The Turf War Returns

chalmers said:

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. 

 You can claim that is an athletic complex all you want, but you can't deny how people there use it and feel about it.  Another point - why are we willing to spend so much money to get an increase in percentage of use (the clubs claim they lose 25% of their games through cancelation?) For that kind of money we should be adding a whole new field to the list of Maplewood fields.

phyz said:

 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.

 but nobody is claiming it's a park and not a pool. 

ml1 said:

phyz said:

 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.

 but nobody is claiming it's a park and not a pool. 

And, like DeHart, when the Makos have a meet, the part of the pool designed for competition is used for that purpose and not available to recreational swimmers, who can use another part of the pool until the competition is over. 

RichEW said:

chalmers said:

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. 

 You can claim that is an athletic complex all you want, but you can't deny how people there use it and feel about it.  Another point - why are we willing to spend so much money to get an increase in percentage of use (the clubs claim they lose 25% of their games through cancelation?) For that kind of money we should be adding a whole new field to the list of Maplewood fields.

If the athletic field area at DeHart were being used by neighborhood residents more as an area for picnics and casual play than for organized sports, then maybe the lights should be taken down and the area should be officially repurposed. However, outside of discussions of installing artificial turf, I've never seen or heard any indication of that. Getting there for a first game or leaving a last game of a day, there aren't throngs of people who need to pack up their picnic basket or who are waiting to get out there to play Frisbee. Occasionally, when setting up in the morning, there will be someone there with an unleashed dog running around (violating a town ordinance, but whatever).

I believe the field was unplayable for 11 of the 30 days this September, a little more than 25 percent average you mention, likely due to Ida. However, installing turf would increase the field's use my a much greater margin than that, because the schedule could be extended for several weeks beyond what we can do now on both sides of the playing season. I think the closing date this year is November 8, then nothing until April while our kids have to go to other towns to play during other times or sit home.

And what of those days when children can't play on the grass? The reason for that is because the field is an unsafe, muddy mess. It doesn't become a neighborhood frolic area, just an unused space, even on sunny days.

For some people, the cost might be too high, even spread over many years and offset by the savings in costs of pesticides, mowing and other field maintenance. If you think a location exists in town where we can purchase land and create an entirely new facility for $1.8 million, I'm all ears. Alternatively, that money might be used to fund or support a facility in a nearby town where our kids could play. However, people who have spent years examining this issue believe DeHart is the best option for numerous reasons, most importantly its current use, notwithstanding its apparent transition to Walden Pond/Yasgur's Farm every 10 years or so when a turf referendum comes up.

Oh so now it’s the lack of lights that’s really what defines a neighborhood park. This issue with dehart has been going for about 30 years now. I clearly remember when the police baseball teams used to play there, no lights, games started at around 5pm, and was done just as it was getting dark, because they played in the summer. Home team vs nearby towns, us locals would take the kids, watch the games, some would jog or stroll around the track. Mostly everyone walked to the park, since there’s no parking on burnet. Then the lights were installed. You know why the lights were installed? It was not for people to be playing professional sports at night…

It’s so easy to just drive your suvs across Springfield avenue and park on the side streets when there’s a big game on. It’s perfect! After all the congestion around maplecrest park when we had 3 softball games going simultaneously, something had to be done about it. When we had the “Mexican soccer leagues” from surrounding towns, playing in maplecrest, something had to be done. When we had the basketball hoops in maplecrest they had to be taken down…

It’s always easier to go to the far side, where the houses are  smaller and the streets are narrower to have big games. It’s exciting…let’s play our games on this plastic grass then get outta here. There’s benches on Springfield avenue that some of you have never sat on. All the money spent to make the avenue more attractive to you guys was wasted. You don’t support the businesses, you probably wish there was a Starbucks or dunkin drive thru. 
All this talk about people in the Hilton area “can easily walk 3 blocks to maplecrest for a picnic” is offensive! And you wonder why this will not be favorable to the people who live in the Hilton section? You just don’t get it. You don’t really care about dehart, you care about your own backyard, where you won’t have to be listening to people late at night creating a ruckus and littering your neighborhood. I know for a fact some of you won’t even go try to park in the jacoby section to go watch a game. 

