The Turf War Returns
ml1 said:
sprout said:
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.
The turf field is intended for part of the grass square in the middle of the photo.
I just want to point out that the Town already excludes many people from using these fields since they are fenced off and there is signage that basically says keep off the grass.
From the Village Green: Update August 18, 2021: Maplewood Township Clerk Liz Fritzen wrote via email “I have certified the petition [for a referendum on artificial turf] as compliant and have referred it to the Mayor and Maplewood Township Committee for further action.”
Referendum here we come.
joan_crystal said:
From the Village Green: Update August 18, 2021: Maplewood Township Clerk Liz Fritzen wrote via email “I have certified the petition [for a referendum on artificial turf] as compliant and have referred it to the Mayor and Maplewood Township Committee for further action.”
Referendum here we come.
Personally, I'm not in favor of referenda on budget issues in general. As I mentioned earlier, it seems like the people who oppose additional spending or new construction are much, much more passionate than those in favor. I guess we should feel fortunate that the construction of the Maplewood Library or Memorial Park were never submitted to a vote.
And if we want to look back at the last artificial turf referendum, the "no" votes only barely outnumbered the voters who declined to cast a vote at all on the referendum. Over four thousand people who came out to vote for other offices in 2008 didn't even vote on the referendum. So including voters who skipped the election entirely, roughly 20% of the township's then-20,000 registered voters got their wish to stop the field improvements (which were a lot more than just an artificial turf field, btw. We lost an opportunity to purchase nearly 2 acres of land to expand DeHart, for example).
But it is what it is. That's the law, and we'll see how it plays out. But in an odd-year election, we should expect that as few as 15% (or even fewer) of the township's registered voters may be sufficient to EITHER pass or defeat this referendum if the undervote % is similar to what it was in 2008. Personally I don't think this is a good way to govern, but it's the system we've got.
Aside from the two field proposals, can you recall any other referendums on town spending measures?
chalmers said:
Aside from the two field proposals, can you recall any other referendums on town spending measures?
I recall one to establish an open space trust fund, which passed.
For those in favor of the new field: https://www.improveourfields.com/
And info for those against turfing DeHart: https://dontturfdehart.com/
Vote is on November 2nd!
IMHO, those against turf are winning the PR battle. Those who favor turf need to get organized or they will lose again.
DanDietrich said:
Jaytee said:
There’s Chyzowych field that really could use some turf and a do over.
the Hilton neighborhood wants their park to remain the way it is. That’s my neighborhood. It’s not about property values. It’s about the value of the park. Maplewood was this sleepy little town not many people knew about, until the mid town direct brought in the people who are accustomed to artificial turf and concrete playgrounds…one would think you moved here to get away from that. I know I did.The "I am here now, everyone else stay away" approach has led to a lot of problems in this country .
@Jaytee said nothing of the sort. They articulated why they moved and communicated the ongoing benefit of grass. Everyone else is welcome to this patch of grass. The objection is to paving the grass.
yahooyahoo said:
IMHO, those against turf are winning the PR battle. Those who favor turf need to get organized or they will lose again.
Its not just a question of organization. The issues being presented by the anti-turf (at Dehart Park) faction have a broader base of support than the issues being presented by those in favor.
Those in favor essentially have a single issue. Our kids need more playing time on the fields than they are getting now. Putting artificial turf on the fields at Dehart Park will increase playing time for everyone.
Those opposed are not opposed to children having more time to play sports on the town's athletic field. They are concerned about costs, environmental impact, resource allocation in our parks, preserving green space (especially in Hilton), and whether putting artificial turf at Dehart will accomplish the goal set forth by the pro-turf group. The anti-turf arguments simply appeal to a greater and wider variety of voters. I agree that it looks like the question will be defeated in November.
A few thoughts:
- My freshman child joined the Environmental Club. A good portion of their first meeting this school year had to do with the environmental impact of turfing DeHart. They are opposed, to say the least. I urge them to speak out and explain.
- As to the referendum ... This is not merely a budget matter, though it may be to some. This is a social matter as well as an environmental matter.
- I am highly sensitive to the way DeHart Park is treated socially, especially on MOL. I live in this neighborhood, most commonly known as "That's still Maplewood???" to townsfolk. I do not believe for a minute the thoughts, needs, and wants of this neighborhood are a consideration to the majority of people in MAPSO at large.
