The Turf War Returns
and fwiw, the referendum question on the ballot is written pretty well IMHO. It explicitly states in the text what voters who cast a "yes" are voting for, and what those casting a "no" are voting for.
So regardless of how the vote turns out, I don't think anyone should be complaining that the question wording was unfair.
ml1 said:
and fwiw, the referendum question on the ballot is written pretty well IMHO. It explicitly states in the text what voters who cast a "yes" are voting for, and what those casting a "no" are voting for.
So regardless of how the vote turns out, I don't think anyone should be complaining that the question wording was unfair.
I agree, and I admit to being pleasantly surprised that it was the case.
ml1 said:
and fwiw, the referendum question on the ballot is written pretty well IMHO. It explicitly states in the text what voters who cast a "yes" are voting for, and what those casting a "no" are voting for.
So regardless of how the vote turns out, I don't think anyone should be complaining that the question wording was unfair.
Actually I have to slightly disagree on that point.
A ballot question is not supposed to appear with what could be interpreted as a campaign point either for or against in any way as much as humanly possible.
Such ballot questions are written by the township attorney and it does strike one as highly unusual that the wording goes out of its' way to mention that the earlier township committee vote on this matter was 4 to 1 in favor. -That is certainly true but completely ignores the WIDE disagreement with those votes which is what brought the referendum into existence in the first place.
Elected representatives should have their say from the dais or anywhere else but NOT on the ballot question itself. I've never seen what reads like an influencing endorsement on a ballot question before. Ever. It seems clumsy at best.
I feel confident that others will disagree on the necessity or appropriateness of mentioning that particular attendant nugget.
The "No Turf" contingent is very lucky that this isn't a general election. Had it been - "yes" would have easily won since there's a lot more uninformed voters out there then you realize. At least the cost is mentioned in the ballot question.
Have you looked at the turf field on Burnett Avenue at the end of Florida? I think it went in about the time that the first turf field was voted down in Maplewood. Every time I pass kids playing on that field, on days when Maplewood fields are unplayable, it makes me wish us “pro turfers” had won back then and DeHart had as useful a field as our neighbor Union does. It’s about two blocks away.
tjohn said:
the Hilton neighborhood, unlike a lot of densely built urban neighborhoods, actually has shade trees. So it isn't like the last oasis of green for miles around is being removed.
With all due respect to your other reasoned points, this one is in danger of being paraphrased as "Hey, they've got trees along the streets so they should be happy."
steel said:
ml1 said:
and fwiw, the referendum question on the ballot is written pretty well IMHO. It explicitly states in the text what voters who cast a "yes" are voting for, and what those casting a "no" are voting for.
So regardless of how the vote turns out, I don't think anyone should be complaining that the question wording was unfair.
Actually I have to slightly disagree on that point.
A ballot question is not supposed to appear with what could be interpreted as a campaign point either for or against in any way as much as humanly possible.
Such ballot questions are written by the township attorney and it does strike one as highly unusual that the wording goes out of its' way to mention that the earlier township committee vote on this matter was 4 to 1 in favor. -That is certainly true but completely ignores the WIDE disagreement with those votes which is what brought the referendum into existence in the first place.
Elected representatives should have their say from the dais or anywhere else but NOT on the ballot question itself. I've never seen what reads like an influencing endorsement on a ballot question before. Ever. It seems clumsy at best.
I feel confident that others will disagree on the necessity or appropriateness of mentioning that particular attendant nugget.
so you're saying the additional mention in the statement that a group submitted a valid petition to put the question on the ballot doesn't indicate disagreement with the vote? It's not like people agreeing with it would have gone out to get signatures to put a question on the ballot that might overturn the TC vote.
steel said:
tjohn said:
the Hilton neighborhood, unlike a lot of densely built urban neighborhoods, actually has shade trees. So it isn't like the last oasis of green for miles around is being removed.
With all due respect to your other reasoned points, this one is in danger of being paraphrased as "Hey, they've got trees along the streets so they should be happy."
Probably. I have been taken to task or more than one occasion because people have read more into my comments that were intended.
Having said that, I would be perfectly content to see part of Memorial park turned into a turf field - the part with the baseball field.
As someone who composts, has a chemical-free lawn and uses a reel mower all more out of convenience than anything else, I hope I wasn’t too far out of line when I raised my eyebrows at the “Environmentally Friendly” section of the pro-turf flyer, which didn’t arrive until today.
If this turf field goes in and is maintained without fuel-based equipment, the good news is that it’ll be ready for recycling (sure, sure) all the sooner.
I sort of wish we would dispense with the environmental arguments. I agree with ml1's argument that the environmental impact of the turf field is actually a nit when compared to things like:
1. Thousands of gallons of gasoline and thousands of pound of fertizer/pesticides/herbicides applied in pursuit of perfect surburban lawns in Maplewood.