Decades ago, the town decided that the one place where we should have a lit athletic field is DeHart. It seems like you think that was the wrong decision. That's fair.

Maybe you think we shouldn't have any lit athletic fields, or any fields designated for organized athletics at all. Maybe you think we should switch the lights to Memorial Park or a field in a different neighborhood so other streets have to deal with parked cars (though the DeHart parking lot is usually adequate). Maybe you think we should invest more money to build a new facility in another part of town. All of those viewpoints are fair.

However, as things stand now, DeHart is the place designated by the town for this activity. As that's the case, I think it is a worthwhile investment to make the field usable on a consistent basis. You disagree and that's fine. Maybe it's the cost, or the environmental impact, or aesthetics or kids just play too darn much soccer these days so missing a bunch of games and playing on a lousy field is an overall benefit.

But a bunch of insulting and incorrect assumptions about people who want to improve the field don't really add to the discussion. It seems more like a way to intimidate people who disagree with you from speaking up for fear of being labeled as something bad. In a lot of areas, it seems that's becoming a staple of controversial discussions in these communities, though it obviously didn't work here.

Jaytee said:

Oh so now it’s the lack of lights that’s really what defines a neighborhood park. This issue with dehart has been going for about 30 years now. I clearly remember when the police baseball teams used to play there, no lights, games started at around 5pm, and was done just as it was getting dark, because they played in the summer. Home team vs nearby towns, us locals would take the kids, watch the games, some would jog or stroll around the track. Mostly everyone walked to the park, since there’s no parking on burnet. Then the lights were installed. You know why the lights were installed? It was not for people to be playing professional sports at night…

It’s so easy to just drive your suvs across Springfield avenue and park on the side streets when there’s a big game on. It’s perfect! After all the congestion around maplecrest park when we had 3 softball games going simultaneously, something had to be done about it. When we had the “Mexican soccer leagues” from surrounding towns, playing in maplecrest, something had to be done. When we had the basketball hoops in maplecrest they had to be taken down…

It’s always easier to go to the far side, where the houses are  smaller and the streets are narrower to have big games. It’s exciting…let’s play our games on this plastic grass then get outta here. There’s benches on Springfield avenue that some of you have never sat on. All the money spent to make the avenue more attractive to you guys was wasted. You don’t support the businesses, you probably wish there was a Starbucks or dunkin drive thru. 
All this talk about people in the Hilton area “can easily walk 3 blocks to maplecrest for a picnic” is offensive! And you wonder why this will not be favorable to the people who live in the Hilton section? You just don’t get it. You don’t really care about dehart, you care about your own backyard, where you won’t have to be listening to people late at night creating a ruckus and littering your neighborhood. I know for a fact some of you won’t even go try to park in the jacoby section to go watch a game. 

 leaving aside your assumptions and accusations, there are some answers to your questions.  Personally, I'm referring to DeHart as an athletic facility not because it has lights, but because about 90% of the usable footprint are mulitpurpose fields, tennis courts and a hockey rink.

and why does it have lights?  Because it has ballfields.  We can refer to the Maplewood history provided by the public library:

1985       Community Center erected in DeHart Park; night lights for ball - playing added.

and why is the park located in Hilton?  According to the township:

Before It Was a Park
The Becker family lived on and farmed this tract of land from the late 1800s until the 1930s. Louis Becker grew strawberries here and his son Norman was known for his pansies and mums displayed at the 1939- 40 New York World’s Fair and Rockefeller Center. In 1938 Becker sold six of the acres to Maplewood for DeHart Park and donated the greenhouse now behind town hall.

and when it was opened to the public in 1939:

Ballfields, tennis courts, a playground and a shelter house were ready in time for the 1939 season. Maplewood Community Service (the precursor to the Recreation Department) ran intra-mural softball, tennis, tether ball, and shuffleboard games as well as craft-making 

It is and always has been intended as athletic fields.  It's unfortunate that today people are ascribing all sorts of discriminatory intent to the people who simply favor getting more of the intended use out of the site.

chalmers said:

I think the closing date this year is November 8, then nothing until April while our kids have to go to other towns to play during other times or sit home.