- In the 17 years I've lived in Maplewood, I've seen the vibe change from fairly chill to typical suburb, and not in a good way. Wealth and privilege seem to be bullying the rest of us into submission. I'm seeing this in the turf battle now.
- I'm speaking ion broad terms here for the sake of (relative) brevity. I could go on and on, but don't feel like writing an essay on the Sociology of Maplewood.
vdfam said:
- I am highly sensitive to the way DeHart Park is treated socially, especially on MOL. I live in this neighborhood, most commonly known as "That's still Maplewood???" to townsfolk. I do not believe for a minute the thoughts, needs, and wants of this neighborhood are a consideration to the majority of people in MAPSO at large.
Wouldn't a more durable playing field at DeHart lead to substantially more games there involving families from all over Maplewood and South Orange? This would overcome the "That's still Maplewood?" syndrome for those families, perhaps help some Springfield Avenue businesses and accomplish the type of intentional integration that we're finally attempting with the school district.
If the field remains lousy (and I agree it looks like that's how the vote will go), wealthy families who want their kids to play organized sports on safe, reliable fields will increasingly pay to put them on clubs based in other towns. Meanwhile, those who can't afford that will continue to muddle through (often literally) at DeHart, when it's playable.
I understand there are other arguments against putting turf at DeHart, but failing to upgrade the field seems like it would directly add to the isolation of the section of Maplewood east of Springfield that bothers you so much.
vdfam said:
- My freshman child joined the Environmental Club. A good portion of their first meeting this school year had to do with the environmental impact of turfing DeHart. They are opposed, to say the least. I urge them to speak out and explain.
It's great to see young people learning about the issues and speaking up for what they believe in. What is the club's position on the turf currently used at the school's Underhill athletic facility and the plans to install turf on Ritzer Field outside the school?
this issue came up on the ballot 13 years ago, so I don't see how its resurfacing can be traced to any sociological changes in Maplewood.
The reality is that many of the recreational facilities in SOMA are woefully substandard. That's why the issue comes up every so often. And it has little to do with wealth or privilege IMHO. I'm generalizing of course, but the people in favor of an artificial surface facility tend to be people with a vested interest in recreation programs. The opponents tend to be a coalition of people who have host of different concerns about costs, environment, etc.
The fact that the athletic facility is in the Hilton neighborhood is an outcome of a decision made about 40 years ago. The reason it was placed there at that time is probably only known to a handful of long-time residents. But that's where it is now, its the one facility with lights, and it's the one that was built specifically as an athletic field.
That's correct, and in a community where I, and it seems like most people, are willing to support the funding of various worthy programs even when we don't benefit from them personally, this persistently is the one issue that seems to break down along those lines.
ml1 said:
this issue came up on the ballot 13 years ago, so I don't see how its resurfacing can be traced to any sociological changes in Maplewood.
...
I see what you did there.
chalmers said:
vdfam said:
- I am highly sensitive to the way DeHart Park is treated socially, especially on MOL. I live in this neighborhood, most commonly known as "That's still Maplewood???" to townsfolk. I do not believe for a minute the thoughts, needs, and wants of this neighborhood are a consideration to the majority of people in MAPSO at large.
Wouldn't a more durable playing field at DeHart lead to substantially more games there involving families from all over Maplewood and South Orange? This would overcome the "That's still Maplewood?" syndrome for those families, perhaps help some Springfield Avenue businesses and accomplish the type of intentional integration that we're finally attempting with the school district.
If the field remains lousy (and I agree it looks like that's how the vote will go), wealthy families who want their kids to play organized sports on safe, reliable fields will increasingly pay to put them on clubs based in other towns. Meanwhile, those who can't afford that will continue to muddle through (often literally) at DeHart, when it's playable.
I understand there are other arguments against putting turf at DeHart, but failing to upgrade the field seems like it would directly add to the isolation of the section of Maplewood east of Springfield that bothers you so much.
This is a reasonable, rational, and well thought out response. My intellect is vibing ... My experience-based emotional mind is skeptical. I would love it if patrons of the park would dine and shop on Springfield Ave ... Will they? ...
