Time to say ENOUGH--VOTE NO on Artificial Turf archived
Posted By: wendyWe're talking about ONE field for G-Ds sake.
But it's not really one field, since Maplewood already installed a turf field at Underhill this year. Imagine if every town in the US did the same - simply replaced one or two grass fields with turf in the next few years? I think that could have a fairly significant impact to the environment. I know it's so easy to say it's just one field or other towns are doing it so why should we miss out, but unfortunately the cumulative impact of these smaller actions really does become very large.
wendy, I took a look at the big thread on this topic. I read some of chipnolet's comments. They are well written and well reasoned. They are pretty convincing, but so are arguments on the anti- side.
I will consider both sides carefully. Thank you for offering balance. I respect Joan and her arguments a great deal, as always, and Chip weighs in well, too.
I will consider both sides carefully. Thank you for offering balance. I respect Joan and her arguments a great deal, as always, and Chip weighs in well, too.
Perhaps if all the citizens who claim environmental concern as their primary reason for voting "no" allowed their yards to return to their original, natural state (ie, no grass, no watering, no fertilizer, no pesticides), then that would more than offset the environmental impact of a 100 by 50 meter turf field.
I was probably voting NO before because I believe taxes will have to go up to support the field; now after reading the other concerns people have expressed here, besides taxes, I am definitely voting NO...this is the wrong option.
Tom, and others who may be on the fence. Please ask anyone whose opinion you are considering if they have actually been to DeHart Park.... how often, for what purpose and when was the last time they were there? In fact, I encourage you to pay it a visit. Head up sometime when there's a soccer game, and you'll see the dust and dirt the kids are playing on.
Also, go up when there is no game or practice scheduled. I know it's getting a little chilly, but even in gorgeous weather I have never seen anyone use that field for anything other than organized sports. I have never seen anyone picnicking, playing games, running around, nothing. Smoking pot, yes, but that's a different thread. (quick aside....DeHart IS getting a little seedy...The upgrades in the paths and lighting as well as the improvements of the passive space e.g.: natural grass and landscaped areas... at DeHart would make it more of a family destination and hopefully less of a place to do drugs.)
For the past 8 years or so, I have been there at least 3 times a week, every season except winter, at varying times of day.
I see kids playing in the skating area, sometimes also using the tennis court. (paved areas, by the way, both put down over grass, where was the outrage then?) I see lots of youngsters and parents in the playground area, and I see people walking (often with their dogs) and jogging around the path which surrounds the field. None of those activities would be curtailed with an artificial turf field. In fact, they would be upgraded. This was all part of the compromise plan that all 5 township committee members voted for, at least 3 changing their mind after careful research and consideration about the turf field project.
The turf is safe for the kids. A big initial opponent to the turf field did a 180 and now boasts a Vote Yes yard sign on his lawn when he (after lots and lots of questioning and research) was convinced his children would be safe playing on this kind of field.
I certainly understand envirornmental concerns. We are all trying to be more green now, aren't we? But installing a turf field over dirt (DeHart field is simply not grass anymore nor will grass ever grow there with current field usage, and the usage will NOT diminish) does not equal ruining the envirornment, any more than tennis courts, basketball courts, or swimming pools do.
It's for our town, it's for our kids. Grass won't work and DeHart needs upgrading. Vote yes.
Also, go up when there is no game or practice scheduled. I know it's getting a little chilly, but even in gorgeous weather I have never seen anyone use that field for anything other than organized sports. I have never seen anyone picnicking, playing games, running around, nothing. Smoking pot, yes, but that's a different thread. (quick aside....DeHart IS getting a little seedy...The upgrades in the paths and lighting as well as the improvements of the passive space e.g.: natural grass and landscaped areas... at DeHart would make it more of a family destination and hopefully less of a place to do drugs.)
For the past 8 years or so, I have been there at least 3 times a week, every season except winter, at varying times of day.
