We are back to the limited resources to meet the demand argument that was one of several factors considered by voters when the DeHart question was on the ballot. Even Ritzer has come to serve multiple purposes. It has become a lunch spot, an event space, and a space for programs held by the Adult School in the summer. It is highly likely that these uses would cease to exist if two fields at Ritzer were covered with artificial turf. Community use would likely end too. With grass, all non-athletic uses could continue. As for girl's sports being adversely impacted because boy's get preference, that is wrong. If CHS has to ration team use of Ritzer, the boy's and girl's teams should get equal playing time, or proportionately equivalent playing time if one group has significantly larger participation in team sports than the other.
Why assume it is likely that programs on Ritzer would cease because of a resurfacing, other than temporarily for construction? There is no requirement that space is or ever has been for community use - this is BOE property it is not a "community" space unless the community you are referring to is the SOMSD educational community. Dog walking is not permitted on any school property and turf would not preclude any events from happening there with the right permissions, in fact I would assume it would facilitate more events due to fact it won't be a mud pit or under a tarp. Also according to the student rep on the BOE, who I assume (and apologies if this is untrue) is closer to the student population said at the BOE meeting that students (who are at school at least 180 days a year in and around lunch time) uses Ritzer for lunch, are there a lot of summer and weekend picnics at Ritzer that need grass? Experience with our other BOE property that is turf suggests that "community" usage would not be restricted. There doesn't seem to be much restriction of community use at Underhill, except for when there is a need to use it for school activities, which is its purpose. A more highly likely assumption is that the same will be true for Ritzer.
A synthetic Ritzer will allow us to support our students in athletics and other extra curricular activities (like marching band) - there is tremendous amount of research that shows students involved in HS sports and extracurricular activities have higher rates of graduation, higher test scores, higher attendance, higher grades, are more likely to attend college and have better mental and physical health so being able to offer our students usable facilities seems like a good way to generate positive outcomes for our students.
There is no requirement that space is or ever has been for community use - this is BOE property it is not a "community" space unless the community you are referring to is the SOMSD educational community.
For this reason, the community-use argument against turf is one that’s easy for me to put aside.
Why assume it is likely that programs on Ritzer would cease because of a resurfacing, other than temporarily for construction? There is no requirement that space is or ever has been for community use - this is BOE property it is not a "community" space unless the community you are referring to is the SOMSD educational community. Dog walking is not permitted on any school property and turf would not preclude any events from happening there with the right permissions, in fact I would assume it would facilitate more events due to fact it won't be a mud pit or under a tarp. Also according to the student rep on the BOE, who I assume (and apologies if this is untrue) is closer to the student population said at the BOE meeting that students (who are at school at least 180 days a year in and around lunch time) uses Ritzer for lunch, are there a lot of summer and weekend picnics at Ritzer that need grass? Experience with our other BOE property that is turf suggests that "community" usage would not be restricted. There doesn't seem to be much restriction of community use at Underhill, except for when there is a need to use it for school activities, which is its purpose. A more highly likely assumption is that the same will be true for Ritzer.
A synthetic Ritzer will allow us to support our students in athletics and other extra curricular activities (like marching band) - there is tremendous amount of research that shows students involved in HS sports and extracurricular activities have higher rates of graduation, higher test scores, higher attendance, higher grades, are more likely to attend college and have better mental and physical health so being able to offer our students usable facilities seems like a good way to generate positive outcomes for our students.
Agree that the surrounding community use argument should not be a deciding factor in determining whether two fields at Ritzer should be covered in artificial turf. Still, convincing residents of the multi-family buildings adjacent to Ritzer that they may no longer use green space they are rightly or wrongly using now may be a hard sell. When Underhill was closed to the community following the murder, there was a huge outcry from residents in the surrounding community who could no longer use the track. That this was school property and the school district did not have to allow the outside community to use the facility did not ease the outcry. Eventually, Underhill was once again open to the public. Two fenced in, locked when not in use artificial turf fields would not allow for such flexibility at Ritzer.
Multiple use by the CHS community is more legitimate issue. Experience shows that artificial turf fields are fenced and locked when not in use for scheduled athletic practice or games. This would preclude non-athletic use of Ritzer for other CHS activities. Negative impact on the restricted use of the fields is open to question and unfortunately could best be determined after the fields are covered in artificial turf. I agree that an argument could definitely be made for the ability to increase available playing time on the fields. Once again, it comes down to where your priorities lie.
This argument that sports in high school makes for better students is legitimate.,Columbia used to be #1 in sports and academics not so long ago…when the grass was growing on Ritzer field. I don’t think turf will get the school back to the way it was, when people looked to move to the area because of the school’s accomplishments. Turf is not gonna prevent students who leave the district for private high schools. There’s much more going on, the field and the pool and the bathrooms are just symptoms of a larger issue.