2. Mosquito treatments which they say don't hurt bees but I have my doubts.
3. God only knows how many acres of warehouses built each year so we can enjoy the convenience of Amazon Prime.
We live in a consumption driven economy and I suppose that will have to change if we are to get a handle on global warming. I have no idea as to how we will manage the impact of this given that we aren't going to start to live like the Amish any time soon.
But to sacrifice a few turf fields so we can feel better about the environmental impact certainly does miss the big picture.
ml1 said:
steel said:
Elected representatives should have their say from the dais or anywhere else but NOT on the ballot question itself. I've never seen what reads like an influencing endorsement on a ballot question before. Ever. It seems clumsy at best.
so you're saying the additional mention in the statement that a group submitted a valid petition to put the question on the ballot doesn't indicate disagreement with the vote? It's not like people agreeing with it would have gone out to get signatures to put a question on the ballot that might overturn the TC vote.
I felt I was pretty clear but to reiterate, -a previous vote tally by the Township Committee on ANY issue should not be included on ANY ballot measure. Neither up, down, sideways or anyways as it is in danger of then becoming prejudicial and could be interpreted to intend to unduly sway. The wording on any ballot measure should be as benign as possible and indicating what will happen going forward as a result NOT what any legislative body prefers by inference or otherwise.
I will also add for the record that I had not intended to engage again on this thread (which, let's face it is basically a circular firing squad of venting) until I got that ridiculously misleading and disingenuous mailer yesterday.
steel said:
I will also add for the record that I had not intended to engage again on this thread (which, let's face it is basically a circular firing squad of venting)
As opposed to the rest of the Internet where discussion is fair and balanced? 
I have seen some fora where there actually is proper debate and discussion, but those are usually specialized fora such as the history of the First World War or something like that.
if we really cared about removing carbon-sequestering grass and trees from our environment we'd ask the township to put a moratorium on building permits for additions on homes. In the past decade, I wouldn't be surprised if residents put 10 football fields worth of additions on their homes in Maplewood. Probably more. And I doubt many of them were any more of a true necessity than an athletic field is.
steel said:
I will also add for the record that I had not intended to engage again on this thread (which, let's face it is basically a circular firing squad of venting) until I got that ridiculously misleading and disingenuous mailer yesterday.
My occasional bouts of sarcasm aside, I think the discussion here has been pretty good overall and was helpful on my way to deciding how to vote.
steel said:
ml1 said:
steel said:
Elected representatives should have their say from the dais or anywhere else but NOT on the ballot question itself. I've never seen what reads like an influencing endorsement on a ballot question before. Ever. It seems clumsy at best.
so you're saying the additional mention in the statement that a group submitted a valid petition to put the question on the ballot doesn't indicate disagreement with the vote? It's not like people agreeing with it would have gone out to get signatures to put a question on the ballot that might overturn the TC vote.
I felt I was pretty clear but to reiterate, -a previous vote tally by the Township Committee on ANY issue should not be included on ANY ballot measure. Neither up, down, sideways or anyways as it is danger of then becoming prejudicial and could be interpreted to intend unduly sway. The wording on any ballot measure should be as benign as possible and indicating what will happen going forward as a result NOT what any legislative body prefers by inference or otherwise.
I will also add for the record that I had not intended to engage again on this thread (which, let's face it is basically a circular firing squad of venting) until I got that ridiculously misleading and disingenuous mailer yesterday.
it seems necessary to state that we're voting on a bond already passed by the TC. And that implies a majority vote.
ml1 said:
it seems necessary to state that we're voting on a bond already passed by the TC. And that implies a majority vote.
And 4-1 has a different meaning than 5-0 would.
The aye/nay vote is simply a fact.
DaveSchmidt said:
As someone who composts, has a chemical-free lawn and uses a reel mower all more out of convenience than anything else, I hope I wasn’t too far out of line when I raised my eyebrows at the “Environmentally Friendly” section of the pro-turf flyer, which didn’t arrive until today.
If this turf field goes in and is maintained without fuel-based equipment, the good news is that it’ll be ready for recycling (sure, sure) all the sooner.
There are many BS claims being made by both sides. Calling the artificial turf "environmentally friendly" is one of my favorites.
Having read a bunch of these posts I think it’s a valid point that anti-turfers really should walk the walk and use organic fertilizers if at all, use battery-powered or no powered lawn equipment, and generally lead environment-conscious lives. And buy an EV vehicle while they’re at it.
jeffl said:
Having read a bunch of these posts I think it’s a valid point that anti-turfers really should walk the walk and use organic fertilizers if at all, use battery-powered or no powered lawn equipment, and generally lead environment-conscious lives. And buy an EV vehicle while they’re at it.