I see kids playing in the skating area, sometimes also using the tennis court. (paved areas, by the way, both put down over grass, where was the outrage then?) I see lots of youngsters and parents in the playground area, and I see people walking (often with their dogs) and jogging around the path which surrounds the field. None of those activities would be curtailed with an artificial turf field. In fact, they would be upgraded. This was all part of the compromise plan that all 5 township committee members voted for, at least 3 changing their mind after careful research and consideration about the turf field project.
The turf is safe for the kids. A big initial opponent to the turf field did a 180 and now boasts a Vote Yes yard sign on his lawn when he (after lots and lots of questioning and research) was convinced his children would be safe playing on this kind of field.
I certainly understand envirornmental concerns. We are all trying to be more green now, aren't we? But installing a turf field over dirt (DeHart field is simply not grass anymore nor will grass ever grow there with current field usage, and the usage will NOT diminish) does not equal ruining the envirornment, any more than tennis courts, basketball courts, or swimming pools do.
It's for our town, it's for our kids. Grass won't work and DeHart needs upgrading. Vote yes.
Oct 27, 2008 at 11:31am Edited
Micky,
I went to DeHart on Sunday morning with my youngest son because I hadn't been there for a while, and I felt it was important to take another close look at what I'm arguing so forcefully on MOL and IRL to protect. (Yes, I feel keeping artificial turf off of public parklands is protecting them NOT saving them!)
Couple of impressions that I came away with:
-The "No Turf" lawn signs in the immediate neighborhood vastly outnumber the "Save DeHart Park," which I think is a grossly misleading slogan (and don't even get me started on the "No New Taxes" line...)
-The field in question is certainly NOT all dirt. It's patchy grass and dirt but there IS GRASS!!!!!
-A girls soccer game was just getting started. The Clark, NJ, team was arriving when we were there and they didn't seem especially taken aback or offended by the state of the field.
-The playground equipment in the front of the park is very toddler friendly as is having so much open space beyond it. My nearly 2-year-old son enjoyed running around the grassy areas unimpeeded.
-It would be a real shame to fence off a portion of a public park...
Could the park look better--OF COURSE! Is it an unsafe eyesore, I don't think so.
Finally, I really resent having the pro-turf side hold hostage the rest of the park improvements to laying down artificial turf. Why can't we improve the park WITHOUT a big field of fenced-off synthetic grass??? Is that really too much to ask?
I went to DeHart on Sunday morning with my youngest son because I hadn't been there for a while, and I felt it was important to take another close look at what I'm arguing so forcefully on MOL and IRL to protect. (Yes, I feel keeping artificial turf off of public parklands is protecting them NOT saving them!)
Couple of impressions that I came away with:
-The "No Turf" lawn signs in the immediate neighborhood vastly outnumber the "Save DeHart Park," which I think is a grossly misleading slogan (and don't even get me started on the "No New Taxes" line...)
-The field in question is certainly NOT all dirt. It's patchy grass and dirt but there IS GRASS!!!!!
-A girls soccer game was just getting started. The Clark, NJ, team was arriving when we were there and they didn't seem especially taken aback or offended by the state of the field.
-The playground equipment in the front of the park is very toddler friendly as is having so much open space beyond it. My nearly 2-year-old son enjoyed running around the grassy areas unimpeeded.
-It would be a real shame to fence off a portion of a public park...
Could the park look better--OF COURSE! Is it an unsafe eyesore, I don't think so.
Finally, I really resent having the pro-turf side hold hostage the rest of the park improvements to laying down artificial turf. Why can't we improve the park WITHOUT a big field of fenced-off synthetic grass??? Is that really too much to ask?
Seroway, And what is the right option? That is the problem with the NO VOTE group. Never do they offer another options, but will sit down and request one field instead of 2, Iincrease parking for the park, trees, etc
added to the Dehart project, ALL GOOD SUGGESTIONS! Talk about not negotiating in good faith!
