I’m picturing myself having a community park like DeHart, enjoying informal recreational use of its expansive, grass-and-dirt field. Now I’m imagining how I’d feel if told that to avoid the aesthetic, environmental (heat, runoff, rubber granulate dispersal, all proven) and significantly more active (because that’s the whole point, right?) intrusion of artificial turf I could just walk an extra half-mile to another neighborhood or drive to a county reservation.
I’m sympathetic to your argument too, Dave. As lovely as the reservation is, it is very different in character to a community park, and much less accessible than DeHart is to the Hilton neighborhood. Also, I would never think to suggest a turf field at Borden Park for example.
Where we part company is the notion that Maplecrest is “in another neighborhood” and somehow less accessible. Look at a map. Both parks are at the edges of the Hilton neighborhood - one across Burnet and one across Springfield. 5 city blocks are 1/4 mile, not 1/2 mile. If you take the midpoint we are taking about 1/8 mile. I believe both to be eminently accessible to Hilton, quite comparable, and one could argue, redundant. And we also disagree on how pleasant and enjoyable a dirt and grass (mostly dirt due to overuse and poor maintenance) field are under any circumstance.
Now let’s imagine it rains, either overnight or in the morning. Both parks in their current condition would be unusable for organized athletics. Any I don’t see much picnicking happening in the middle of the rutted, muddy, dirt and gravel field. However, if the field were turfed, athletic play could go on as if nothing had happened. The picnic could happen at Maplecrest, or not, but it wouldn’t be canceled because there was not comparable space just as close as DeHart.
Look at a map. Both parks are at the edges of the Hilton neighborhood - one across Burnet and one across Springfield. 5 city blocks are 1/4 mile, not 1/2 mile.
Before posting, I did look at a Google map and plotted a walk from DeHart to Maplecrest. It measured five-tenths of mile. Now, that was to a more central part of Maplecrest than the edge along Tuscan. If you walk from park edge to park edge, it says 0.3. (Nobody who wants to enjoy a park walks to or from its edge.) Be all that as it may, my ears would be open to the local residents on this point; if they say DeHart is more convenient to them, I’m not one to tell them — and here I’m guilty of my own rhetorical flourish — to take a hike.
True, muddy fields aren’t much fun for picnicking or even a game of catch. (Tag football and pickup soccer may be another matter; I had some blasts playing those on muddy fields.) The aesthetic, environmental and activity intrusions I mentioned apply to all those other days.
How far are we from the park honey? It’s two blocks away, but if we measure to the midpoint of the park, it’s really four. Hmm. I guess you can’t argue maths.
Be all that as it may. In Philly, a difference of five blocks made a difference in how we used and felt about nearby parks. I suppose we could have been shamed out of our insular preferences if it meant greater access to organized sports.
Has the TC given a reason for wanting to approve the bonding before the contours of the turfing project have been decided? (Nancy Adams may have asked a similar question, but I can’t recall.) The $1.8 million total conforms with the turf engineering firm’s estimate for covering the whole field, softball diamond and all. While I believe the TC has said that isn’t the intent, and Dean Dafis said any extra money could go toward other greening efforts, can someone explain the thought process?
I’m sympathetic to your argument too, Dave. As lovely as the reservation is, it is very different in character to a community park, and much less accessible than DeHart is to the Hilton neighborhood. Also, I would never think to suggest a turf field at Borden Park for example.
Where we part company is the notion that Maplecrest is “in another neighborhood” and somehow less accessible. Look at a map. Both parks are at the edges of the Hilton neighborhood - one across Burnet and one across Springfield. 5 city blocks are 1/4 mile, not 1/2 mile. If you take the midpoint we are taking about 1/8 mile. I believe both to be eminently accessible to Hilton, quite comparable, and one could argue, redundant. And we also disagree on how pleasant and enjoyable a dirt and grass (mostly dirt due to overuse and poor maintenance) field are under any circumstance.
Now let’s imagine it rains, either overnight or in the morning. Both parks in their current condition would be unusable for organized athletics. Any I don’t see much picnicking happening in the middle of the rutted, muddy, dirt and gravel field. However, if the field were turfed, athletic play could go on as if nothing had happened. The picnic could happen at Maplecrest, or not, but it wouldn’t be canceled because there was not comparable space just as close as DeHart.