I know recreation has changed since my childhood, but here’s hoping that choice is so stark, like some other arguments, for effect.

There are ballfields in other parks, certainly in Memorial Park and Maplecrest Park.  Why no lights in those parks?

ml1 said:

It is and always has been intended as athletic fields.  It's unfortunate that today people are ascribing all sorts of discriminatory intent to the people who simply favor getting more of the intended use out of the site.

 Doesn't have to have discriminatory intent to have discriminatory effect.  And with Ida and climate change and neighborhood flooding, is this the time to remove carbon sequestering, water absrobing, temperature cooling grass with carbon producing, water shedding, heat enhancing turf?

RichEW said:

ml1 said:

It is and always has been intended as athletic fields.  It's unfortunate that today people are ascribing all sorts of discriminatory intent to the people who simply favor getting more of the intended use out of the site.

 Doesn't have to have discriminatory intent to have discriminatory effect.  And with Ida and climate change and neighborhood flooding, is this the time to remove carbon sequestering, water absrobing, temperature cooling grass with carbon producing, water shedding, heat enhancing turf?

 the person I was responding to was clearly making accusations of intentional discrimination.  To  the point of accusing people of open disdain for Hilton residents.  

and the notion that this proposal is discriminatory under an assumption that people wouldn't stand for an artificial turf installation in any other Maplewood neighborhoods -- maybe that's so, but maybe not.  Underhill Field got an artificial turf installation and there has been discussion of the same at Ritzer.  

Underhill and Ritzer are owned and operated by the school district.  They are dedicated to serving the athletic needs of the school district.  Neither is a multipurpose municipal park open to the community at large.  

joan_crystal said:

Underhill and Ritzer are owned and operated by the school district.  They are dedicated to serving the athletic needs of the school district.  Neither is a multipurpose municipal park open to the community at large.  

 the environmental impacts RichEW assumes would be the same for the surrounding neighborhoods regardless. 

ml1 said:

 the environmental impacts RichEW assumes would be the same for the surrounding neighborhoods regardless. 

 Heat maps show the artificial fields here and nearby as the hotspots. It's real.

RichEW said:

 Heat maps show the artificial fields here and nearby as the hotspots. It's real.

 I wasn't disputing that artificial turf is warmer than grass. But it is an assumption that it would be perceptible to the people living in the neighborhood. 

ml1 said:

 I wasn't disputing that artificial turf is warmer than grass. But it is an assumption that it would be perceptible to the people living in the neighborhood. 

 that, as they say in the scince biz, is an empirical question. Can people notice a change of 1/2 degree? 2 degrees?  It certainly works against helping the heat island effect

From the "improve our fields" group:

Another factoid:  You could construct the best grass field money can buy and support it with the best grounds crew money can buy and it still would not be able to meet the demands for playing time that a turf field can.

Of all the arguments against turf, the notion that having a better installed and managed grass field is a solution is the weakest.  I think this is an argument employed by people who don't want turf under any circumstances and are looking for any possible reason for not having a turf field.