We would need at least 3 new grass fields costing millions of tax money instead of the grant monies that the town should have been getting all along! A very simplistic view, but here it is; We pay taxes to the county and state for park improvements. It is up to the towns to ask for the monies, which Maplewood never does. We finally ask the county and state 4 years ago and they are very happy to give us monies we should have been getting all along!!!! So what is the other option? I SURE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT, I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR 5 YEARS! 5 years ago I was trying to get grass fields and realized that we could not afford that option. Since usage was rising due to added participation, Turf is the best and likely, the only option we have. After, 4 years of being promised the monies from State/County, Maplewood still has not spent it! SO LETS FINALLY HEAR YOUR OPTION! I will start playing drums again at the 9 am Mass at St. Joes since football is over for my team, so feel free come up to me Sunday and lets discuss in more detail!
We would need at least 3 new grass fields costing millions of tax money instead of the grant monies that the town should have been getting all along! A very simplistic view, but here it is; We pay taxes to the county and state for park improvements. It is up to the towns to ask for the monies, which Maplewood never does. We finally ask the county and state 4 years ago and they are very happy to give us monies we should have been getting all along!!!! So what is the other option? I SURE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR IT, I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR 5 YEARS! 5 years ago I was trying to get grass fields and realized that we could not afford that option. Since usage was rising due to added participation, Turf is the best and likely, the only option we have. After, 4 years of being promised the monies from State/County, Maplewood still has not spent it! SO LETS FINALLY HEAR YOUR OPTION! I will start playing drums again at the 9 am Mass at St. Joes since football is over for my team, so feel free come up to me Sunday and lets discuss in more detail!
Posted By: FeedMeSeymourPerhaps if all the citizens who claim environmental concern as their primary reason for voting "no" allowed their yards to return to their original, natural state (ie, no grass, no watering, no fertilizer, no pesticides), then that would more than offset the environmental impact of a 100 by 50 meter turf field.
We do have a grass lawn (I don't think grass itself is an enviromental problem) which was there when we bought the house. We do not water it, fertilize it, or put pesticides on it. And it looks really nice most of the time (definitely gets pale if we've gone without rain for an extended period, but never dries out and dies) with minimal maintenance (mowing every two weeks and weeding with the Weed Hound - metal weed remover, just step and twist and the week pops out).
Oh, and that's not my primary reason for voting no. A lot of people thought cel was being dramatic by bring the environment/global warming into the conversation, but I agree with him/her that it should certainly be a consideration when making a decision on this subject.
a little ot, but all things being equal, if we replaced all of our lawns with turf (i'm talking private homes), the environment would be helluva lot better off.
ok - carry on.
ok - carry on.
Oct 27, 2008 at 12:27pm Edited
Drummerboy, Not sure if you're just trying to add some levity into the debate, but I totally disagree.
As I've said in other threads, while natural grass is hardly an ecological wonderland, compared to artificial turf, grass looks good. Artificial turf contains a stew of known and unknown chemicals whose toxicity we will be -- in effect -- testing on our children and on ourselves.
Grass supports life across the full spectrum of plant and animal species. The only life artificial turf supports needs to be cleaned away by regular treatments with disinfectants. Grass takes a surprising amount of carbon out of the air and permanently buries it in the soil. Artificial turf is made out of literally tons of carbon rich fossil-sourced petrochemicals.
Grass absorbs the heat of sunny days. Artificial turf gets hotter than asphalt and radiates it out to field users and the surrounding community. Grass allows rainwater to absorb deeply into the ground. Artificial turf produces surges of runoff into sewers and ultimately streams and rivers.
Voting no does not mean resigning ourselves to perpetually damaged playing fields.
Natural fields CAN be maintained so they are safe. Voting no says we can demand more of ourselves and of our government. It will take a deeper commitment to skilled management of the fields that will result in better fields and save money -- as well as the Earth -- in the long run. This is the sustainable path for Maplewood, rather than giving up and installing artificial turf...
PLEASE VOTE NO!
