Save Ritzer Field

jspjnc said:

The stream also raises possible jurisdictional issues.  Is this Maplewood's stream, since its headwaters and the length of its flow are in Maplewood?  Does Maplewood have some kind of right-of-way through the field?  What does the DEP say about this?  I really don't know, but it seems like it could complicate the whole issue.

Maplewood should purchase Ritzer from the school district and school can use proceeds to bus kids to Ivy Hill Park to use the Essex County synthetic turf fields there which coincidentally were built on a managed wetland.  The BOE has had some problems with buses in general and emissions would still be an issue, but Maplewood could plant saplings on Ritzer to offset emissions and provide shade to all those picnickers for whom Ritzer is the only greenspace they experience.

Almost a full page of discussion without sarcasm. It was bracing while it lasted.

It's pretty simple.  If high school sports are important to you and your family, Maplewood-South Orange is not a great place.  Having said that, the two towns do have some really well-run youth sports programs.  And for those with the money and kids with the interest, there are plenty of club teams to help your kids hone their skills.

tjohn said:

It's pretty simple.  If high school sports are important to you and your family, Maplewood-South Orange is not a great place.  Having said that, the two towns do have some really well-run youth sports programs.  And for those with the money and kids with the interest, there are plenty of club teams to help your kids hone their skills.

Yes, that's right. Looking at the home prices and tax rates here, an increasing percentage of residents have the means to send their children to private schools for various reasons, including athletics. A similar process has occurred at the Maplewood pool with more families opting for pricier alternatives. 

My oldest daughter was a swimmer.  Not having a pool in town for the high school team sucked.

My youngest daughter was a softball player.   The field arrangement was not ideal - a couple of times, we mowed the field ourselves prior to a game.  However, she seemed most bothered at times over having to share a team room (a place to stash their gear) with the boys who were a bit messy.  Fortunately, our town had and still has a softball program that is the envy of many towns.

Tonight's BOSE meeting is canceled due to the weather. No replacement date yet. 

Cost comparisons delivered to BOSE for turf vs. grass.  Similar costs, but more than 3x available hours of play w/turf.  

There's no way it will be only $600k to replace the field in 10-12 years. The initial installation of the turf and infill is $880k.

3000 hours of usability is 60 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. Why don't we come up with a realistic number for how many hours the field will actually be used versus theoretical.

yahooyahoo said:

There's no way it will be only $600k to replace the field in 10-12 years. The initial installation of the turf and infill is $880k.

3000 hours of usability is 60 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. Why don't we come up with a realistic number for how many hours the field will actually be used versus theoretical.

A better word may have been "Availability" or "Playability" versus usability.

It’s not like we never had great athletic programs years ago because of grass… fix the pool. Fix the locker rooms. That’s where they need to spend money.

Rescheduled BOSE meeting will be Wednesday, February 28 at 5 p.m.

$3 million to install natural turf?  Let me subcontract that so I can buy a yacht and move to the Bahamas.

mrmaplewood said:

$3 million to install natural turf?  Let me subcontract that so I can buy a yacht and move to the Bahamas.

Actually, only about $600K is for the specific grass installation, compared to a little more than $1.4 million for the turf plus curb. The remainder is for costs that would be the same regardless of whether it’s grass or turf, such as clearing, earthwork, drainage, bleachers, lighting, etc.

bak said:

Cost comparisons delivered to BOSE for turf vs. grass.  Similar costs, but more than 3x available hours of play w/turf.  

Does the cost comparison factor in the disposal cost when the artificial turf field has to be replaced.?

joan_crystal said:

bak said:

Cost comparisons delivered to BOSE for turf vs. grass.  Similar costs, but more than 3x available hours of play w/turf.  

Does the cost comparison factor in the disposal cost when the artificial turf field has to be replaced.?

There is a $600,000 expense described as the "turf replacement cycle," which I assume would cover the disposal cost. 

chalmers said:

There is a $600,000 expense described as the "turf replacement cycle," which I assume would cover the disposal cost. 

Given the skyrocketing cost of disposal and concerns over the impact of used plastic on the environment, I doubt that figure will be accurate when the time comes to replace an artificial turf field put in now.

Maybe that's something that could be clarified in next week's meeting. 

The BOSE meeting originally schedule for this evening, 2/28, is now postponed indefinitely because counsel pointed out that it had to occur within 30 days of a related resolution. The original 2/13 date was within the timeframe, but it was canceled due to the snow. Now there needs to be a new resolution, after which a new BOSE meeting will be scheduled within the relevant 30-day period.

Thank you, Chalmers.  Good to know.  