A few facts: Maplecrest and Dehart are four blocks apart if you take Tuscan Street to Tuscan Road and walk east for one block (maybe a five minute walk). However, not everyone who uses Dehart Park lives at Maplewood Crossing. DeHart Park is not at the edge of the Hilton neighborhood if you factor in Lightning Brook, which most consider to be part of Hilton, it is relatively central to the overall Hilton neighborhood. The western part of the Hilton neighborhood are closer to Memorial Park than DeHart Park or Maplecrest. None of this affects your core argument that if we look at our entire municipal park system rather than viewing DeHart as a neighborhood park, some forms of passive recreation could take places as easily at Maplecrest as at DeHart. The only point to add to this is that there are facilities at Dehart Park such as the outdoor exercise equipment, Senior Center, and Community Center which are not duplicated at Maplecrest or any other park in our municipal system. There are those who are concerned that some of these specialized facilities could find their programming/availability reduced significantly if Dehart were to be transformed into more of athletic complex than it is now. Whether these concerns are legitimate remains to be seen.
A few facts: Maplecrest and Dehart are four blocks apart if you take Tuscan Street to Tuscan Road and walk east for one block (maybe a five minute walk). However, not everyone who uses Dehart Park lives at Maplewood Crossing. DeHart Park is not at the edge of the Hilton neighborhood if you factor in Lightning Brook, which most consider to be part of Hilton, it is relatively central to the overall Hilton neighborhood. The western part of the Hilton neighborhood are closer to Memorial Park than DeHart Park or Maplecrest. None of this affects your core argument that if we look at our entire municipal park system rather than viewing DeHart as a neighborhood park, some forms of passive recreation could take places as easily at Maplecrest as at DeHart. The only point to add to this is that there are facilities at Dehart Park such as the outdoor exercise equipment, Senior Center, and Community Center which are not duplicated at Maplecrest or any other park in our municipal system. There are those who are concerned that some of these specialized facilities could find their programming/availability reduced significantly if Dehart were to be transformed into more of athletic complex than it is now. Whether these concerns are legitimate remains to be seen.
A few facts: Maplecrest and Dehart are four blocks apart if you take Tuscan Street to Tuscan Road and walk east for one block (maybe a five minute walk). However, not everyone who uses Dehart Park lives at Maplewood Crossing. DeHart Park is not at the edge of the Hilton neighborhood if you factor in Lightning Brook, which most consider to be part of Hilton, it is relatively central to the overall Hilton neighborhood. The western part of the Hilton neighborhood are closer to Memorial Park than DeHart Park or Maplecrest. None of this affects your core argument that if we look at our entire municipal park system rather than viewing DeHart as a neighborhood park, some forms of passive recreation could take places as easily at Maplecrest as at DeHart. The only point to add to this is that there are facilities at Dehart Park such as the outdoor exercise equipment, Senior Center, and Community Center which are not duplicated at Maplecrest or any other park in our municipal system. There are those who are concerned that some of these specialized facilities could find their programming/availability reduced significantly if Dehart were to be transformed into more of athletic complex than it is now. Whether these concerns are legitimate remains to be seen.
why do people think the installation of an all-weather athletic field will lead to reductions in the availability of the facilities in the park that are separate from the fields?
Jeez Mom, you're right, I didn't mean "cover the entire park" but that was hardly my point which you clearly missed i.e. the absurd notion that "progressive" somehow means embracing the idea of plastic grass.
It seems the unspoken subtext of the pro-turf argument can be read thusly:
“This planet and our taxes are already f_ucked so just let me and mine take another piece of limited green space so my kid can kick a ball around without getting dirty.”
Oh, speaking of children, let’s not forget the childish argument of “But other towns have it mom!”.
PS: This is one discussion which does not require the inclusion of politics.