As I've said in other threads, while natural grass is hardly an ecological wonderland, compared to artificial turf, grass looks good. Artificial turf contains a stew of known and unknown chemicals whose toxicity we will be -- in effect -- testing on our children and on ourselves.
Grass supports life across the full spectrum of plant and animal species. The only life artificial turf supports needs to be cleaned away by regular treatments with disinfectants. Grass takes a surprising amount of carbon out of the air and permanently buries it in the soil. Artificial turf is made out of literally tons of carbon rich fossil-sourced petrochemicals.
Grass absorbs the heat of sunny days. Artificial turf gets hotter than asphalt and radiates it out to field users and the surrounding community. Grass allows rainwater to absorb deeply into the ground. Artificial turf produces surges of runoff into sewers and ultimately streams and rivers.
Voting no does not mean resigning ourselves to perpetually damaged playing fields.
Natural fields CAN be maintained so they are safe. Voting no says we can demand more of ourselves and of our government. It will take a deeper commitment to skilled management of the fields that will result in better fields and save money -- as well as the Earth -- in the long run. This is the sustainable path for Maplewood, rather than giving up and installing artificial turf...
PLEASE VOTE NO!
cel,
actually, no, I'm not trying to add levity - I'm being serious.
Again, all things being equal, meaning that we don't change the way we care for our lawns, the environmental damage caused by lawn chemicals and gasoline powered lawn-mowers dwarfs, absolutely tramples, the alternative.
However, my point really is that lawns themselves are an eco-disaster, because of how we care for them. If we just let them grow into meadows, then, yeah, fine, I agree with you.
However, trying to make an ecological argument against turf really stretches the limits of rationality, simply because the amount of turf covered ground is literally infinitesimal.
Anyone want to do the math for Maplewood? Shouldn't be too hard.
actually, no, I'm not trying to add levity - I'm being serious.
Again, all things being equal, meaning that we don't change the way we care for our lawns, the environmental damage caused by lawn chemicals and gasoline powered lawn-mowers dwarfs, absolutely tramples, the alternative.
However, my point really is that lawns themselves are an eco-disaster, because of how we care for them. If we just let them grow into meadows, then, yeah, fine, I agree with you.
However, trying to make an ecological argument against turf really stretches the limits of rationality, simply because the amount of turf covered ground is literally infinitesimal.
Anyone want to do the math for Maplewood? Shouldn't be too hard.
It's not "infinitesimal" when you start adding up and/or start increasing the number of artificial turf surfaces on the planet.
Think of it this way, drummerboy: What if every town in NJ decided to cover over a portion of a public park with turf using the theory that the impact would be "infinitesimal?" What if every town in the United States decided lay down some turf too--after all, it can't really hurt the environment if one little public park has one small piece of turf?
Think globally and ACT LOCALLY!
Oh, and it seems like everyone's math -- other than the artificial turf supporters -- comes out to higher taxes for Maplewood homeowners.
Think of it this way, drummerboy: What if every town in NJ decided to cover over a portion of a public park with turf using the theory that the impact would be "infinitesimal?" What if every town in the United States decided lay down some turf too--after all, it can't really hurt the environment if one little public park has one small piece of turf?
Think globally and ACT LOCALLY!
Oh, and it seems like everyone's math -- other than the artificial turf supporters -- comes out to higher taxes for Maplewood homeowners.
How come no one complained when they covered the grassy driving range on Springfield with black asphalt and 3 big box stores? Also, no one is arguning the fact that tax money will be used to maintain the new park, just no new taxes. Tax money is used to currently support all the parks today.
Posted By: celIt's not "infinitesimal" when you start adding up
That's a fair point. It's rather like saying, "My one SUV doesn't have much impact on the environment."
the environment people have a ridiculously weak argument. Have you heard anyone complain when a tennis court goes in? Really. how about a basketball court? And this turf field is NOT just for the sake of a turf field...it will primarily enable more hours of play in a town (2 towns) that is ridiculously stretched thin for field space and virtually has NO field space after it rains...for DAYS!
