in the spring and fall. And, it was for regular kids, not just those that were jocks. I'm no longer commuting and am sometimes around the area during school and the after school hours. I don't see the fields being used during the day or after school. How much rest do they really need if they are properly maintained?
I got carried away from the middle-schoolers on my coordination between programs comments. Joan Crystal has mentioned this in a different way too. Among the reasons that there were so many middle-schoolers hanging around the library last year was that there seemed to be few after school options--including sports. I've heard that there is basket ball after school and it is very popular. But, what about other physical activities for the kids? I don't hear about it. When I was middle school age we had after school activities sponsored by the park district..some indoors, others outdoors in the spring and fall. And, it was for regular kids, not just those that were jocks. I'm no longer commuting and am sometimes around the area during school and the after school hours. I don't see the fields being used during the day or after school. How much rest do they really need if they are properly maintained?
Thank you, Joan Crystal.
I have long been involved in and a supporter of organized youth sports. I have been wavering back and forth between doing everything possible to support youth sports at any cost, and being realistic about the true financial costs of the project.
The DeHart project just doesn't make financial sense.
Joan Crystal has now given me a long list of additional reasons to consider and I now cannot support the DeHart Bond.
I'm voting "No"
I have long been involved in and a supporter of organized youth sports. I have been wavering back and forth between doing everything possible to support youth sports at any cost, and being realistic about the true financial costs of the project.
The DeHart project just doesn't make financial sense.
Joan Crystal has now given me a long list of additional reasons to consider and I now cannot support the DeHart Bond.
I'm voting "No"
krnl,
What fields are you referring to? If you mean Memorial, it is used every day after school by field hockey and ultimate frisbee in the fall and lacrosse, ultimate frisbee, baseball and softball in the spring. It is used during the school day for PE.
In fact, 80% of the school district's outdoor programming (PE and team athletics) takes place on town property (Maplewood and South Orange). Virtually every field in Maplewood and South Orange is used from 3-6pm by the school district. Rec activities (town and club) are shoe horned into whatever space is left over or they must wait until after 6pm when the school activities are finished. After 6, the only fields available are those with lights. One of Dehart's sport lighting towers caught fire a week ago during a youth soccer practice. A very dangerous situation as the potential for the tower to be energized was very real. The system is over 25 years old and needs to be replaced as recommended by the engineering firm hired by the township.
The replacement cost for that system alone is ~$400,000 of the project cost.
What fields are you referring to? If you mean Memorial, it is used every day after school by field hockey and ultimate frisbee in the fall and lacrosse, ultimate frisbee, baseball and softball in the spring. It is used during the school day for PE.
In fact, 80% of the school district's outdoor programming (PE and team athletics) takes place on town property (Maplewood and South Orange). Virtually every field in Maplewood and South Orange is used from 3-6pm by the school district. Rec activities (town and club) are shoe horned into whatever space is left over or they must wait until after 6pm when the school activities are finished. After 6, the only fields available are those with lights. One of Dehart's sport lighting towers caught fire a week ago during a youth soccer practice. A very dangerous situation as the potential for the tower to be energized was very real. The system is over 25 years old and needs to be replaced as recommended by the engineering firm hired by the township.
The replacement cost for that system alone is ~$400,000 of the project cost.
Vote No so our kids can continue to play in the mud, if at all.
Vote No so our property taxes will continue to increase 4% - 7% per year with no end in sight, and no improvement in services, either.
Vote No so that greenhouse gases will double and the hole in the ozone layer will triple and all kinds of other bad stuff will or will not happen.
Did that make any sense? Good.
Vote No so our property taxes will continue to increase 4% - 7% per year with no end in sight, and no improvement in services, either.
Vote No so that greenhouse gases will double and the hole in the ozone layer will triple and all kinds of other bad stuff will or will not happen.
Did that make any sense? Good.
I'm sorry, I do mean Memorial and I just don't see it's use during the day. Today when I went by it there was one woman with a buggy on the field facing the town hall and no one on the side with the more manicured baseball fields. Every once in awhile I see kids crossing from the Middle School to the fields during the school day, but it does not seem like they are used on a daily basis by the school. Yes, there does seem to be more activity in the 3-6 pm hours in the spring but most of the kids look older than Middle school. I haven't been past the fields in the late afternoon much this fall, but even so, I don't have the impression that they are buzzing with action.
I am sick over the lack maintenance at so much of the township's infrastructure, but that doesn't convince me that we should vote yes on this particular project.
I am sick over the lack maintenance at so much of the township's infrastructure, but that doesn't convince me that we should vote yes on this particular project.
Posted By: wendyTom, before you cast your "no" vote I suggest you do a search on all of Chip Nolet's comments. He addresses point by point each one of Joan's points above. His points, along with what I learned from reading others' comments, particularly Hank Zona's, have convinced me to vote "Yes."
OK, wendy, I'll read what I can, and I will consider it carefully.