Turf has nothing to do with kids not getting dirty. It has to do with having unplayable fields for a significant portion of time that are unsafe and kids have gotten hurt on, and that other teams have refused to play on. This long overdue improvement has nothing to do with my own kids at this point and would benefit other people’s kids in the community. It’s about valuing young athletes and team sports. The Maplewood anti-turf argument is of course entirely political as most communities in north and central Jersey, including our neighboring towns of all races and socioeconomic status, have turf fields and Maplewood is unique in having this local opposition. If you consider pointing out the obvious facts to be “childish” and consider this opposition not to be political it’s not worth responding to you further.
of course the issue is political, especially if it ends up as a referendum. It's not Democratic/Republican political, but it's political nonetheless. Last time around it was a coalition of fiscally conservative and environmentally concerned voters who made up the bulk of the opposition. And they are usually the most fired up. And the pro-turf field people? Probably not so passionate. For example, I'm in favor but not fired up about it. If the field doesn't get built, it's no skin off my apple, because nobody in my family uses the athletic facilities. I'd guess there are a lot of people like that who think an all-weather athletic field is a good thing, but aren't excited about it.
It's been a good ten years or so since I played or coached on any of the fields, but from what I'm reading the condition of them doesn't seem like they've gotten any better since then (and they're possibly worse). I wonder how many of the people who keep saying grass fields can be maintained in excellent condition, even under the current use cases actually use the fields. A number of the facilities in SOMA are along the river -- Waterlands, Chyzowich, Memorial Park, Farrell. I suspect some of them were devoted to parkland in the first place because they weren't suitable for building on, due to poor drainage. Maintenance won't solve standing water on the fields a day after a rain storm. Maybe an engineer can explain how we could improve the drainage on the fields to prevent that (but how much would installing state of the art drainage systems cost?).
Again, if there's a referendum I don't see a majority coalition of voters emerging to pass it. So I suspect the township will end up pouring another million or two into the DeHart grass field money pit, and in a decade another group of recreation supporters will lobby for a new field because of its abysmal condition.
Turf has nothing to do with kids not getting dirty. It has to do with having unplayable fields for a significant portion of time that are unsafe and kids have gotten hurt on, and that other teams have refused to play on. This long overdue improvement has nothing to do with my own kids at this point and would benefit other people’s kids in the community. It’s about valuing young athletes and team sports. The Maplewood anti-turf argument is of course entirely political as most communities in north and central Jersey, including our neighboring towns of all races and socioeconomic status, have turf fields and Maplewood is unique in having this local opposition. If you consider pointing out the obvious facts to be “childish” and consider this opposition not to be political it’s not worth responding to you further.
Would you jump off the Brooklyn Bridge just because everyone else was doing it? I can understand the arguments that our playing fields at present are in poor condition, have severely limited playing time for a variety of reasons, and may lead to wealthier families sending their children to other towns to play sports thereby reducing the pressure for improving sports fields here. What I do not understand is the argument that everyone else has artificial turf. If those concerned about adverse health and environmental impact are correct, wouldn't this make us better than everyone else?
In December 2016, in the face of local opposition to a turf bond ordinance, Holmdel scheduled a referendum for November 2017. At its next meeting in January, the council withdrew the ordinance on its own.
Would you jump off the Brooklyn Bridge just because everyone else was doing it? I can understand the arguments that our playing fields at present are in poor condition, have severely limited playing time for a variety of reasons, and may lead to wealthier families sending their children to other towns to play sports thereby reducing the pressure for improving sports fields here. What I do not understand is the argument that everyone else has artificial turf. If those concerned about adverse health and environmental impact are correct, wouldn't this make us better than everyone else?
No, what it means is other neighboring and area communities value youth athletics and team sports while many residents in ours refuse to do so. For people that care about equity issues, the real losers in this argument are the kids who can’t afford thousands of dollars to join club teams so that they can play sports while the local fields are consistently unplayable. There is a value in kids getting away from screens and playing team sports with children of all races and neighborhoods in our town.
In December 2016, in the face of local opposition to a turf bond ordinance, Holmdel scheduled a referendum for November 2017. At its next meeting in January, the council withdrew the ordinance on its own.
I have seen games played on turf fields in some of these towns, including Scotch Plains so looks like the opposition did not matter in the decision-making.
In December 2016, in the face of local opposition to a turf bond ordinance, Holmdel scheduled a referendum for November 2017. At its next meeting in January, the council withdrew the ordinance on its own.
