>I didn’t realize my name would be published but it serves me right because I just said to a friend that I believed the Blog would be better served if one had to use their name. I guess I was being put to the test. Thank you for not commenting on my spelling errors! I have given packets of info regarding grass fields/turf to the council members, Bd. of Ed. members and other significant people in the community.
My goal was to inform the community about the benefits of grass fields to the athlete and the community. Many of my friends are in the sports fields because I went to Cortland many years ago. All of them prefer grass to artificial turf because of incresed temps on artificial turf, wear and tear on the athlete and now the threat of a new strain of staph infection that has crept into the sports world associated with artificial turf. However many places in the US still have the luxury of space and so are not as limited in accomodating the needs of a community.
Ridgewood was over developed and now open space is at a premium. The benefits of grass include the exchange of carbon dioixde for oxygen, natural cooling and cleaning properties to name just a few. I sat on a committee in the 80,s that looked at our fields and decided that Maple Field could benefit the entire community by placing a grass playing field in the center surrounded by natural vegetation. I feel that this was an excellent compromise and served us well for many years. I was told that Maple Field was being maintained at a cost of 11,000 dollars per year. Even if that cost had been increased 3 times to improve the field, it would be 30 years before we had spent 1,000,000 dollars { the cost of an artificial turf field]. I love the landscaping and the upgrades at Maple but if the green in the center was natural, I would be donating money instead of worrying about the consequences. I understand the increased need for fields as enrollment in sports continues to rise and we want all kids who want to participate to be able to do so. I have talked to many landscapers who tell me that the quality of new grass blends on the market are so superior to the old ones, that grass fields would be far more durable and able to handle more useage.
With the master plan being reviewed in September, it is my hope that figures will be obtained on the use of natural grass and that it will be considered. Ridgewood has always been known for its leadership in quality of life issues. Why can’t we be also known for having the finest grass playing fields in the area? I can guarentee that in the coming years, laws will mandate a better use of our natural resources. How better to show our kids how we can treat our environment with care and still not loose essential aspects of sports and recreation.
Linda McNamara
ORDER FINE ART/ STOCK PRINTS ON-LINE
>Well put.
Ridgewood could show itself as a LEADER in this area.
Along with the Town participating in the Clean Choice Program from PSEG.
Ridgewood, powered by reusable energy.
>I think that we can connect electrodes to each blade of artificial turf so that each time someone steps on it, there would be a minor pulse generated which we could store in batteries in the pump house located nearby. Anytime anyone needs any electricity, just go down to the pump house and take some. Free to Ridgewood residents only. I think that the egg oilers might have some time on their hands to connect the electrodes to the blades of grass. I don’t think too many of them were hurt falling off of roofs while fleeing the really irate geese. I mean, they did carry umbrellas (the oilers, not the geese).
The artificial turf is more about the sports organizations than the kids. To my knowledge, Maple field is no where near being paid for. If I remember, the sports organizations pledged to pay for it and the Village fronted them our cash.
>that is why we dont have any money .
>Linda is right on and so is 6:15PM….
The Rec Legends hold the town hostage.
They’re usually successful but with the advent of Tivo to tape BOE and VC mtgs and web blogs like this the homeowners are offered some sort of forum to show what’s going on….
The worm has turned…
>Hi Linda. Good for you. Well put.
>I love it…the masses are speaking..the oppressed are fighting back…Liberacion Theologia…No Prisoners !
Che
>Refer to the 2nd Draft of the Schoor DePalma Comprehensive Parks, Fields, Facilities, & Recreation MASTER PLAN for Village Ridgewood (on website)-
PROPOSES 9 NEW TURF FIELDS at 8 locations, count them, Total Cost of 9 New Turf Fields = $6,360,000.00
More Bonds? And the rest for the taxpayers to absorb? Who’s really going to pay?
>Note to Susan:
When the reporters do their job, you interfere with it, skewing it to your eidtorial predispositions.
>The Village did not “front money” for the Maple field. It was funded by private donations, with the VOR donating a de minimis amount, I think around $15k, representing one season’s grass cutting expense for the field.
Also, let’s not distort the environmental impact here. The level of oxygen exchange represented by a grass field of this size is truly tiny–I should think this loss is more than outweighed by the subtraction of gas-powered lawn mowers going over the field weekly for 6-7 months. In addition, there are no fertilizer or pesticide applications for the turf field and of course a not inconsiderable volume of water to irrigate the filed is saved.
I’m not sure I would like to see a proliferation of turf fields in the Village—there is an aesthetic quality to a grassy meadow that plastic can’t match. However, I have to say that the private initiative at Maple field has been an unqualified success. Just look at how much use it gets, not just from organized sports but casual users as well.