Most of all, I want my neighborhood aware that this debate is happening, and want us involved, which is an "us" issue.
vdfam said:
chalmers said:
vdfam said:
- I am highly sensitive to the way DeHart Park is treated socially, especially on MOL. I live in this neighborhood, most commonly known as "That's still Maplewood???" to townsfolk. I do not believe for a minute the thoughts, needs, and wants of this neighborhood are a consideration to the majority of people in MAPSO at large.
Wouldn't a more durable playing field at DeHart lead to substantially more games there involving families from all over Maplewood and South Orange? This would overcome the "That's still Maplewood?" syndrome for those families, perhaps help some Springfield Avenue businesses and accomplish the type of intentional integration that we're finally attempting with the school district.
If the field remains lousy (and I agree it looks like that's how the vote will go), wealthy families who want their kids to play organized sports on safe, reliable fields will increasingly pay to put them on clubs based in other towns. Meanwhile, those who can't afford that will continue to muddle through (often literally) at DeHart, when it's playable.
I understand there are other arguments against putting turf at DeHart, but failing to upgrade the field seems like it would directly add to the isolation of the section of Maplewood east of Springfield that bothers you so much.
This is a reasonable, rational, and well thought out response. My intellect is vibing ... My experience-based emotional mind is skeptical. I would love it if patrons of the park would dine and shop on Springfield Ave ... Will they? ...
Most of all, I want my neighborhood aware that this debate is happening, and want us involved, which is an "us" issue.
You're right, neighborhood residents need to steer what happens here and if something does occur, the town should back that up to increase the likelihood that SOMA residents and visitors alike will take advantage of local businesses rather than just driving in and driving out.
These issues are tough and unfortunately, environmental concerns often butt up against other important concerns. For example the school integration plan will require much more busing among the towns. That's not optimal for the environment, but I think the benefit to the community outweighs it.
chalmers said:
You're right, neighborhood residents need to steer what happens here and if something does occur, the town should back that up to increase the likelihood that SOMA residents and visitors alike will take advantage of local businesses rather than just driving in and driving out.
These issues are tough and unfortunately, environmental concerns often butt up against other important concerns. For example the school integration plan will require much more busing among the towns. That's not optimal for the environment, but I think the benefit to the community outweighs it.
I am fully opposed to the turf proposal for many reasons (and happy to discuss any of them) but one of the key drivers of this referendum was the failure of the TC to consult with or even notify the folks who live near DeHart about these plans. I live on the other side of town - if the turf proposal goes through I think it will be a big mistake financially and environmentally, but it won't change my daily routine. That's not true for many people I know who live near the park and who feel that their living space will be made lesser. A lot of this could have been avoided if the TC had gone to the neighborhood and talked to the people there, instead of springing this at a meeting and surprising everyone.
RichEW said:
chalmers said:
You're right, neighborhood residents need to steer what happens here and if something does occur, the town should back that up to increase the likelihood that SOMA residents and visitors alike will take advantage of local businesses rather than just driving in and driving out.
These issues are tough and unfortunately, environmental concerns often butt up against other important concerns. For example the school integration plan will require much more busing among the towns. That's not optimal for the environment, but I think the benefit to the community outweighs it.
I am fully opposed to the turf proposal for many reasons (and happy to discuss any of them) but one of the key drivers of this referendum was the failure of the TC to consult with or even notify the folks who live near DeHart about these plans. I live on the other side of town - if the turf proposal goes through I think it will be a big mistake financially and environmentally, but it won't change my daily routine. That's not true for many people I know who live near the park and who feel that their living space will be made lesser. A lot of this could have been avoided if the TC had gone to the neighborhood and talked to the people there, instead of springing this at a meeting and surprising everyone.
I agree that the lack of neighborhood outreach is a problem. However, the space in question is already a soccer field that is lit and fenced in. How does going from a poor field to one that can be used more often make someone's living space "lesser?" Wouldn't neighborhood families whose children play soccer there benefit?
that's more or less my reaction. Why should the people who live near an athletic facility get a consultation with the township over making improvements to the facility? Especially a facility used by the residents of the entire town, as well as those of South Orange? It's not like they're entitled to veto the project. The site belongs to the entire town.
ml1 said:
that's more or less my reaction. Why should the people who live near an athletic facility get a consultation with the township over making improvements to the facility? Especially a facility used by the residents of the entire town, as well as those of South Orange? It's not like they're entitled to veto the project. The site belongs to the entire town.