I can't believe this is going to a referendum when the ENTIRE TC voted to approve the project.
Ifwe vote no, then we will LOSE grant money already approved for THIS project. So the argument that we shouldn't be spending in this day and age holds no water. No turf, no money. No dehart improvement.
People, even those with no kids or no kids in sports, upgrading DeHart (the whole plan with lights, walkway and parking and the field) is a positive for your home values.
Smart people will VOTE YES.
I can't believe this is going to a referendum when the ENTIRE TC voted to approve the project.
Ifwe vote no, then we will LOSE grant money already approved for THIS project. So the argument that we shouldn't be spending in this day and age holds no water. No turf, no money. No dehart improvement.
People, even those with no kids or no kids in sports, upgrading DeHart (the whole plan with lights, walkway and parking and the field) is a positive for your home values.
Smart people will VOTE YES.
Drummerboy:
Why can't we do both: vote no for artificial turf AND pledge to be more environmentally responsible in the way we care for our lawns?
Why can't we do both: vote no for artificial turf AND pledge to be more environmentally responsible in the way we care for our lawns?
Crabby,
Its not fair to say there arent smart people opposed to the project...there are people who oppose this who are bright and active in the community, some that I like and respect...some who I actually have lost respect for too, unfortunately. Theyve been smart enough to come up with a strategy to oppose the project after all.
Its not fair to say there arent smart people opposed to the project...there are people who oppose this who are bright and active in the community, some that I like and respect...some who I actually have lost respect for too, unfortunately. Theyve been smart enough to come up with a strategy to oppose the project after all.
Posted By: Tom ReingoldPosted By: celIt's not "infinitesimal" when you start adding up
That's a fair point. It's rather like saying, "My one SUV doesn't have much impact on the environment."
no, sorry, it's not a fair point whatsoever. It is, in fact, a silly point, unless you somehow assume that it's even remotely possible for artificial turf to have anywhere even close to the market penetration that SUV's have had in the car market. It's a reductio (or it's opposite, I guess) ad absurdem argument.
The other reason it's a silly point is that SUV's take an already existing problem (petro usage and pollution) and simply make it worse by addition. Grass and turf involve (practically) completely different sets of cost/benefit variables.
Besides, "What if" can easily be countered with "What if not".
If covering a portion of DeHart park with fake grass is going to improve home values so much, why do I see so many "NO TURF" signs on the lawns of homes immediately adjacent to the park??? Once again--they vastly outnumber the pro-turf signs.
You want to talk about home values? Let's talk about what the value of our homes with skyrocketing property tax bills that go up exponentially every year with no end in sight!
When I moved to Maplewood n about seven years ago--right AFTER the last reval--I was paying about $8.5K a year in property taxes. My annual bill for this year is close to $14K now. STOP THE MADNESS!!!!
You want to talk about home values? Let's talk about what the value of our homes with skyrocketing property tax bills that go up exponentially every year with no end in sight!
When I moved to Maplewood n about seven years ago--right AFTER the last reval--I was paying about $8.5K a year in property taxes. My annual bill for this year is close to $14K now. STOP THE MADNESS!!!!
Joan thank you - you solidified my reasons. i dont want a caged turf. i like to walk my dog on the field not around the outside of a cage. plus it gets hot and my dog doesnt like that. it is not just a sports field. it is an open space for everyone to use. and it is well used.
i played soccer in the rain in the rain in the mud many a time - i think it developed character - well maybe just a character
i mean whats the difference between paving the park for street hockey and putting in artificial turf? its not a park anymore.
i played soccer in the rain in the rain in the mud many a time - i think it developed character - well maybe just a character
i mean whats the difference between paving the park for street hockey and putting in artificial turf? its not a park anymore.
hankzona, with all due respect, and I mean that because you are very patient here online and well, everyone knows that I'm just crabby, but I never said the naysayers were not smart! I just said that smart people will vote YES.