I have seen games played on turf fields in some of these towns, including Scotch Plains so looks like the opposition did not matter in the decision-making.
Scotch Plains has four artificial turf fields, including a privately owned one at Union Catholic HS.
But you are learning the lesson I've learned the hard way. We should avoid words like "unique", "all", "never", etc. because someone will easily find the exception to rebut you
I have seen games played on turf fields in some of these towns, including Scotch Plains so looks like the opposition did not matter in the decision-making.
49% opposition means the referendum passed. Point is that it passed by a very narrow margin. Maplewood is not alone in having a significant level of opposition to artificial turf.
I have seen games played on turf fields in some of these towns, including Scotch Plains so looks like the opposition did not matter in the decision-making.
The Scotch Plains referendum narrowly passed. It’s also possible that some of the towns already had turf fields and the votes were about adding to them.
In this case, the “obvious fact” is that Maplewood is not unique in having some strong opposition.
But you are learning the lesson I've learned the hard way. We should avoid words like "unique", "all", "never", etc. because someone will easily find the exception to rebut you
49% opposition means the referendum passed. Point is that it passed by a very narrow margin. Maplewood is not alone in having a significant level of opposition to artificial turf.
But in the end, they now have 4 turf fields, so the opposition did not prevail and their young athletes have playable fields. I think that is the important point to be made.
Has the TC given a reason for wanting to approve the bonding before the contours of the turfing project have been decided?
why do people think the installation of an all-weather athletic field will lead to reductions in the availability of the facilities in the park that are separate from the fields?
But you are learning the lesson I've learned the hard way. We should avoid words like "unique", "all", "never", etc. because someone will easily find the exception to rebut you
Facts Matter.
absolutely. every time I'm sloppy with my writing I want to smack myself in the head because I should know better
But in the end, they now have 4 turf fields, so the opposition did not prevail and their young athletes have playable fields. I think that is the important point to be made.
Ml1 painted the cursory examples as a technicality, but the other point is that whatever else you think of it, the opposition in Maplewood is nothing exotic.
I'm not going to say Maplewood is unique with regard to the opposition to artificial turf, but it seems like we do have more opposition to synthetic turf itself than some other towns. There are a lot of people who don't seem to want artificial turf at any cost. Opposition in other towns is often over a whole host of other issues, and as in the case of Scotch Plains, they're towns that already have artificial turf fields.
This is almost a decade ago as well, but across Union County in 2012 there were a number of towns where artificial turf installations were controversial. There are always concerns about environmental or health effects of the product itself. But there are a lot of other issues in play as well. And sometimes the opposition to a new field is because a town already has artificial turf fields. This was the circumstance in Westfield at the time:
Near-neighbors to the proposed Westfield project cite negatives including cost, traffic and parking, and bright lights. They fear that the increased noise, light and traffic on game days will diminish their property values. Others balked at the sheer size of a $16.9 million bond and the all-or-nothing stakes that attached the two projects. Proponents note that the town's other two turf fields — Sid Fey/Houlihan owned by the Town of Westfield and Kehler Stadium — will need to be replaced in the near and mid-term, respectively.
I'd be interested to know how many towns in Essex and Union County don't have any artificial turf facilities for general recreation programs. Because driving around the area, I pass synthetic fields all over, in all types of towns and cities from Millburn to Union to Newark.
Can someone summarize the pros and cons for the undecided in a clear dispassionate way? Thank you.
My previous comment describes a con argument that resonates with me. The main pro argument I can’t dismiss is the equity of accommodating enough organized sports to meet needs without relying on private or otherwise outside options. (My personal caveat there is that rising demand isn’t a justification in and of itself; it, too, is subject to some tough choices.)
Can someone summarize the pros and cons for the undecided in a clear dispassionate way? Thank you.
My previous comment describes a con argument that resonates with me. The main pro argument I can’t dismiss is the equity of accommodating enough organized sports to meet needs without relying on private or otherwise outside options. (My personal caveat there is that rising demand isn’t a justification in and of itself; it, too, is subject to some tough choices.)