>I told you all that this was going to coast the town a lot of money.at this time all bs.
>In response to anonymous who said that asmall area of grass could have little impact on the environment is incorrect. Figures obtained from a variety of sources indicate that a quarter of an acre of grass releases the oxygen requirement for 16 people a day. An acre of grass absorbs hundreds of pounds a year of CO2,nitrates, fossil fuel created sulfur dioxide and traps large quantities of dust and dirt from the surrounding air. Lawn temperatures are often 50 to 80 degrees cooler than artificial surfaces exposed to the same sun light. Before I became involved in the issue of artificial turf, I was a soccer mom who knew that my college soccer player and her teamates preferred grass for a variety of reasons. She grew up in Ridgewood playing many games on Maple Field. As I learned more, I became aware of the vast amount of environmental concerns with turfing as well as some of the health concerns that are expressed by athletes all over the country. As a long term Ridgewood resident who plans to stay here for as long as I can, I feel it is my duty to speak out on issues that concern us all. I can think of no bigger issue than the quality of our environment and how to make the best use of Ridgewood’s remaining open space. It isn’t emotion but the facts that are driving me to be vocal. I know there are strong opposing opinions on this subject but traveling all over the country to watch soccer games, getting to know the athletes and reading the research has made me a believer that we can have it all[ at least for afew more years ] by investing in real grass for our sports and recreation.
>Sorry 3:37 soccer mom, but I have to dispute your claim that athletes prefer real grass to FieldTurf, which is the type of turf we have at Maple. You may be basing your comments on old-style artificial turf. Yes, it was terrible, and contributed to injuries. FieldTurf is truly revolutionary and is preferable to real grass for many reasons. Many, many professional athletes and teams love it. You can check it out at http://www.fieldturf.com and read testimonials from teams, coaches and players from Rutgers, the NFL Players Association, various NFL teams, various Major League Soccer teams, University of North Carolina, Univ. of Nebraska and many other colleges and universities. Also at the website, you can read about the technology. It really is amazing. Your assertions about injuries and temperatures are simply not accurate vis-a-vis FieldTurf.
P.S. I am not a FieldTurf rep! I didn’t have anything to do with the installation at Maple. But I am a current soccer and lacrosse mom who experienced the benefits of Maple this past year.
>Linda,
When The Maple Turf Project was proposed you and a few other vocal residents cited a slew of “facts” supporting why grass was superior to artificial turf. Unfortunately, now and then your “facts” are really fiction. For example, the alledged staph infection risk has nothing to do with the FieldTurf surface at Maple Park.
If you visit http://www.mpturf.com you can read the ACTUAL facts about why natural grass was not sustainable under the current field usage in Ridgewood. There is no “super grass blend” that exists that can survive our conditions (exessive demand and inadequate field area according to NJ per capita open space standards). In fact, fields like Maple Field, Stevens and Brookside were often reduced to dirt lots at the height of the sports season. Thus, the environmental benefits of a lush acre of grass is not applicable in this case. Furthermore, the healthy vegitation that was added to the surrounding area at Maple Park more than makes up for the small amount of healthy grass that may have been removed from Maple Park.
EVERYTHING at Maple Park was fully paid through private donations months ago when it was installed. Although the Village agreed to “front” the money for only the field installation (approximately $750K), this was not necessary because all the funds needed were raised ahead of schedule.
The ACTUAL annual maintenance for natural grass at Maple Park was $30K – $35K. $10K of that was materials, which has been entirely eliminated. The balance was labor costs, which has been reduced to $5-10K (it is too early to know exactltly).
As noted above, the cost of the FieldTurf surface at Maple Park was approximately $750K, not $1MM. A typical soccer field costs about $560K. The extra $190K at Maple Park allowed the baseball diamond and left field areas, along with the backstop and dugouts, to be included. Approximately $200K was spent on landscaping, a working scoreboard and benches to make the area a true “park” for all residents to enjoy…something the old Maple Park failed to accomplish. It should be noted that the bulk of the expense of the field has nothing to do with the surface. It is the superior water handling and drainage system that exists under the field that represents the cost and makes the concept so successful.
What all the “turf opposition” fails to realize is that the sports groups and the Village TRIED to invest in natural grass for 10 years, to the tune of over $1MM, to no avail. This was wasted money. By contrast the FieldTurf at Maple Field is not only preferrable to play on (I can tell you from personal experience), but it was largely responsible for the improved condition of our remaining grass fields this spring, because those field were not subjected to mandatory use when they were vulnerable, due to wet conditions. How much did the taxpayers save when the BOE did not have to re-sod the RHS field for graduation, for the first time in years? Has anyone noticed how healthy and lush our grass fields looked this spring? You can thank the turf at Maple Field for taking the abuse when these fields were unplayable.
