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?
What assurances do have that an artificial turf field at Dehart Park will be installed properly and properly maintained? Will we be complaining a year from now that the artificial turf field(s) is unplayable due to to poor installation and/or maintenance?
Will an artificial turf field be available for other uses when it is not occupied by sports teams or will the warrantee on the field require that the artificial turf field only be used for team sports? (I have heard both points of view depending on who is speaking) Can we know this for sure one way or the other before we have made the purchase and received a warrantee on the field?
I have heard some people mention that the bond will be paid off during the life of the field rather than the 18 year period mandated by bonding regulations. If this is true, what is the actual time frame the town plans for paying off the artificial turf field(s)? If earlier than 18 years, what will be the actual cost per year in financing the purchase of the field?
Since we've had the artificial turf field at Underhill for many years. Do we have any data? How much has the heat levels gone up for the neighborhood? How many students have gotten ill? Was has the total cost to the town been? How much of the synthetic materials have migrated to surrounding yards and homes? How many days was the field unplayable due to heat on a given year?
It's fantastic that we have a case study (literally in my back yard), but why don't use this data from our existing artificial turf field?
Since we've had the artificial turf field at Underhill for many years. Do we have any data? How much has the heat levels gone up for the neighborhood? How many students have gotten ill? Was has the total cost to the town been? How much of the synthetic materials have migrated to surrounding yards and homes? How many days was the field unplayable due to heat on a given year?
It's fantastic that we have a case study (literally in my back yard), but why don't use this data from our existing artificial turf field?
Underhill may have some similarities in type of material likely to be used, heat levels on the field and nearby houses, and injuries to players. These figures might be helpful in projecting the impact artificial turf would have on Maplewood taxpayers and the surrounding neighborhood.
There are also a lot of differences due to Underhill Field belonging to the school district not the town. There would have been no cost to the town beyond what town residents pay in the school portion of their real property taxes. The field would have been maintained by the school district not the town so past failures or successes the town has had with field maintenance would be a factor. Unplayable days would be less of a factor since the field is dedicated to school sports teams not multi-use. Therefore, at least in theory, the amount of use Underhill Field would have received in a given year is less than what is being proposed for the artificial turf field at Dehart and multi-use would be less of a factor.
Since we've had the artificial turf field at Underhill for many years. Do we have any data? How much has the heat levels gone up for the neighborhood? How many students have gotten ill? Was has the total cost to the town been? How much of the synthetic materials have migrated to surrounding yards and homes? How many days was the field unplayable due to heat on a given year?
It's fantastic that we have a case study (literally in my back yard), but why don't use this data from our existing artificial turf field?
We actually have about as close to a comparative case study as you could. The Underhill turf has been installed for about as long as the "Let's do grass right at DeHart" effort that followed the last referendum 13 years ago. The field at Underhill has outlived its planned use period and is ready for replacement, but the field has gotten an incredible amount of use, and I've never heard of any adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood.
Meanwhile, the DeHart field is as lousy as it was when the first referendum came up, or worse, and it seems were headed for a "Let's REALLY do grass right this time at DeHart" effort despite an example literally in our town of how turf can increase opportunities for young people to play.
Re: Underhill field: To say that the artificial turf there has outlasted it’s guaranteed life is only to say that it is still there despite the fact that some visiting teams have already refused to play on it’s shredded, worn and poor condition.
That field is slated to be replaced (though no one seems to know when) at a cost of another $1.2 million dollars as will the artificial turf field at Ritzer for an additional $1 million plus. Some parents are already screaming about why that hasn’t been done already.
Now taxpayers are being asked to cough up another $1.8 million for a third artificial turf field at DeHart and would have to again in another 10 years.
In other words these three fields together will forever cost multi million dollars with every new wave of players for a product that fits the very definition of designed obsolescence. It is not a one-and-done deal.
Folks with the "Yes" signs seem cool with that (and with all the other issue objections).
Since we've had the artificial turf field at Underhill for many years. Do we have any data? How much has the heat levels gone up for the neighborhood? How many students have gotten ill? Was has the total cost to the town been? How much of the synthetic materials have migrated to surrounding yards and homes? How many days was the field unplayable due to heat on a given year?
It's fantastic that we have a case study (literally in my back yard), but why don't use this data from our existing artificial turf field?
Underhill is own by the BOE. The original cost was mostly from donation(s), if I remember correctly.
The Underhill artificial turn is falling apart and needs to resurfaced.
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.