However, the number of threads and posts is overwhelming to me. It's not a topic that holds a lot of interest for me, so the volume of the controversy is daunting. It's not easy for someone like me to make an informed decision when the passion isn't there. I've read Joan's comments, and now I'll go look for Chip's comments. I will not read everything, however. I trust you'll understand that.
i continue to be amazed that we are going through the largest economic recession since the great depression and citizens of maplewood are actually debating whether to put artificial turf in at our playgrounds. are you people serious?!?!? this is a great example of excess.
i also find it laughable that kids NEED artificial turf now. i wonder how i (and most of you) got along during my childhood with grass and dirt fields. to listen to some of you, we should get rid of grass altogether and live in an artificial turf world. amazing...
i also find it laughable that kids NEED artificial turf now. i wonder how i (and most of you) got along during my childhood with grass and dirt fields. to listen to some of you, we should get rid of grass altogether and live in an artificial turf world. amazing...
i'm in the same boat as tom. i really don't care for myself. i could care for my neighbors' children or i could care for the environment. what should i care about?
Oldstone:
You should care about yourself and your own priorities since there is no single right answer for everyone affected by this debate. You should look at the comapative costs of artificial turf vs no artificial turf at DeHart in terms of quality of living for yourself and all your neighbors; financial cost in terms of where you want your tax dollars (including open space trust fund dollars) going; and the health, safety, and environmental cost in terms of the effect the ground cover of your choice will have on our environment and on the health and safety of those using the field and those living closest to it and then vote accordingly.
Vote YES or NO but please vote on this issue on election day.
You should care about yourself and your own priorities since there is no single right answer for everyone affected by this debate. You should look at the comapative costs of artificial turf vs no artificial turf at DeHart in terms of quality of living for yourself and all your neighbors; financial cost in terms of where you want your tax dollars (including open space trust fund dollars) going; and the health, safety, and environmental cost in terms of the effect the ground cover of your choice will have on our environment and on the health and safety of those using the field and those living closest to it and then vote accordingly.
Vote YES or NO but please vote on this issue on election day.
krnl,
Memorial is used on average for around 400 hours in the fall and 600 hours in the spring.
Memorial is used on average for around 400 hours in the fall and 600 hours in the spring.
bdk23,
Im not sure about your age, but in my youth, a long time ago, there werent as many sports being played, land was a bit more available, sports were not multi-season, and girls were playing organized sports on a very limited basis. Fields were not burdened as much as they are now. Here is another big difference too...I dont think our society was as litigious when I was a kid as it is now...I think that factor is one to consider with liability seeming to be a major factor considered in many decisions.
As for the economy, there is no denying it is a peculiar and scary time. This project has been in the works for five years now. Grants were awarded well prior to today...monies accounted for prior to today. Should we give back the grants, which other towns will be happy to take if theyre next in line? Should we repeal the Open Space Trust Fund? Should we not try to get other public grants and awards for this and other projects moving forward? Im very aware of the economy..it is impacting my household directly as it is impacting many households. The improvement of the fields and facilities though, as one person pointed out somewhere, will cost a lot more down the road. I suspect that the economy more than any other argument may turn this vote...I cant fault people for feeling anxious about the economy..I certainly do...but I also think the needs here are improvements, not luxuries.
Im not sure about your age, but in my youth, a long time ago, there werent as many sports being played, land was a bit more available, sports were not multi-season, and girls were playing organized sports on a very limited basis. Fields were not burdened as much as they are now. Here is another big difference too...I dont think our society was as litigious when I was a kid as it is now...I think that factor is one to consider with liability seeming to be a major factor considered in many decisions.
As for the economy, there is no denying it is a peculiar and scary time. This project has been in the works for five years now. Grants were awarded well prior to today...monies accounted for prior to today. Should we give back the grants, which other towns will be happy to take if theyre next in line? Should we repeal the Open Space Trust Fund? Should we not try to get other public grants and awards for this and other projects moving forward? Im very aware of the economy..it is impacting my household directly as it is impacting many households. The improvement of the fields and facilities though, as one person pointed out somewhere, will cost a lot more down the road. I suspect that the economy more than any other argument may turn this vote...I cant fault people for feeling anxious about the economy..I certainly do...but I also think the needs here are improvements, not luxuries.
i wonder how i (and most of you) got along during my childhood with grass and dirt fields. to listen to some of you, we should get rid of grass altogether and live in an artificial turf world. amazing...
...and why have lights for the kids to play at night? Heck, why have fiberglass backboards in our school gyms, when we can just hang peach baskets on utility poles? Let's go back to wooden tennis rackets. Things change, things advance. I imagine a good look around your home and your town will find countless advances from that which you had growing up, and I don't mean luxuries. Advances that require less maintenance. We drive dentproof, no-rust cars. Roof and deck materials made to endure more weathering and last longer. Just as hankzona said, I don't know how old you are or from what time period your childhood was (I'm a child of the 70's, born in '64), but there has to be some happy medium between the unnecessary excess and the "back in my day" approaches. Isn't converting ONE field a happy medium? No one's trying to convert to an all artificial turf world. Borden would remain unchanged. Memorial unchanged. Chyzowych unchanged. Orchard unchanged. Ritzer unchanged. Maplecrest unchanged. Personally, having been in enough other towns with at least one turf field, I favor voting "yes" mostly because I feel that our kids and future kids in the community deserve ONE such field. That's just me.