Agree that the surrounding community use argument should not be a deciding factor in determining whether two fields at Ritzer should be covered in artificial turf. Still, convincing residents of the multi-family buildings adjacent to Ritzer that they may no longer use green space they are rightly or wrongly using now may be a hard sell. When Underhill was closed to the community following the murder, there was a huge outcry from residents in the surrounding community who could no longer use the track. That this was school property and the school district did not have to allow the outside community to use the facility did not ease the outcry. Eventually, Underhill was once again open to the public. Two fenced in, locked when not in use artificial turf fields would not allow for such flexibility at Ritzer.
Multiple use by the CHS community is more legitimate issue. Experience shows that artificial turf fields are fenced and locked when not in use for scheduled athletic practice or games. This would preclude non-athletic use of Ritzer for other CHS activities. Negative impact on the restricted use of the fields is open to question and unfortunately could best be determined after the fields are covered in artificial turf. I agree that an argument could definitely be made for the ability to increase available playing time on the fields. Once again, it comes down to where your priorities lie.
I guess that is my question - what experience shows artificial turf is locked and closed? Yes Underhill was closed following a murder, (which seems a good reason), but it reopened with new security measures and now is used with great frequency by the community, where is turf fenced and locked? This is not the case in Millburn, it is not the case in Orange, it is not the case West Orange, it is not the case in Newark, it is not the case Summit - though admittedly some of those are county facilities. What is this experience that suggests that having a turf field will have a negative impact to use?
This argument that sports in high school makes for better students is legitimate.,Columbia used to be #1 in sports and academics not so long ago…when the grass was growing on Ritzer field. I don’t think turf will get the school back to the way it was, when people looked to move to the area because of the school’s accomplishments. Turf is not gonna prevent students who leave the district for private high schools. There’s much more going on, the field and the pool and the bathrooms are just symptoms of a larger issue.
Turf is not meant to stem private school attrition, rather it is to give students usable and safe facilities. This past fall roughly 30% of games meant to played on Ritzer had to be canceled because field was unusable. This will not be the case with a synthetic field. You are right this is a symptom of poor management and maintenance of our facilities, which is the point of the approved LRFP of which this project is a part. We have continually proven an inability to maintain our facilities, so let's install lower maintenance, higher utilization synthetic turf and insist we maintain it.
Why is the field unusable? When it was usable for decades, and giving Columbia some of its best athletes! Make it usable again, not everything has to be thrown out and replaced with plastic. It seems like you pro turfers only have one solution, when it’s obvious that the school did pretty damn well with the grass field in the past. I’m not buying it.
Why is the field unusable? When it was usable for decades, and giving Columbia some of its best athletes! Make it usable again, not everything has to be thrown out and replaced with plastic. It seems like you pro turfers only have one solution, when it’s obvious that the school did pretty damn well with the grass field in the past. I’m not buying it.
No one is claiming it is the only solution, just that it is the an already approved and best solution if you want the amount of usage desired to meet demand. This will mean more playing time and engagement for student-athletes and for others who participate in extracurricular outdoor activities. Synthetic turf offers a better utilization rate than trying (and continually failing) to maintain a grass field.
Why is the field unusable? When it was usable for decades, and giving Columbia some of its best athletes! Make it usable again, not everything has to be thrown out and replaced with plastic. It seems like you pro turfers only have one solution, when it’s obvious that the school did pretty damn well with the grass field in the past. I’m not buying it.
Same reason no one drinks out of the garden hose anymore. Times change and what was considered challenging in the past, a muddy field, is considered unusable today.
This is so relevant. In fact, I have it on good authority that very soon now, the BOE will come into a) some more land and b) financial resources exceeding those available to FIFA and our fields will be the envy of the sports world.
The pool issue of course is long dead. For many reasons, not least of which is that it was unusable for modern competition. But we have dodged spending money on the schools for the last 40 years, and now we justify not spending what's needed by saying our neglect has made it too expensive. Perfect.
So many kids have lunch on the field, when it’s covered in plastic, they will have to just hang around on valley I guess. Who exactly are these people pushing to make this field artificial turf? What do they have to gain by this?
So many kids have lunch on the field, when it’s covered in plastic, they will have to just hang around on valley I guess. Who exactly are these people pushing to make this field artificial turf? What do they have to gain by this?
An anonymous commenter demands “Who exactly?” when the article that chalmers posted identified several, all of them students like the lunchers, by name. The commenter than asks what they have to gain, four pages into a discussion that he or she apparently hasn’t read.
There will be eight World Cup games over 39 days at MetLife Stadium. Given the importance of the event and the relatively recent installation of the grass, it is reasonable to presume that the number of dedicated groundskeepers will at least be 20, which is what you’d see on a larger MLB crew for a team with a grass field. If Ritzer is limited to one game every five days with a dedicated staff of 20 employed to maintain it, I believe it is possible to have a safe, durable grass field.