#1: Ms. Saslovsky clearly has no experience with scheduling a full season of soccer matches with the soccer league in which Cougar SC participates. However, she made a good point that the DPW is not helping by overwatering and mowing after they water.
#2: The DeHart field will never never never grow grass properly until the drainage issues are fixed. It doesn't matter if we go full organic or go big with fertilizers. The field DOES NOT DRAIN. Period. End of story. Maplewood Township should have sued the contractor and had it fixed properly.
Underhill is own by the BOE. The original cost was mostly from donation(s), if I remember correctly.
The Underhill artificial turn is falling apart and needs to resurfaced.
Yes - and MapSO pays for it. So knowing the details of it's cost and usage is just as pertinent as DeHart. The key difference is that the burden is shared is SO.
We actually have about as close to a comparative case study as you could. The Underhill turf has been installed for about as long as the "Let's do grass right at DeHart" effort that followed the last referendum 13 years ago. The field at Underhill has outlived its planned use period and is ready for replacement, but the field has gotten an incredible amount of use, and I've never heard of any adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood.
Meanwhile, the DeHart field is as lousy as it was when the first referendum came up, or worse, and it seems were headed for a "Let's REALLY do grass right this time at DeHart" effort despite an example literally in our town of how turf can increase opportunities for young people to play.
This series on Field Turf, the company whose products were used in the Township Committee proposal, is relevant to this aspect of the discussion.
Since we've had the artificial turf field at Underhill for many years. Do we have any data? How much has the heat levels gone up for the neighborhood? How many students have gotten ill? Was has the total cost to the town been? How much of the synthetic materials have migrated to surrounding yards and homes? How many days was the field unplayable due to heat on a given year?
It's fantastic that we have a case study (literally in my back yard), but why don't use this data from our existing artificial turf field?
It's a fair question, but I think the answer is that the studies haven't been done.
My response to this question is to rely on the expert opinion of the Mount Sinai Children's Environmental Health Center which wrote the TC:
"We, the Children’s Environmental Health Center of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, strongly discourage the installation of artificial turf fields in Maplewood Township due to the uncertainties surrounding the safety of these products . . . We urge you to maintain natural grass fields in Maplewood Township in order protect the health of the children of your community. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our professional opinion. We would be happy to answer any questions that you might have"
Underhill is own by the BOE. The original cost was mostly from donation(s), if I remember correctly.
The Underhill artificial turn is falling apart and needs to resurfaced.
"Owned by the BOE"? To Jamie's point that seems an unusual way of saying "The school system that everybody pays for with their taxes".
"mostly from donations". -Are "mostly donations" going to be "resurfacing" the new fields every inevitable time they need to be replaced? We can safely guess the answer to that. My guess is that in the future, as now, the fields will endure years of being ratty past their prime while millions of dollars are scrounged and argued for with every plastic life cycle ad infinitum. A burden to those who need to raise it and a burden to those who need to pay for such an undesirable product.
Also, -that the DeHart public park needs to be engineered to properly drain is exactly what most of the "No Artificial Turf" folks have been advocating for all along for years as an alternative to rolling out million dollar plastic for every new wave of players over and over again.
PS: Once an artificial turf field becomes unplayable it has to be replaced. It cannot recover but can only be recovered.
The best grass field in the world supported by the best grounds crew in the world cannot support the use demands of MSO youth sports programs. This point is not debatable.
to me the cost of an athletic field is not a compelling argument against it, unless the alternative is to do nothing. The work that needs to be done to have a quality grass field for sports at DeHart (or any of our other parks for that matter) won't come cheap. It may not cost as much as artificial turf, but the same work for regrading and drainage will need to be done for grass. Grass will also need constant maintenance, and periodic re-sodding. I'm not an expert on how much this stuff costs, but my recollection was that the township was in for close to $1 million in 2009 when DeHart's field was reconstructed with grass. A real attempt at making any of our grass fields properly playable won't be inexpensive. Unless we're going to continue with the status quo.
The best grass field in the world supported by the best grounds crew in the world cannot support the use demands of MSO youth sports programs. This point is not debatable.
There's no doubt that a high-quality grass field is going to need to be rested. And for all the running, jumping, kite-flying, picnicking, hiking folks who want to use the athletic fields, a grass field is going to be as off-limits to them as artificial turf if it's going to maintained properly.
I found it interesting that we want to blame big business for our environmental issues. Our consumption driven life styles and big business are thoroughly intertwined. We like fresh fruits and vegetables year round. We like our air conditioners. We like our cars. We like flying to Mexico for vacations. Most of us don't want to live like the Old Order Amish. I realize that we desperately need a technological solution to global warming if we are to avoid a really bloody upheaval, but we also need to moderate some of our life style choices.