Come on, this is just silly. None of us, me or you are perfect. Is that really the criteria for advocacy here? Should we inspect your life to see if there is something you are not doing that might support the health of young athletes before we let you advocate for an ahletic field? One reality that I hope no one on this forum denies is that we are in the midst of a serious climate crisis - not the time to be taking out grass and replacing it with plastic. Even more, there are other and better things we can do to address climate with this capital project money and person energy than this.
Coincidentally I read this article yesterday. it suggests the argument we're having here is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants. Forty years of PR telling us that global warming is our responsibility as individuals, and not theirs. Long story short -- global warming is a result of burning fossil fuels. Anything else is at the margins.
How the 1% tricks you into thinking climate change is your fault
ml1 said:
Coincidentally I read this article yesterday. it suggests the argument we're having here is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants. Forty years of PR telling us that global warming is our responsibility as individuals, and not theirs. Long story short -- global warming is a result of burning fossil fuels. Anything else is at the margins.
How the 1% tricks you into thinking climate change is your fault
meanwhile, the woke libs are distracted by recycling and their personal carbon footprint.
ml1 said:
Coincidentally I read this article yesterday. it suggests the argument we're having here is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants. Forty years of PR telling us that global warming is our responsibility as individuals, and not theirs. Long story short -- global warming is a result of burning fossil fuels. Anything else is at the margins.
How the 1% tricks you into thinking climate change is your fault
Don’t disagree but these are strange headlines. Their focus is on “the rich,” by which they mean “rich countries,” but the crux of the article is that fossil fuel companies are to blame, not “the rich.”
RichEW said:
jeffl said:
Having read a bunch of these posts I think it’s a valid point that anti-turfers really should walk the walk and use organic fertilizers if at all, use battery-powered or no powered lawn equipment, and generally lead environment-conscious lives. And buy an EV vehicle while they’re at it.
Come on, this is just silly. None of us, me or you are perfect. Is that really the criteria for advocacy here? Should we inspect your life to see if there is something you are not doing that might support the health of young athletes before we let you advocate for an ahletic field? One reality that I hope no one on this forum denies is that we are in the midst of a serious climate crisis - not the time to be taking out grass and replacing it with plastic. Even more, there are other and better things we can do to address climate with this capital project money and person energy than this.
We are taking out grass fields? More like dirt with lots of weeds and some grass.
jimmurphy said:
Don’t disagree but these are strange headlines. Their focus is on “the rich,” by which they mean “rich countries,” but the crux of the article is that fossil fuel companies are to blame, not “the rich.”
What happens when the person writing the headline has a different ax to grind.
ml1 said:
Coincidentally I read this article yesterday. it suggests the argument we're having here is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants. Forty years of PR telling us that global warming is our responsibility as individuals, and not theirs. Long story short -- global warming is a result of burning fossil fuels. Anything else is at the margins.
How the 1% tricks you into thinking climate change is your fault
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Hi everybody, the thread needs this:
I have a few questions about this portion of the Adams-Cripe statement opposing the bond (McGehee, DeLuca, Dafis and Lembrich support the bond):
"We support an increase to the annual $20,000 currently spent on the DeHart Park field to create a better and more reliable player experience while providing environmental protections to the community and equitable governance for all."
1. What specifically would this look like and how much would it cost?
2. Would this proposal maintain the same amount of use, but on a field that's safe and playable?
3. Would there be fewer sunny day cancellations?
4. Would this alternative support increased use during a particular day?
5. Would seasons be extended so we could get more use from the field?
6. What kind of pesticide treatment, fertilizer and irrigation would be required?
7. When the previous measure failed 13 years ago, there was a commitment among turf supporters and opponents alike that we would do what it takes to create an acceptable grass field at DeHart. By all accounts, that was a failure. The turf opponents who were so certain that we could make a usable grass field at DeHart if we only used this method or read that study quickly moved on to other things. The kids went back to playing on unsafe fields and sitting home playing video games on a lot of sunny days because their games were canceled. Assuming the bond fails, what assurance do we have that the next 13 years will be any different?
There are several problem areas that need remediation, but overall a majority of the field is playable, even during the rain. But a big part of the solution involves assigning professionals to manage field maintenance. For example, watch Heather Saslovsky, chair of the Recreation Advisory Committee at 1:16:34 on Oct 19, 2021, below. She's describing why DeHart was closed the previous Saturday despite the fact there had been no rain all week (after Sunday). And despite the "mud" that she describes, most of the field was playable and the scheduled games could have been played if they shifted the field lines. There were lots of kids playing pick-up games that day, and on the prior Sunday, there was a Cougar team practicing in the rain on the good part of the field.
Edited to add: By the way, regarding "extending the seasons," that option is already available for July and August.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Garage Sales
-
Huge Garage Sale Sale Date: May 4, 2024
More info
It will be interesting to see if this referendum drives voters to the polls. Typically, the voter turnout in an off year (no Presidential/Congressional elections) is horrible.