This is why a sensible combination of grass and turf are essential. Unless you want to clear areas to build more grass fields (bringing Ridgewood up to NJ per capita “open space” standards), we probably need one or two more FieldTurf fields in town. The cost of the field surfaces for two more fields would not exceed $1.5MM. However, there might be additional structures, for example at RHS, that are included in the DePalma figures.
The final point is that natural grass,even if it has a similar drainage system, does not permit usage in early spring or late fall when snow or ice exist. This is because grass cannot be plowed or brushed like FieldTurf. Therefore, a huge benefit and cost savings to the High School and youth sports groups is not addressed with grass. Specifically, teams are still required to go rent synthetic fields in other towns to practice and play games during those times. This particularly impacts the spring sports, who historically cannot get onto grass field in Ridgewood until some time in April.
Can’t we all agree that the Maple Park effort was a unqualified success. Is there anyone who looks at Maple Park from the street and claims that the field looks like anything other than a well manacured grass field? Maybe it is time to stop fighting this issue with bogus information and admit that when tastefully applied in moderation, there is a place for FieldTurf surfaces along side grass fields.
>Hey 9:46 PM are you by any chance a novelist?
>Dear 9:46pm,It isn’t about what Maple Park looks like,it’s that a majority of it is artificial. My point is that what ever we do in town to improve playing field conditions should also be about the environment. There is no nfo out there that claims atificial turf is a benefit to the environment. It’s original purpose was to be used where grass cannot be grown. New turf grass can be blended so as to be drought resistant and better maintenance practices use less chemicals/pesticides. Many areas around the country are facing serious water problems and the banning of pesticides is becoming common place. One landscaper in town uses vinegar to kill weeds. He claims it is cheaper and definitely less toxic to the environment. There are many people in town who were left out of the equation when the master plan focus groups were put in place. The meeting at Village Hall last year had a huge attendance and a large majority of those individuals were intersted in maintaining open spaces with less intrusion rather than more. I understand the sports grup concerns and often are on their side. This is just a bigger issue than providing rain resistant playing fields.
>Dear 9:46,
You miss the point. Our problem is not with whether grass can grow in droughts or heavy rain. It is about the excessive over-use (wear an tear) of non-stop use 6-7 days a week, because we don’t have enough fields to spread the usage out across the number of children who use them. The grass gets ripped up and never has a chance to repair itself.
I challege you to provide specific facts related to Maple Park and Ridgewood that explain why what was done at Maple Park does not support the environment. As was pointed out previously, the new field at Maple Park is directly responsible for healthier grass fields at RHS, Brookside, Stevens and Vets. I would say that is making a positive contribution to the environment. Your “environmental” argument against FieldTurf just doesn’t hold water (no pun intended).
>Just the increased heat reflected back into the environment by field turf makes in environmentally unfriendly and unappealing to me.
Let’s see on a 95 degree day, would I rather sit on grass or field turf. Please give me the grass.
>My son plays football and can’t stand to play on that artifical crap.
>Hey – will a few of you Turf Titans drive over to Maple and help Tim Cronin pull out the crab grass that’s taking over the turf….
George Toma
>” Is there anyone who looks at Maple Park from the street and claims that the field looks like anything other than a well manacured grass field?
i am so always use to seeing a well manicured grass field in the dead of winter in our region
good grief charlie brown
>mebee the village should put one of them thar fake tree cell towers next to the fake turf field at maple. fake and ridgewood go together.
>Good article in The Record today about the hidden costs of turf fields.
I’m surprised to read that these newfangled fields only last 10 years. And that they need water on hot days.
>Interesting 2:44…
I am not aware of any football team that has played on Maple Field. Nonetheless, what the extent of your son’s experience on various surfaces? And, to what “artificial crap” is he referring (since there are many different types and vintages)? I have not heard a single athlete in town who has played on Maple Field, say that they prefer grass tho the new surface.
I’ve played a wide vaiety of sports (including football and lacrosse) on grass, original AstroTurf and the Latest geberation FieldTurf. Without question, FieldTurf is superior.
>Anonymous 2:19…
I’ve played on Maple Field in 90+ degree weather. I can’t say that I have noticed a difference in the “on field” temperature from grass, although a thermometer may be able to detect a difference. It is certainly not impacting global warming or threatening Ridgewood’s delicate ecosystem in any way.
But, I guess it is a good thing that Maple Field (pre or post the new surface installation) was never intended for your lounging pleasure. I suggest your back yard, where no one else has to listen to your uninformed complaining.