Smart people typically possess the powers of foresight.
If we look to the future consequences of an artificial field in De Hart Park, we will find at the very minimum a field that eventually needs to be "replaced". The replacement will require the removal of many many metric tons of crumb rubber and plastic grass. This will have to go into a "landfill", (that is if we can still find one).
Didn't we just host a Green Festival in Memorial Park? Aren't we encouraging each other to be more energy efficient, drive more fuel efficient vehicles, reuse bottles for water when ever possible, recycle plastic bottles, aluminum, and paper whenever possible?
When did we decide that our fields are disposable? Where will we put the synthetic field when it needs to be replaced? Will it cost us more money to replace it?
To say that our environmentally friendly argument does not apply to this bond issue is just plain wrong. To say that this bond ordinance is fiscally responsible is wrong.
I am all for improving the already great sports and recreation programs for our children. I participate and encourage my children to participate in our community sports and activities as much as possible. But I am also deeply concerned for the care of our environment - locally, nationally, and globally.
As a proposed solution, or at the very least an offer of consideration, let's say NO to the synthetic field in advance of having to dispose of it later.
Then let's come together as a community and map out a concerted and comprehensive maintenance plan that includes volunteerism. I will be happy to work with you to motivate our children and teach them the values of neighborhood preservation, conservation, and environmental responsibility.
These are the lasting values and the legacy I would like to pass on to our children. Not disposability for the sake of short term convenience.
Smart people - Please think about the impact you have on your neighbors, think about the legacy you want to pass on to your children, and vote NO on the installation of an artificial field.
If we look to the future consequences of an artificial field in De Hart Park, we will find at the very minimum a field that eventually needs to be "replaced". The replacement will require the removal of many many metric tons of crumb rubber and plastic grass. This will have to go into a "landfill", (that is if we can still find one).
Didn't we just host a Green Festival in Memorial Park? Aren't we encouraging each other to be more energy efficient, drive more fuel efficient vehicles, reuse bottles for water when ever possible, recycle plastic bottles, aluminum, and paper whenever possible?
When did we decide that our fields are disposable? Where will we put the synthetic field when it needs to be replaced? Will it cost us more money to replace it?
To say that our environmentally friendly argument does not apply to this bond issue is just plain wrong. To say that this bond ordinance is fiscally responsible is wrong.
I am all for improving the already great sports and recreation programs for our children. I participate and encourage my children to participate in our community sports and activities as much as possible. But I am also deeply concerned for the care of our environment - locally, nationally, and globally.
As a proposed solution, or at the very least an offer of consideration, let's say NO to the synthetic field in advance of having to dispose of it later.
Then let's come together as a community and map out a concerted and comprehensive maintenance plan that includes volunteerism. I will be happy to work with you to motivate our children and teach them the values of neighborhood preservation, conservation, and environmental responsibility.
These are the lasting values and the legacy I would like to pass on to our children. Not disposability for the sake of short term convenience.
Smart people - Please think about the impact you have on your neighbors, think about the legacy you want to pass on to your children, and vote NO on the installation of an artificial field.
I can see smart people on both sides of this issue, so I'm not sure if insulting people is going to win votes.
Almost everyone on the anti turf side is complaining about how we are taking the park and paving it over. Here are the numbers.
The area in question is approximately 3 acres which = 132,000 square feet.
The grass area that is used for the outfields of the two baseball fields and the soccer/lacrosse field is approximately 65,000 square feet.
The two dirt infields total approximately 16,000 square feet.
This is a total of 81,000 sqaure feet.
The rest is grass perimeter.
What is proposed, is to take 2 acres = 88,000 square feet and convert it into a multi sport turf field and to take the remaining 1 acre and covert that area into true passive leisure space with bushes and trees.
The facility will actually lose one baseball diamond and gain new leisure space that wasn't there before.
The area in question is approximately 3 acres which = 132,000 square feet.
The grass area that is used for the outfields of the two baseball fields and the soccer/lacrosse field is approximately 65,000 square feet.