Of course there are benefits to organized sports, urbaneric--I never said there were not! As I mentioned earlier, my oldest son plays organized soccer. And FWIW, Train of Thought, our kids already have one artificial turf field at Underhill.
I am not arguing against the value of sports, health, or fitness. There are many ways to be involved in sports, stay healthy and fit without playing in organized sports, though. And under the current environmental and economic conditions we are facing, some tough questions need to be asked and some hard decisions need to be make.
I am arguing that the negative impact this project will have on our environment as well as our property tax rates is way too high. Indeed libraries cost money, use air conditioning, paper, heat etc. And Maplewood has had to make some very difficult choices in the last few years about the times and days our local libraries are open, among other things. That's just life. These are HARD choices that have to be made in hard economic times.
And since voters have a choice in this situation, I strongly feel that the costs clearly outweigh the benefits when it comes to installing an artificial turf field in DeHart Park.
Finally, if Joan Crystal -- a longstanding active member of our community who serves on the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee -- posts that she doesn't buy into the argument that the artificial turf field can be installed, maintained, and replaced without the expenditure of tax money beyond that which we are presently spending for -- I'm inclined to believe her over the turf supporters.
This project is just so very flawed on so many levels, folks.
I am not arguing against the value of sports, health, or fitness. There are many ways to be involved in sports, stay healthy and fit without playing in organized sports, though. And under the current environmental and economic conditions we are facing, some tough questions need to be asked and some hard decisions need to be make.
I am arguing that the negative impact this project will have on our environment as well as our property tax rates is way too high. Indeed libraries cost money, use air conditioning, paper, heat etc. And Maplewood has had to make some very difficult choices in the last few years about the times and days our local libraries are open, among other things. That's just life. These are HARD choices that have to be made in hard economic times.
And since voters have a choice in this situation, I strongly feel that the costs clearly outweigh the benefits when it comes to installing an artificial turf field in DeHart Park.
Finally, if Joan Crystal -- a longstanding active member of our community who serves on the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee -- posts that she doesn't buy into the argument that the artificial turf field can be installed, maintained, and replaced without the expenditure of tax money beyond that which we are presently spending for -- I'm inclined to believe her over the turf supporters.
This project is just so very flawed on so many levels, folks.
You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
(Classic Painting and Materials) Fair Prices. Spring and Summer Specials
Apr 25, 2024 at 5:14pm
-
Apr 25, 2024 at 8:08am
-
Apr 24, 2024 at 1:13pm
-
****Laundry + Bedrooms Organization : closets,drawers,shelves
Apr 24, 2024 at 8:04am
Help Wanted
-
Apr 25, 2024 at 6:15pm
-
PF504 FT Companion/FA for 16 Year Old (ASAP Start)
Apr 25, 2024 at 4:05pm
-
Apr 25, 2024 at 12:24pm
-
Part-time long term Nanny for toddler boy in Basking Ridge
Apr 24, 2024 at 7:49pm
-
PF802 FT M-Th Nanny for 2 (ASAP Start)
Apr 24, 2024 at 1:21pm
-
Photo Booth Attendant- Great for high school senior, college student, profeessional
Apr 24, 2024 at 5:55am
Lessons/Instruction
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
Advertisement
I posted the gist of this on another thread, but forgive me if I feel it's important enough to bear repeating here. Some folks think that opposing the new artificial turf field means opposing organized sports. Maybe there's some truth to that; but maybe that not a bad thing in the long run...
If supporting organized sports means hurting the environment --- either by laying down artificial turf, or overusing water and pesticides to maintain grass fields --- maybe we should be having a discussion about whether organized sports at this level are worth the effect they are having and will continue to have on our planet.
I have two children--one who plays soccer and one who I hope will be athletic when he gets older, but there are many ways to be athletic and stay healthy and play sports without spending millions of dollars and/or contributing to global warming to do so.
At the end of the day, everything we do on this earth adds up. You may think this is such a small area of land that it doesn't matter--but it does matter. Everybody who thinks that small actions like this don't really matter contributes to the destruction of our natural ecosystems.
Look at what's going on in the world--the polar ice caps are melting; we're seeing devistating hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico destroy entire American towns and cities; massive droughts in Africa killing hundreds of thousands of people...I could go on and on.
It's time to stand up to this kind of thinking and make some HARD choices in our towns and communities. At the end of the day, I'd rather my sons to actually have a planet to raise their children on than have a new artificial field to play soccer or football on for a few years. It's time to really start thinking globally and acting locally.
It's just time to say ENOUGH!!!
VOTE NO on Nov. 4