The pro-artificial turf faction is basing their position on the claim that our existing athletic fields are inadequate to meet the demands of the sports teams and clubs wanting to use them for practice and games.  Nobody questions this.  What some question is whether covering the two fields at DeHart Park with artificial turf (plastic) would by itself accomplish the goals of the pro-faction.  Others question whether covering the fields at DeHart Park with artificial turf is worth the cost to the town's finances, to the environment, to a neighborhood where the natural grass fields at DeHart Park comprise the largest green space.  Still others are critical of the way in which this was handled.  They feel there should have been community involvement in Hilton and in the town at large rather than presenting the artificial turf at DeHart project as a fait accompli.  This vote is going to come down to each of us deciding our own values and priorities and voting accordingly.  Most importantly, we each owe it to ourselves and the community at large to understand the issues surrounding this referendum and vote the way we would like to see this matter resolved.  Whether you vote by mail, at one of the early voting sites or at your local polling place, please vote.

joan_crystal said:

The pro-artificial turf faction is basing their position on the claim that our existing athletic fields are inadequate to meet the demands of the sports teams and clubs wanting to use them for practice and games.  Nobody questions this.  What some question is whether covering the two fields at DeHart Park with artificial turf (plastic) would by itself accomplish the goals of the pro-faction.  Others question whether covering the fields at DeHart Park with artificial turf is worth the cost to the town's finances, to the environment, to a neighborhood where the natural grass fields at DeHart Park comprise the largest green space.  Still others are critical of the way in which this was handled.  They feel there should have been community involvement in Hilton and in the town at large rather than presenting the artificial turf at DeHart project as a fait accompli.  This vote is going to come down to each of us deciding our own values and priorities and voting accordingly.  Most importantly, we each owe it to ourselves and the community at large to understand the issues surrounding this referendum and vote the way we would like to see this matter resolved.  Whether you vote by mail, at one of the early voting sites or at your local polling place, please vote.

Given that the project is still undefined even as it appears on the ballot as a referendum, I don't see how anyone can claim it was presented as a fait accompli.  And make the claim that input wasn't requested.   The matter was brought up at a May 18 TC meeting, and discussed again at subsequent meetings, with the public allowed to comment. The bond was proposed on July 6 and the vote was held on July 20.  Two full months for people to learn about it, discuss with other residents, and comment.  Heck, it was plenty of time to get signatures and put it on the ballot.

Feels like another claim being tossed at the wall by the opponents of the referendum in the hopes that it sticks.

ml1 said:

Given that the project is still undefined even as it appears on the ballot as a referendum, I don't see how anyone can claim it was presented as a fait accompli.  And make the claim that input wasn't requested.   The matter was brought up at a May 18 TC meeting, and discussed again at subsequent meetings, with the public allowed to comment. The bond was proposed on July 6 and the vote was held on July 20.  Two full months for people to learn about it, discuss with other residents, and comment.  Heck, it was plenty of time to get signatures and put it on the ballot.

Feels like another claim being tossed at the wall by the opponents of the referendum in the hopes that it sticks.

Undefined, so we have to go on what we have – which is the words of the consultant which led to the bond they voted for. We are responding to what he said at the meeting. You want something else? No crumb rubber? They didn’t budget for more expensive, ‘cooling’ materials. Maybe they’ll choose the synthetic fibers stitched into Kentucky Blue Grass that the Packers have at Lambeau field (very expensive). Yes, we had time to learn about it, and the more we did the less we liked the plan. Did we have time to get signatures – yes, even though this was proposed so that we had to collect in July and August – the worst possible time. Through all that the TC had plenty of time to come and meet with those who were opposed, before they voted. No one prefers a referendum to consultation, discussion and mediation.  

In tjohns comment, I agree with joan. Nobody says you can play as much on good grass as on turf (or on asphalt for that matter). You could play more, though. And, is $1.8m worth while to gain some percent more playing time? For that kind of money we should be adding a whole to field to town's inventory.

ml1 said:

Given that the project is still undefined even as it appears on the ballot as a referendum, I don't see how anyone can claim it was presented as a fait accompli.  And make the claim that input wasn't requested.   The matter was brought up at a May 18 TC meeting, and discussed again at subsequent meetings, with the public allowed to comment. The bond was proposed on July 6 and the vote was held on July 20.  Two full months for people to learn about it, discuss with other residents, and comment.  Heck, it was plenty of time to get signatures and put it on the ballot.