Resolution re-passed BOE 9-0.  New BSE meeting slated for 3/18.  Two points of note before leaving some of you free to continue your flawed arguments: 1) this isn’t a resolution about turfing Ritzer— it’s about additional turf on Ritzer and, 2) if one has financial concerns with the field, you’re missing the forest for the trees by a factor of about ten, and the true issues completely.

We’re smart enough to recognize a perfect argument. The problem is they’re all flawed.

DaveSchmidt said:

We’re smart enough to recognize a perfect argument. The problem is they’re all flawed.

Maybe, but clearly some aren’t smart enough to recognize a truly flawed one.   And not all of them are flawed— might be that there exist tradeoffs in terms of approach or outcome, for example, but either the logic is sound or it isn’t.  

joan_crystal said:

Given the skyrocketing cost of disposal and concerns over the impact of used plastic on the environment, I doubt that figure will be accurate when the time comes to replace an artificial turf field put in now.

The entire bond is littered with state-mandated requirements on useful life terms.  In fact, the actual bond terms are based upon them.  Ritzer is not an exception here.  Further, the maintenance and capital reserve accounts should be appropriately accrued to account for all of it— it’s not done within the bonded amount. 

ctrzaska said:

Maybe, but clearly some aren’t smart enough to recognize a truly flawed one. And not all of them are flawed— might be that there exist tradeoffs in terms of approach or outcome, for example, but either the logic is sound or it isn’t.

Sloppy science citations from opponents notwithstanding, there’s no way to rule out legitimate concerns about possible health effects. The logic of trading that possibility for increased student access to athletics is sound, but recognize it’s still a notable flaw in the argument.

DaveSchmidt said:

Sloppy science citations from opponents notwithstanding, there’s no way to rule out legitimate concerns about possible health effects. The logic of trading that possibility for increased student access to athletics is sound, but recognize it’s still a notable flaw in the argument.

It’s less of a flaw in my view than an acceptable risk, in much the same way one treatment of RoundUp on my lawn or a walk out into a thunderstorm is.  There’s a difference between spending decades in fields with the chemical, or having a bolt land on one’s scalp vs pretending that there’s an equivalance.  One doesn’t need all factors known to posit a valid argument— it’s when the unknowns are assumed to be true (and where the argument is dependent on it) that such flaws emerge.  

ctrzaska said:

It’s less of a flaw in my view than an acceptable risk, in much the same way one treatment of RoundUp on my lawn or a walk out into a thunderstorm is.  There’s a difference between spending decades in fields with the chemical, or having a bolt land on one’s scalp vs pretending that there’s an equivalance.  One doesn’t need all factors known to posit a valid argument— it’s when the unknowns are assumed to be true (and where the argument is dependent on it) that such flaws emerge.  

There are valid arguments on both sides of the debate which is one reason why it continues for as long as it has.  There is also risk involved in either decision.  The question becomes which risk you think outweighs the other and how much overall risk you are prepared to accept.  

And in case it needs to be said, that cuts both ways… one can’t pretend that some components are demonstrably healthy, either.  I should also note, however, that those deemphasizing any theoretical health risk (and supporting that stance with the lack of conclusive evidence to the contrary, mentions of scale and prevalence elsewhere, etc.) have done so not to further an argument, but only in response to those arguing and centering the converse.  

Regardless, the key point here is that this particular angle is (or sure as hell should be) irrelevant in terms of the BSE vote— their concern is purely financial in nature. These other ancillary topics fall under the bailiwick of the BOE for consideration, who have (three separate times now) decided to move forward. 

ctrzaska said:

Regardless, the key point here is that this particular angle is (or sure as hell should be) irrelevant in terms of the BSE vote— their concern is purely financial in nature. These other ancillary topics fall under the bailiwick of the BOE for consideration, who have (three separate times now) decided to move forward.

While “renovations” were under that bailiwick, constituents on both sides took the opportunity to speak out. And now we’ve been left free to continue our flawed arguments here.

The BOSE should be concerned with whether the requested additional funding is necessary in its entirety or whether some or all of the requested funding should be removed from the overall package.  This does require a value judgment on the part of BOSE members.  

joan_crystal said:

The BOSE should be concerned with whether the requested additional funding is necessary in its entirety or whether some or all of the requested funding should be removed from the overall package.  This does require a value judgment on the part of BOSE members.  

It’s not a value judgment... it’s a financial one.   There’s a difference.  Their role isn’t to replicate that of the BOE— it’s to weigh the fiscal impact.  Their primary role is to calculate the impact, apportion the funds and authorize the towns to raise, collect, and transfer.  Same as with the budget.  

On a related note— they have one resolution before them requiring a yea or nay vote.   There is no reducing or increasing the amount, and nothing to sever.  They either want to approve the tax increase, or they don’t.