Reader says Turf fields looks nice , but way too much money
They only got 7 years out of Maple…not sure what the life expectancy range is for turf but I would’ve thought that it would’ve lasted longer than 7 years….
I don’t think the plan in place for the Schedler (sp?) property calls for artificial turf, but I could be wrong.
You can thank the voters in the Willard district that voted for the expanded bond that removed 2 usable baseball/softball fields at BF (specifically the second 90 foot baseball field) when they redid the track and field.
If that vote doesn’t get approved, there would be less of a push by RBSA to get a second 90 foot baseball field somewhere in town.
No doubt that the Willard parents tipped the scales and set this whole entitlement sentiment currently embraced by the sports groups.
Time to take the town back and vote for Sedon and Knudsen…or the “newbies” as one of the “townie” posters wrote last week.
Could we please stop with the turf field bashing, or at least get some facts straight? First of all, the turf at Maple is still there and still being used so I have no idea where “we only got 7 years out of Maple” comes from. Secondly, how could it be “way too much money” when the field at Maple was paid for with private money? And in regards to the loss of the 90 foot diamond after moving the track to BF that falls on the past Village Council. The Master Parks and Field plan called for all of the upgrades/changes that were made including moving the undersized/unusable track from RHS to BF. Almost all of the upgrades/changes were to BOE properties. The only component in that phase of the plan that fell to the the Village of Ridgewood was to renovate/expand Lower Hawes so to accomodate a 90 foot diamond to make up for the “lost” diamond at BF. They never did it. So now the focus is on Schedler.
We now have 3 turf fields that get used almost non-stop. That means more kids participating in more activities and being more active. That is a positive in my book. If we had not passed the bond and we still had the old facilities the RHS Stadium Field would be gettng used a maximum of 12 to 15 times a year instead of dozens of times a week. The same goes for Stevens. I actually disagree that the “turf looks nice.” I’d rather see real grass, I think it looks better but the reality of the situation is that with our limited number of fields and the sheer numbers of children we have involved in sports from the youth level thru the HS there is no alternative if we want safe, usable, fields. In fact I would bet we’ll be seeing a couple of more fields “turfed” in the next few years.
We’ll said # 1. Now hopefully this will end all the BS about the fields. That’s the problem in town most people don’t know the history or the facts. They are the people who are never involved. Now they start there interest groups after the fact. Your comments should set them straight
Yeah, turf is terrific. When human skin skids along it, horrific wounds happen. The plastic shreds the skin.
this entire debate has me worried about myself. I am a 4 generation “townie” against the apartment buildings, i want a parking garage build downtown, I am in favor of a reasonable Valley Hospital improvements but I think the turf fields are a good idea…. aaaaahhhhh what is happening to me?! Am I not going to be allowed to be a “townie” any more? What next? Maybe I would be in favor of making Graydon pond a real pool?
Hey Bill are you related to Dom?
who is Dom? is he the guy that wants to cement in Graydon?
Hey #1 – I guess we need to send Jimmy Olson over to Maple to take some snapshots of the worn-out turf.
I thought I read the turf replacement quote right here on the RWBlog to be about $41K…….
James – you got my back here….?