Feels like another claim being tossed at the wall by the opponents of the referendum in the hopes that it sticks.

 The initial discussion item on artificial turf was the announcement that the town had hired a consultant to develop a proposal for artificial turf at DeHart.  This was done without discussion by the Recreation Advisory Committee, without speaking with residents in the Hilton neighborhood, without anyone outside of group advocating for artificial turf being aware that the township committee was moving to hire a consultant.  After the decision to install artificial turf at DeHart Park was mentioned at that first meeting, those opposed spoke out at each of the next few township committee meetings.  Rather than give serious consideration to the issues raised during these public comment periods, the majority of the township committee members responded by introducing and passing (4 to 1) a bond ordinance to fund the project.  That gives many who are paying attention the impression that this was a fait accompli.  The only indication that this was not the case was when members of the township committee advised those in opposition gather signatures to get a referendum on the issue on the November ballot. 

RichEW said:

In tjohns comment, I agree with joan. Nobody says you can play as much on good grass as on turf (or on asphalt for that matter). You could play more, though. And, is $1.8m worth while to gain some percent more playing time? For that kind of money we should be adding a whole to field to town's inventory.

What are the rough numbers on that $1.8 million for a whole new field proposal? This would encompass land acquisition, construction of one softball/two soccer fields along with a parking lot the size of DeHart's, lights, and installation of turf or growth/maintenance of grass over 10 years. If it's workable, I imagine the Township Committee and many people who currently want to improve the DeHart fields would be all ears. 

tjohn said:

Another factoid:  You could construct the best grass field money can buy and support it with the best grounds crew money can buy and it still would not be able to meet the demands for playing time that a turf field can.

Of all the arguments against turf, the notion that having a better installed and managed grass field is a solution is the weakest.  I think this is an argument employed by people who don't want turf under any circumstances and are looking for any possible reason for not having a turf field.

 Absolutely. People don’t want the artificial turf, and they are looking for any possible reason to not have it. Just like the pro turf crowd are looking for every and any possible reason to have the artificial turf. That’s why it’s imperative that people turn out to vote on this issue. Minds are made up. 

jamie said:

From the "improve our fields" group:

Why this is wrong...

Re: Myth 1 – “Zero cases of illness caused by turf”

Impossible statement – undoubtedly untrue. Likely wouldn’t be true after millions of uses even for the safest materials. Serious scientists and doctors note that chemicals in turf have been shown to be dangerous – the tests to demonstrate cause specifically from turf surfaces haven’t been done and would be very expensive. A new study (https://nyulangone.org/news/deaths-linked-hormone-disruptor-chemical-costs-billions-lost-us-productivity) concludes that there are 91,000 - 107,000 annually among 55 to 64 year olds as a result of exposure to phthalates. Artificial turf is documented to contain phthalates (& other dangerous chemicals). And, “phthalate particles in dust might be a greater risk for children than for adults," the CDC states (https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/12/health/plastic-chemical-early-death-wellness/index.html).

Re: Myth 2   that new turf cooling systems are better and it helps drainage

False and fake. The independent Penn State Center for Sports Surface Research which studies turf (and is not anti-turf), says that “there are no cooling breakthroughs.” New infill that ‘cools’ (which would be much more expensive than bond issue accounts for) decreases temperatures somewhat but not enough. When you look at plastic grass and infill together, they found, Penn State found, temperatures still hit 150 degrees and higher, whereas grass is cooler than the air. Turf drains like hardscape – fast and into sewer systems, which hurts in a flood. Grass holds water and releases it slowly.

Re: Myth 3 That turf is not environmentally dangerous.