>Well said, 5:41pm.
Lets take a step back for a minute here: All these negative posters? YOU didnt pay a dime for the new Maple upgrades. NOT one penny. However, you did pay your share of the $30,000+ annual costs to maintain the old grass fields. Were you aware of this? For Maple alone?
If you are so willing to keep things “natural” in Ridgewood… will you write a check for it? Just let us all know how much we can put you down for.
My children are in HS now, and I can only wish they had access to this field when they were younger. Yes, I did contribute my PRIVATE funds to this project. Why? I believe that it will benefit MY kids and the kids who will use it after my own children are off to college. Call me a Dedicated Parent, but I put my wallet where my priorities were. I didnt ask YOU to pay for my children and their activities. And, ps… My kids will only use this field for another 2 years, but I believe in the community.
You are right about one thing: Artificial surfaces all over the place are NOT the answer. BUT, give this the credit due: An upgrade to a field that was always in disrepair. An upgrade that takes some pre and post season pressure off of our grass fields (including the HS stadium). And… dont forget: An upgrade that YOU likely didnt pay for.
Stop complaining, or lead the charge for more grass fields… more trees and natural settings, including passive locations…Oh, and lead this charge with your own personal time and your checkbook.
Otherwise? You are just burning my ozone with your HOT AIR !
>10:29 am the glue from the turf field is gettin to you, hey?
>Taken from NY Times Article Of August 13 2007 – Page B1
Scientists from Columbia University who analyzed satellite thermal images of New York City the past two summers concluded that synthetic turf fields were up to 60 degrees hotter than grass fields.
“I’ve been telling everybody that turf is among the hottest surfaces in the city”, said Dr Faffin, who is publilshing the study later this year.
>I dont get the NY Times… I read the Ridgewood News!
Anyway… you mean that when its 90 degrees outside… the Maple Turf is “up to 60 degrees hotter than grass fields”…?
Hmmmmm…. 150 degrees? Not likely.
I’ve seen NFL pre-season games where the field temp hits maybe 110 degrees… and thats within an enclosed stadium… NOT with the natural setting we have at Maple.
Opps… another myth busted.
Dont like it? Dont play on it. Still plenty of satisfied customers without you.
>12:34 PM you read the RW News instead of the NY Times and sniff the turf glue? deadly combination.
>I was initially skeptical of Maple’s turf. I have been won over–it’s a good investment and a big upgrade from the marginally maintained grass field. The private citizens who worked to make this happen should be congratulated. Everyone else, including those who still regard the NY Times as a reliable news source, get used to it.
>All right hot head 8:30 PM (have you been spending too much time on the hot turf?) 11:54 AM calmly related what the NY Times reported and you go all ballistic. What’s with that?
>The estimated temperatures of artificial vs. natural grass are based on the temperature of grass under the same conditions as artificial turf. the grass is never 90 degrees but arouind 50-70 deegrees. Add 50 degrees to that number and that is closer to the measured temp of articial turf. Ramapo High did not use their artificial fields for campers in the height of the summer last year because they were too hot for body contact. These incidents are not made up but taken from actual experiences.
>With all this talk about the extreme heat of synthetic fields, it is amazing that the poor little campers, who used Maple Park every day this summer, didn’t vaporize.
In fact, now that football taining camps are practicing twice a day around the country, I am wondering why we haven’t been flooded with stories about college and professional football players dropping like flies from the heat generated by these fields. Look at the small sample list of colleges and professional teams that have fields identical to the one at Maple Park. Aren’t these fields supposed to be 60 degrees hotter than grass?
College:
Ohio State, Penn State, BC, UVA, Dartmouth, Harvard, Duke, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Pitt, Princeton, Rutgers, Purdue, Syracuse, Hawaii, Cincinnati, Washington, USC, Wake Forest, Wisconsin, Air Force, Army, Navy, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech & Louisville
NFL:
Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Green Bay, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Minnesota, New England, New York, Oakland, Pittsburgh, San Diego, Seattle, St. Louis & Tennessee
It is shocking that these venerable institutions and professional sports franchises would be so irresponsible. It’s even more alarming that the players actually PREFER to play on these virtual fryig pans. Don’t their livelihoods depend on their ability to play on these fields?
Could these experienced athetic departments and multi-million dollar sports franchises actually know something that the “turf antagonists” in Ridgewood don’t? Is that possible? Linda Macnamara, her landscaper and her supporters are the authorities on environmentally, socially and financially responsible athletic fields, aren’t they?