I found it interesting that we want to blame big business for our environmental issues. Our consumption driven life styles and big business are thoroughly intertwined. We like fresh fruits and vegetables year round. We like our air conditioners. We like our cars. We like flying to Mexico for vacations. Most of us don't want to live like the Old Order Amish. I realize that we desperately need a technological solution to global warming if we are to avoid a really bloody upheaval, but we also need to moderate some of our life style choices.
The reality is that only collective action can solve the climate problem. If the pandemic taught us anything it should be that individuals making what they think are the best individual decisions is not a way out of a crisis. We need government regulation, and we need our governments to stop being influenced by the outdated fossil fuel industries.
Underhill is own by the BOE. The original cost was mostly from donation(s), if I remember correctly.
The Underhill artificial turn is falling apart and needs to resurfaced.
"Owned by the BOE"? To Jamie's point that seems an unusual way of saying "The school system that everybody pays for with their taxes".
"mostly from donations". -Are "mostly donations" going to be "resurfacing" the new fields every inevitable time they need to be replaced? We can safely guess the answer to that. My guess is that in the future, as now, the fields will endure years of being ratty past their prime while millions of dollars are scrounged and argued for with every plastic life cycle ad infinitum. A burden to those who need to raise it and a burden to those who need to pay for such an undesirable product.
Also, -that the DeHart public park needs to be engineered to properly drain is exactly what most of the "No Artificial Turf" folks have been advocating for all along for years as an alternative to rolling out million dollar plastic for every new wave of players over and over again.
PS: Once an artificial turf field becomes unplayable it has to be replaced. It cannot recover but can only be recovered.
Yes, the taxpayers of Maplewood and South Orange fund the school district. And Maplewood taxpayers fund DeHart Park. We know, we know.
My point was that Underhill and DeHart Park are owned and managed by two different government entities.
The original Underhill artificial turf field was funded in part by donations from Fred and Paul Profeta. The new Underhill field will be funded by the district (aka the taxpayers). I believe it's part of the $100M+ capital investment plan.
The DeHart grass field was totally renovated during the winter of 09-10. It was not done properly. The field was closed a second time for several months in order to fix the issues. It was not redone properly the second time either.
The TC clearly has no appetite to fix the natural grass field a third time. This resulted in the very rapid approval process when a vocal group of residents lobbied for an artificial turf field.
This article has some good history about the first time the town tried to install artificial turf at DeHart. My apologies if this has been posted already.
After Artificial Turf Battle and Lawsuit, DeHart Park Renovations Finally Break Ground
It's been a five-year process, but finally DeHart Park is being renovated with new organic grass fields, path lighting, field lighting and a redesigned entrance on Newark Way.
Studies have shown that it can be very difficult to change someone's mind once it is made up. We can all see that elsewhere in the news and our daily lives. In that regard I don't believe that this thread is of further use towards that end. Voting is near upon us.
Studies have shown that it can be very difficult to change someone's mind once it is made up. We can all see that elsewhere in the news and our daily lives. In that regard I don't believe that this thread is of further use towards that end. Voting is near upon us.
The best grass field in the world supported by the best grounds crew in the world cannot support the use demands of MSO youth sports programs. This point is not debatable.
An artificial turf field will not provide any additional playing space for MSO youth sports programs. The resulting turf field will be the same size as the existing grass field. The claim is that 25% of games are currently cancelled because of drainage. That 25% (assuming it's correct) can be reduced with remediation and professional management. How far reduced? The example of the irrigation fiasco cited above suggests the gap can be narrowed considerably.
So then the argument becomes "We want to play year round". But there are already two months of the year when no games are scheduled -- July and August.
So the differences between artificial turf and rehabilitated well-maintained grass are not as great as they're made out to be, with one exception: Natural grass improvement addresses the issues of Green Space and potential health risks as well as playing time; but artificial turf addresses only the issue of playing time, ignoring the environmental impact and health risks of turf.
If you doubt that DeHart is the only Green Space in the Hilton area, and the disparate demographic impact of the proposal, listen to Vic De Luca at 3:15:00. Vic rationalizes his support for turf by saying "We can find new Green Space". But if that were really the case, he'd find the new Green Space first and then propose a turf field.
The best grass field in the world supported by the best grounds crew in the world cannot support the use demands of MSO youth sports programs. This point is not debatable.