Really? It is common courtesy and good politics to be in touch with those in the area. No one in town has a "veto" but everyone feels a sense of ownership about important places in their immediate neighborhood, as you probably do to nearby parks. They are the ones who use it most and are most affected. And, yes, they feel it would be lesser, because they use it often as a park - with their small children and bigger ones in ways in which grass feels good beneath your feet, and plastic carpet not so much. Note that this is the part of town with the highest density, small lots (& yards) and lowest income - so fewest options.
It is not just the residents of Hilton who were blind sided by this. Unless you were a member of the group of advocates who pushed the Township Committee to approve artificial turf at DeHart Park, the first you heard of this was when the Township Committee voted to approve the bond ordinance that would fund the project. As was stated above, DeHart is a municipal park which is used as a park (as opposed to an athletic complex) by a wide range of people from Maplewood and other towns. Not all of them go there to play in or watch a game on one of the fields. If placing artificial turf on the fields at DeHart was such an obviously great idea, why wasn't the population at large informed of the proposal before it reached the point where those in opposition had to force a referendum to make their views heard?
RichEW said:
ml1 said:
that's more or less my reaction. Why should the people who live near an athletic facility get a consultation with the township over making improvements to the facility? Especially a facility used by the residents of the entire town, as well as those of South Orange? It's not like they're entitled to veto the project. The site belongs to the entire town.
Really? It is common courtesy and good politics to be in touch with those in the area. No one in town has a "veto" but everyone feels a sense of ownership about important places in their immediate neighborhood, as you probably do to nearby parks. They are the ones who use it most and are most affected. And, yes, they feel it would be lesser, because they use it often as a park - with their small children and bigger ones in ways in which grass feels good beneath your feet, and plastic carpet not so much. Note that this is the part of town with the highest density, small lots (& yards) and lowest income - so fewest options.
The turf is just going on the fenced-in fields. Barefooters and parents of youngsters will still have grassy areas and the playground area DeHart, along with Maplecrest, which is three blocks away. However, the fields are designated for organized sports. That's why you have the lights and fence there. Deciding that space would be better used as a neighborhood picnic/barefoot zone is one thing. You could tear down the lights and fence, but right now it's meant to be a field for organized sports.
Again, I think the neighborhood residents should be a big part of the decision. However, we wouldn't ever stand for decisions about Maplewood Village to be placed purely in the hands of people who live west of Prospect or whatever.
" As was stated above, DeHart is a municipal park which is used as a park (as opposed to an athletic complex) by a wide range of people from Maplewood and other towns."
Here's where the proposed turf will go. The area is taken up entirely by two soccer fields and a softball diamond. I'm not sure how it could be more of an athletic complex. It's lit for night games and fenced to separate it from the non-athletic complex area of DeHart.
You might note that field doesn't look too enticing for young athletes or barefooters.
We can agree to disagree on a lot of things. But to deny that DeHart is an athletic facility is to deny the clear reality depicted in that photo as well as the township's own description. The fact that people use the athletic field to run their dogs or take a stroll doesn't change that.
ml1 said:
...But to deny that DeHart is an athletic facility is to deny the clear reality depicted in that photo as well as the township's own description.
An aerial view of the town's main pool show an olympic-scale pool, and together with the diving tower the facilities have been used to train olympians.
We can readily accept that the pool and diving tank is so much more than a sports venue however.
An aerial view of maplecrest park will show more than one baseball diamond, tennis court, skatepark and playground.
Jaytee said:
An aerial view of maplecrest park will show more than one baseball diamond, tennis court, skatepark and playground.
No lights at Maplecrest, though. Both parks, and really all parks in town, mix areas for organized sports and more casual activity. However, DeHart is the one that's lit, which means it is the place to put turf if you're looking to maximize the opportunities for children to play on a more durable field.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Wouldn't be the first time. That was the speculation back in 2008 as well. If so, kudos to Nancy Adams for going on the record with her opposition.