Of course, the reason why this is such a big story is that MetLife will need to install grass (using a tray system) for the World Cup. Why? Because grass, which has been tried at the Meadowlands, could not stand up to one football game per week given the conditions, even with virtually unlimited resources available to maintain it.
Odd that they would require stadiums to replace turf with grass.
It’s odd only if you don’t understand why FIFA would acknowledge different standards for developmental soccer programs and its premier competition. No one’s arguing that turf is better than, as others have noted, an elaborately cared-for and lightly used grass field.
Here are the attachments for the BOSE meeting to be held at 5 p.m. Tuesday. One is an email from the outside engineer stating that there is no presence of wetlands at Ritzer.
There's also a detailed financial breakdown. As most people realize, turf is more expensive to install, grass is more expensive to maintain. Over a 24-year period, which would include replacement of the turf halfway through, the overall cost is about equal (5.1M turf/ 5M grass). However, the turf could be used nearly four times as much.
A few questions that might help in understanding the need and impact of the revised proposal for Ritzer;
According to this, Project Adventure would be compromised if the plan for covering the second field with artificial turf were to be adopted. It seems questionable whether the entire complex could be saved, even if it were moved to accommodate the mirrored field. Do we have figures on how many students currently use Project Adventure? If it could not be saved, what if anything could replace it?
Were projected hours of additional playing time (artificial turf vs grass) actually needed to meet projected demand included in the support documents? I did not see it but assume it would not equal the maximum number of hours of playing time given for the expansion of the artificial turf field. This figure could be helpful in determining the need to turf the second field.
How many additional hours of playing time would be gained from having artificial turf installed on just the one field as originally proposed? How far would that go towards meeting additional demand?
If girl's and boy's are both currently using Ritzer, why is it assumed that only girl's athletics would suffer if only one field was covered in artificial turf?
Fencing cost is included in the proposal documents. Is the proposal to fence in the entire two-field complex? If so, what impact would that have on multi-use of the space?
A few questions that might help in understanding the need and impact of the revised proposal for Ritzer;
According to this, Project Adventure would be compromised if the plan for covering the second field with artificial turf were to be adopted. It seems questionable whether the entire complex could be saved, even if it were moved to accommodate the mirrored field. Do we have figures on how many students currently use Project Adventure? If it could not be saved, what if anything could replace it?
Were projected hours of additional playing time (artificial turf vs grass) actually needed to meet projected demand included in the support documents? I did not see it but assume it would not equal the maximum number of hours of playing time given for the expansion of the artificial turf field. This figure could be helpful in determining the need to turf the second field.
How many additional hours of playing time would be gained from having artificial turf installed on just the one field as originally proposed? How far would that go towards meeting additional demand?
If girl's and boy's are both currently using Ritzer, why is it assumed that only girl's athletics would suffer if only one field was covered in artificial turf?
Fencing cost is included in the proposal documents. Is the proposal to fence in the entire two-field complex? If so, what impact would that have on multi-use of the space?
I suspect that if they only turf one field, it's limited to softball. Turfing both fields expands use to field hockey, soccer, and lacrosse.
I suspect that if they only turf one field, it's limited to softball. Turfing both fields expands use to field hockey, soccer, and lacrosse.
Except the BOSE documents linked above state that six groups currently use Ritzer: five athletic teams and the marching band. Artificial turf would allow for additional use beyond that.
According to this, Project Adventure would be compromised if the plan for covering the second field with artificial turf were to be adopted.
Is Project Adventure more than the ropes course? The expanded plan says the existing ropes course will be protected.
If girl's and boy's are both currently using Ritzer, why is it assumed that only girl's athletics would suffer if only one field was covered in artificial turf?
The “original scope” plan doesn’t include softball fields. The expanded plan does. If that’s the case, softball would have suffered — comparatively — under the original plan.
While driving past the field at terminal dusk tonight, I may have spotted a turf blanket covering a portion of it. Visibility wasn’t great. Was a dormant seeding project recently carried out?
Except the BOSE documents linked above state that six groups currently use Ritzer: five athletic teams and the marching band. Artificial turf would allow for additional use beyond that.
Except games that currently get canceled because it rained within the last three days won't get canceled. Kids playing on that field won't suffer season-ending knee injuries because they tripped in, essentially, a pothole. The list goes on and on. It's projected to permit 3000 hours of use instead of 800 that would be available with a grass field.
While driving past the field at terminal dusk tonight, I may have spotted a turf blanket covering a portion of it. Visibility wasn’t great. Was a dormant seeding project recently carried out?
I notice that we regularly cover large portions of playing field with plastic in the wintertime and presumably discard the plastic in the spring.
Needed? That's the point.