The two dirt infields total approximately 16,000 square feet.
This is a total of 81,000 sqaure feet.
The rest is grass perimeter.
What is proposed, is to take 2 acres = 88,000 square feet and convert it into a multi sport turf field and to take the remaining 1 acre and covert that area into true passive leisure space with bushes and trees.
The facility will actually lose one baseball diamond and gain new leisure space that wasn't there before.
why do we not fight for our taxes the way people are fighting over this turf. What about the houses that are foreclosing in town or the business that are going out of business. I don't see people spending as much time with this as they are over artifical turf. I played at dehart growing up and never died from a little mud and dirt. Wake up Maplewood there is so much more we could spend millions of dollars on other then artifical grass.
The reason that DeHart will see overall improvement (including lighting, pathways, and leisure space) if the issue passes is because of the tireless efforts of many over 5 years-- getting grants, Open Space Trust Fund money, meeting with engineers and planners, township citizens, and doing due diligence for township committee meetings.
Cel, we are not "holding these improvements hostage" as you claim. We worked hard for the whole package. Pro-turf planners initially got grant funds and planned out a much bigger turf field project, which the town sorely needed. For the sake of compromise, the turf part of the plan was scaled down considerably. This compromise plan (including beautiful leisure space) has come after 5 years of actual work. Our posting here on MOL is the tip of the iceburg relative to the amount of research and work and fundraising we've actually put into this. We care that much for our town and our kids.
Opponents of the plan have offered no viable solution to our field usage. Just saying "no artificial turf" is not a solution. New grass fields will not withstand our documented usage. There is a good reason for this project: it is needed, and there is no workable alternative AND this plan already is a major compromise. The substantial grant money ALREADY received for the park improvements will be wasted if the issue does not pass--gone. Can't be used for anything else. Vote yes.
Cel, we are not "holding these improvements hostage" as you claim. We worked hard for the whole package. Pro-turf planners initially got grant funds and planned out a much bigger turf field project, which the town sorely needed. For the sake of compromise, the turf part of the plan was scaled down considerably. This compromise plan (including beautiful leisure space) has come after 5 years of actual work. Our posting here on MOL is the tip of the iceburg relative to the amount of research and work and fundraising we've actually put into this. We care that much for our town and our kids.
Opponents of the plan have offered no viable solution to our field usage. Just saying "no artificial turf" is not a solution. New grass fields will not withstand our documented usage. There is a good reason for this project: it is needed, and there is no workable alternative AND this plan already is a major compromise. The substantial grant money ALREADY received for the park improvements will be wasted if the issue does not pass--gone. Can't be used for anything else. Vote yes.
JC: "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."
This is an appeal to the prejudice of the anti-athletes. One should flatly reject appeals to prejudice of all kinds: appeals to anti-athletes, appeals to bigots, and appeals to anti-intellectuals. It is also off target, as it does not recognize that manyt of the kids/adults using the turf are not particularly athletic. However, in using the field they will be involved in wholesome activities.
I do recognize that costs are important to consider, however, of all the things spent this seems one of the most logical. It is a true investment in the community. It will also result in reduced field maintenance costs.
At least you are getting away from the idiotic bogus lead-based arguments in the other threads.
This is an appeal to the prejudice of the anti-athletes. One should flatly reject appeals to prejudice of all kinds: appeals to anti-athletes, appeals to bigots, and appeals to anti-intellectuals. It is also off target, as it does not recognize that manyt of the kids/adults using the turf are not particularly athletic. However, in using the field they will be involved in wholesome activities.
I do recognize that costs are important to consider, however, of all the things spent this seems one of the most logical. It is a true investment in the community. It will also result in reduced field maintenance costs.
At least you are getting away from the idiotic bogus lead-based arguments in the other threads.
You can not reply as this discussion is Closed!
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
As I said earlier, I want my children to have nice open spaces to play on, but I also really really want them to have a healthy planet to raise their children on...