Thank you.
a couple of thoughts. First, IMHO rising demand is something to consider from an equity standpoint because in the time we've been in Maplewood, my observation is that the increases in demand have been in response to in increase in girls playing sports.
second is that I find the notion that some people are concerned with DeHart becoming "more" of an athletic facility is kind of strange. The site was clearly designed with athletics in mind. It's great that it includes a community center, and certainly no one should be looking to curtail activities there. But DeHart is obviously mainly an athletic facility. Aside from the parking lots, almost all of the site is athletic fields, basketball and tennis courts, and a skate park. It's nice that there are other aspects to the facility, but to suggest it's not first and foremost built for sports is kind of ignoring the obvious.
I don't think there is a skatepark (that's Maplecrest). DeHart has a playground (dirt/woodchip area) and a workout area with equipment (under trees behind the community ctr), and paved walking path around the park.
ETA: There's also some green area to the lower-right with trees. People walk their dogs into that section frequently.
Has the TC given a reason for wanting to approve the bonding before the contours of the turfing project have been decided?
why do people think the installation of an all-weather athletic field will lead to reductions in the availability of the facilities in the park that are separate from the fields?
Joan, any insight on the second one?
On the first question: You didn't see me write this and it is pure conjecture on my part. The impression I got listening to the township committee discussions on artificial turf is that they wanted to create a climate in which a referendum in favor of artificial turf would appear on the ballot and be defeated by the electorate rather than the TC saying no to a large and vocal group of voters pushing hard for artificial turf.
On question 2: Several possibilities come to mind. I am sure there are others. All are assumptions I have heard from various sources. None is backed up by fact. (1) Some seniors are concerned that environmental impact such as heat island effect, loss of oxygen producing plants, and debris from the artificial turf field will severely limit their ability to take outdoor exercises classes and enjoy congregate lunches presently held at DeHart Park. [This is the only area in town in which seniors have been able to attend such events out-of-doors, especially during the continued pandemic when all other open areas where turned over to businesses or programs run for other interest groups. Indoor programming has been denied to them as the senior center and community center remain closed to them.] (2) The kids camp, which is held at the Community Center relies on the fields for much of their programming, especially since the pandemic has driven much of their program out of doors. This is a summer program and we have had a lot of 90+ degree days this summer. Some people are concerned that heat island effect would make use of these fields dangerous for young children, assuming the kids camp would be able to use the fields at all. Others worry about health issues resulting from materials that may be used in the construction of the field. (3) Some people, especially the mobility challenged and those with stroller-age children, who drive to DeHart Park are concerned that extended playing time on the fields will make it harder for them to find parking in the limited parking space that presently exists at DeHart. They point to the known parking issues at DeHart on Election Day as substantiation for this position. There is very little on street parking in the neighborhood.
I don't think there is a skatepark (that's Maplecrest). DeHart has a playground (dirt/woodchip area) and a workout area with equipment (under trees behind the community ctr), and paved walking path around the park.
ETA: There's also some green area to the lower-right with trees. People walk their dogs into that section frequently.
that's right. I confused the two parks. But the point remains that the vast majority of the site is an athletic facility. And there is no reason to believe the shaded portions or the playground or paths would be removed for artificial turf.
I’m sympathetic to your argument too, Dave. As lovely as the reservation is, it is very different in character to a community park, and much less accessible than DeHart is to the Hilton neighborhood. Also, I would never think to suggest a turf field at Borden Park for example.
Where we part company is the notion that Maplecrest is “in another neighborhood” and somehow less accessible. Look at a map. Both parks are at the edges of the Hilton neighborhood - one across Burnet and one across Springfield. 5 city blocks are 1/4 mile, not 1/2 mile. If you take the midpoint we are taking about 1/8 mile. I believe both to be eminently accessible to Hilton, quite comparable, and one could argue, redundant. And we also disagree on how pleasant and enjoyable a dirt and grass (mostly dirt due to overuse and poor maintenance) field are under any circumstance.
Now let’s imagine it rains, either overnight or in the morning. Both parks in their current condition would be unusable for organized athletics. Any I don’t see much picnicking happening in the middle of the rutted, muddy, dirt and gravel field. However, if the field were turfed, athletic play could go on as if nothing had happened. The picnic could happen at Maplecrest, or not, but it wouldn’t be canceled because there was not comparable space just as close as DeHart.