An artificial turf field will not provide any additional playing space for MSO youth sports programs. The resulting turf field will be the same size as the existing grass field. The claim is that 25% of games are currently cancelled because of drainage. That 25% (assuming it's correct) can be reduced with remediation and professional management. How far reduced? The example of the irrigation fiasco cited above suggests the gap can be narrowed considerably.
So then the argument becomes "We want to play year round". But there are already two months of the year when no games are scheduled -- July and August.
So the differences between artificial turf and rehabilitated well-maintained grass are not as great as they're made out to be, with one exception: Natural grass improvement addresses the issues of Green Space and potential health risks as well as playing time; but artificial turf addresses only the issue of playing time, ignoring the environmental impact and health risks of turf.
If you doubt that DeHart is the only Green Space in the Hilton area, and the disparate demographic impact of the proposal, listen to Vic De Luca at 3:15:00. Vic rationalizes his support for turf by saying "We can find new Green Space". But if that were really the case, he'd find the new Green Space first and then propose a turf field.
If the Township wanted to find new green space in the Hilton area, they would have already done it. We have an Open Space Trust Fund that's used for maintenance projects in existing parks. He's full of it.
So then the argument becomes "We want to play year round". But there are already two months of the year when no games are scheduled -- July and August.
I'm not sure where you got that impression. The DeHart Park field hosts many practices, games, and tryouts (and I think also camps) over the summer months.
The field is closed for the winter from around mid-Nov until around early-to-mid-April. So it's closed for 4-5 months.
If the Township wanted to find new green space in the Hilton area, they would have already done it. We have an Open Space Trust Fund that's used for maintenance projects in existing parks. He's full of it.
unfortunately the demise of the 2008 referendum also put the kibosh on the purchase of about 1.9 acres of additional green space in the Hilton neighborhood. There was a lot of good that went by the wayside when that proposal was rejected.
All these years later we're left with no alternative as good as what was in front of voters then IMHO.
Seems to me that if the underlying ground at DeHart is so bad (drainage issues) there's no way you can have a sound turf field without fixing the underlying issues. At which point, of course, you could just do natural grass - grass also being a much cheaper way of finding out whether the drainage issue was solved. (apparently there was a prior attempt to do this that failed?)
Sorry if I'm just repeating an obvious point already made.
I've kind of gone back and forth on this issue as I've read this thread (not a resident, no dog in this fight), but at this point I think turf will just be a costly boondoggle.
Seems to me that if the underlying ground at DeHart is so bad (drainage issues) there's no way you can have a sound turf field without fixing the underlying issues.
Unlike the other parks that have fields that are at very low points, and water pools on the fields (like Memorial and Maplecrest), the DeHart Park field is somewhat elevated. If you look out from the far side of the field, you can see a drop down to businesses on Newark Way. Which makes me think drainage could be figured out.
I too have no skin in the game. Given the stated price tag of a turf field and ongoing upkeep expenses (and shelf life), did anyone ever actually look into how much it would cost to rent a turf filed(s) from neighboring towns, if available? Seems like it would take decades before renting would hit or exceed the price of building. I know the idea came up earlier in the thread but I don't recall the follow through.
One issue raised by the pro-turf posters is the need for Maplewood families to travel to other towns for games because teams from other towns do not want to play on our fields. Renting fields elsewhere would not solve that problem. It also would not solve the problem of providing transportation for children who lack transportation to get to practices and games held out of town.
I think all communities benefit from youth sports programs. In a variety of ways, youth sports can open doors for young people that they might not otherwise even have known existed. To this end, our town needs good facilities and a turf field is part of the equation.
The other point I wanted to touch upon was an observation made by Chalmers many posts ago where he noted that our youth sports programs are not reaching some of the kids in town because their parents don't have the time to drive them to games or aren't in the loop to hear about sign ups and that sort of thing. I am surprised that there isn't more discussion about this since we are so committed to equity and opportunity.
What assurances do have that an artificial turf field at Dehart Park will be installed properly and properly maintained? Will we be complaining a year from now that the artificial turf field(s) is unplayable due to to poor installation and/or maintenance?
Will an artificial turf field be available for other uses when it is not occupied by sports teams or will the warrantee on the field require that the artificial turf field only be used for team sports? (I have heard both points of view depending on who is speaking) Can we know this for sure one way or the other before we have made the purchase and received a warrantee on the field?
I have heard some people mention that the bond will be paid off during the life of the field rather than the 18 year period mandated by bonding regulations. If this is true, what is the actual time frame the town plans for paying off the artificial turf field(s)? If earlier than 18 years, what will be the actual cost per year in financing the purchase of the field?