Actually they aren’t! The truth is that the small anti-turf crowd claims to be speaking on behalf of environmental responsibility. Yet, every issue they raise is exaggerated, is taken out of context, does not apply to the field at Maple Park or simply is not true.
Their view is, if “it is not grass, it is environmentally irresponsible.” Maple Park proved that this was not true this spring, as it allowed every other field in town to flourish. The landscaping there produced a wide variety of healthy bushes, grasses and trees that will be far more beneficial for the environment, for decades to come, than the overgrown weeds surrounding the mostly dirt field at the park ever could have been. However, being responsibility to the broader community means being environmental, social and fiscal responsibility. Those that oppose sensible and appropriate turf installations because the “surface is not natural” are doing so blindly, at the expense of their broader responsibility to the community and its welfare. That is neither responsible, nor acceptable.
>Well said, 10:09! Thank you!
>You turf titans have your turf field so what do you care what others say? Linda MacNamara is right and you’re wrong.
>There are many people living in the village that don’t accept the premise that playing fields are our biggest concern. Given that they are important to our sports programs, grass is an answer. It isn’t “forever wild” but it isn’t artificial. A compomise at best but a liveable one. A 2004 NFL report found that 90 plus percent of players perfer grass to artificial turf. Campers do stay off the turf when it is hot and watering artificial turf is necessary when temps are high for a period of time. No one believes that quality grass fields are better than turf. They were meant to be an option when grass can’t be grown.
>Where do you people come up with this stuff? Why would all these NFL and college programs, with unlimited budgets, use this product if it wasnt considered a complete success???
IF… I stress IF… we had enough fields available… yes, they could all be natural grass, and we could rotate them… giving particular sites a “break” for an entire spring or fall season. Even if you dont agree with the turf supporters.. do you think this is possible in Ridgewood? Honestly?
The success of the Maple Turf has been felt all over town… like it or not, it has taken traffic and pressure off of our grass fields… including the HS stadium.
If anyone has some open space available for ALL village residents… nice green, natural grass… offer it up. Otherwise, stop making up facts and hoping that they’ll stick.
>Agreed 10:37!
I don’t see anything resenbling a compromise in the 8:17 or 10:24 posts. It is the same old…”we are right and you are wrong…go away if you don’t like it.”
The 10:24 post is simply making up information. No campers stayed off Maple Park this summer because of heat. Maple Park used to be watered with in-ground sprinklers when it was grass. However, the new turf has not and will not be watered. That is a ridiculous statement. It is irrelevant what other towns “choose” to do, watering the turf is NOT necessary in Ridgewood.
I don’t know why 10:24 would quote (incorrectly) a 3 year old NFL survey. The most current one is from 2006. Interestingly, 9 of the 12 “best” artificial fields were FieldTurf (like Maple Park). 10 of the 19 “best” grass field have since been converted to FieldTurf (like Maple Park). The players who indicate a preference for grass, based their answers on “perfectly maintained” grass fields in cities where weather is not a factor. These do not exist in Ridgewood. What is relevent from this survey are the player comments below:
1) KEEP ALL GRASS FIELDS WELL MAINTAINED
2) DO NOT ALLOW BASEBALL FIELDS OR MULTIPLE — USE FIELDS
3) PUT ARTIFICIAL INFILLED SURFACES IN INCLIMENT WEATHER CITIES
The first two are impractical (if not impossible in our situation) and cost prohibitive. The third supports the primary reason for considering a mix of turf and grass fields…weather renders our fields unusable as much as 30% of the time and destroys them because of the over usage they get. There is nothing “green” or fiscally responsible about wearing our grass fields out every season and re-sodding them before the next season.
>The turf gods are unhappy because not all residents love the crap as much as they do. So we agree to disagree and everyone is happy.
>Let me translate for 12:53pm….
“Uncle.”
>It is entirely reasonable for residents to have differing opinions. That is healthy. What seems obvious is that some of the anti-turf people don’t understand the facts or refuse to acept them. Thus, they perpetuate misinformation. That is not reasonable.
It would be a welcome change if everyone would deal with the facts that exist in Ridgewood, in the future.
>We’ve had artificial turf in Ridgewood for approx. 10 months. Ask the maintnance crew how many village employees it took to clean up after the flooding. Let’s develope a history with this product before we turf more fields.
>What seems obvious to me is that the turf titans don’t understand the facts or refuse to accept them. Thus, they perpetuate misinformation. That is not reasonable.
Don’t count on the turf titans to deal with the facts that exist in Ridgewood now or in the future.
>How does one become an activist for artificial turf? Will their bumper stickers read, ” I Break For Plastic “? Surely Mother Nature is some where weeping or planning her revenge.