Wrong. Crumb rubber may not be the only product possible, but is the only one mentioned and in the bond budget as discussed by the town’s consultant. And crumb rubber is not the only concern. There are problems with the other infills, even the ones labeled organic, as well as the grass-like fibers and matting which wear and get into the air and water (and lungs). In order to last more than a season or two, the "natural" infills must be so saturated with chemical preservatives and biocides that they really can't be reused as compost, etc. -- just dumped. Moreover, producing and transporting turf produces carbon, growing grass sequesters it. When turf needs replacing (in 10 years, commonly) it fills the dumps – there is no place in the U.S. to recycle it.

Re: myth 4 We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on grass and turf will be cheaper to maintain.

Very wrong. A grass field here typically costs $25 to $45k to maintain. Turf needs specialized machines to sweep, clean, add new filler. With a 15-year bond and a 10 year (+-2) life span we will be paying $120k and more per year for turf up to and AFTER it has been replaced!! Versus a fraction of that for natural grass, even if we use good organic practices.

Re: Myth Turf here is not race-based, it supports integration and Springfield Ave. businesses.

If only. Turf is removing the only grass park in the lowest income, smallest lot, highest BIPOC area of town. People there were the least supportive of turf last time and now. We’d love to support Springfield Ave businesses – there are much better ways.

Why not just turn DeHart into a zoo?  This way we can get Essex County to pay for it?  I'm sure Joe DiVincenzo would love to build an amphitheater.  Then he can have former recreational athletes put on display and walked around for exercise on a nice turf surface with his big face in he middle of it. LOL Remember to vote for more taxes on November 2nd!  That's just what we need.  More taxes.

Jaytee said:

Absolutely. People don’t want the artificial turf, and they are looking for any possible reason to not have it. Just like the pro turf crowd are looking for every and any possible reason to have the artificial turf. That’s why it’s imperative that people turn out to vote on this issue. Minds are made up.

It's a tough issue for someone who's in neither crowd. There are persuasive arguments on both sides, as well as unpersuasive and even alienating ones. I wrestled with it right up until I filled in my mail-in ballot.

DaveSchmidt said:

It's a tough issue for someone who's in neither crowd. There are persuasive arguments on both sides, as well as unpersuasive and even alienating ones. I wrestled with it right up until I filled in my mail-in ballot.

 you must be a novelist...leaving us hanging, waiting for the next sentence.

joan_crystal said:

 The initial discussion item on artificial turf was the announcement that the town had hired a consultant to develop a proposal for artificial turf at DeHart.  This was done without discussion by the Recreation Advisory Committee, without speaking with residents in the Hilton neighborhood, without anyone outside of group advocating for artificial turf being aware that the township committee was moving to hire a consultant.  After the decision to install artificial turf at DeHart Park was mentioned at that first meeting, those opposed spoke out at each of the next few township committee meetings.  Rather than give serious consideration to the issues raised during these public comment periods, the majority of the township committee members responded by introducing and passing (4 to 1) a bond ordinance to fund the project.  That gives many who are paying attention the impression that this was a fait accompli.  The only indication that this was not the case was when members of the township committee advised those in opposition gather signatures to get a referendum on the issue on the November ballot. 

All of this assumes people like Vic DeLuca, who in May before the consultant's report expressed strong doubts about the artificial turf, were not acting in good faith. 

Maybe I'm naive but I'm inclined to think the hiring of a consultant and public comments of doubt in a TC meeting were made in good faith. if anyone following the issue thinks this was a fait accompli from the beginning must think all that was for show.

Kind of cynical IMHO. But who knows maybe I'm too trusting of the process. 

Jaytee said:

 Absolutely. People don’t want the artificial turf, and they are looking for any possible reason to not have it. Just like the pro turf crowd are looking for every and any possible reason to have the artificial turf. That’s why it’s imperative that people turn out to vote on this issue. Minds are made up. 

 if history repeats, a lot of people won't even vote on the referendum. This issue is likely to be decided by a very small number of voters. Last time around 1/3 of the people who showed up to vote didn't even cast a ballot on the referendum. 

It's likely that it will take as few as 3000 votes to defeat or pass this referendum.  not a great way to decide these issues IMHO, but it is what it is.