Glen Ridge Turf War Heading to New Climax

I'm speechless. The council passed it once, the community petitioned and voted it down resoundingly (no easy task I might add), and now the council will pass it again, this time not bonding it so as to keep the community from being able to petition it again. Is that pretty much it? I live two houses down from Hurrell and my rage at this issue is beyond measure.

And just to be clear, it's not so much my rage at the field, although it certainly makes me unhappy, it's my rage at elected officials who feel they can, with all eyes upon them, act in any damn way they see fit no matter what the community says.

That's nonsense. To be opposed to the project is one thing. To smear the poeple that are on the Council is quite another. The Council has been trying diligently for some time (at least two years) to come up with something to address the field problems in Glen Ridge. I personally applaud them for all of their efforts and due dilligence. While no solution will please everyone, at least this is a solution that will address the needs of the town as a whole (I understand not every person will like it, but that's how our Democracy works). In my opinion they are making the best decision they can given the limited options available to the town in our current situation. Painting the Council Members that are behind the project as anything other than civic minded individuals doing the best they can for the town is an outright lie and you should be ashamed of yourself for even implying such.

When scruffycat moved to GR Hurrell was a board of Ed facility and it remains one in need of repair. SO FORGET THE NIMBY CRYING. You new you lived next to the only HS athletic facility in town.

The fact is it was publically defeated and the council needs to listen to the residents whom they represent.

When scruffycat moved to GR Hurrell was a board of Ed facility and it remains one in need of repair. SO FORGET THE NIMBY CRYING. You new you lived next to the only HS athletic facility in town.

The fact is it was publically defeated and the council needs to listen to the residents whom they represent.

A majority of town voters made clear that they do not want turf. The way democracy works is that the council should respect the vote but they are not doing so. Some conservative you are! When it is your special interest that is being funded by politicians acting arrogantly you are all for it.

You keep talking about a vote that took place on turf. There was no such thing. There was a vote on whether or not the town could bond money. Granted turf and all kinds of other stuff was contained in the original bond. The town voted against borrowing money which was the only question that was asked. Sure there were people against turf in the vote, but there were also poeple against higher txes, those who though one field with turf was enough, those who wanted more info, lots of other subsets. Don't throw everyone who voted against the measure into the anti-turf section because it is simply not true and a total distortion (once again) of the facts. You seem to degrade to name calling pretty quickly. How about some facts, real solutions, and less rhetoric?

How about some facts, real solutions, and less rhetoric?

How boring.

I must say, this whole subject makes me think, "ah, another day in the suburbs." It's hard to understand what beef you GR people have with turf. Is it the expense? Is it the idea that the kids will get rug burns? Personally, I feel that too many towns embrace turf thinking it's cheaper in the long run than grass, which I tend to doubt (though I don't really know). This is hardly a matter to get all hot and bothered about.

Oh well, time for some Ovaltine, Seinfeld reruns and then off to bed.

I must admit I love the argument that the people of GR didn't vote down the turf, they voted down a bond for the turf. This, of course, is technically true, because the issue up before the voters was the bond, but it sure sounds a lot like if I asked my kids, "Who wants a plateful of peas?" and when they all said no, I gave them bowlfuls of peas instead. Clearly it was the plate they objected to, not the peas.

Yes, I agree. Glen Ridge is complaining about being ignored by the Town Council who proceeds without any regard for the voters. The Mayor himself said the turf would never survive a vote put to the public. He was asked point-blank. So he is trying to push it through before he's gone. The town doesn't want it. Everybody thinks the vote for funds was a vote against turf. That's just not what we were asked. And if it was not, let's vote again. Let the people be heard. Why do town residents have to comply with the Historical Society when the Town can install artificial turf and 50' lights in the middle of the town? It's ridiculous. And the town is strapped with the cost of these lights... AND by everyone's admission (Town Council, GRAA, Rutgers Study) turfing one field will not solve the problem of over-usage anyway. A problem of the town's own making by not aerating, seeding or watering a field. This makes it pretty difficult to grow grass. As far as this being for the children, that's kind of silly. Puffs of ground up tire in the air when the ball hits it? Rug-burns? Ground up tire fragments tracked into our homes on our kids clothes? Torn ACL's and skull fractures? This is for the children of our town? And for more than a million dollars? It is outrageous. They can't provide field maintenance figures, they can't provide field usage figures. And if the town's history of field maintenance shows anything, it is that the ripped run-down artificial turf will be even more of a health hazard than the dirt under the natural grass (a big safety issue for the pro-turf crowd). Also don't forget that NIMBY does apply here since the original goal to turf Carteret has been replaced with grass. And whose backyard is that???? The Mayor's. And don't even get me started on Global Warming .....

Lots of opinions, few solutions, and even fewer facts. Either way it doesn't matter. The Town Council will do what they think is best since that's what we elected them for. I guess we'll all know soon what the final decision is..

Wow, what an intellectual. But, aren't you listening? Fact is ... the town doesn't want it. Proposed solutions were ignored by Council. The voters did NOT elect them to push their own private projects through with their hands in the tax-payers' pockets. Woops, too bad for us?

What really bothers me, at this point, is that the Council is prepared to vote on whether or not to obligate the town to $1.4 to $1.8 million dollars, before they've ascertained how the town is going to pay for it. I don't mean "Yeah I think we can find the funds", I mean "Ordinance ### has been passed which identifies and guarantees the funds."

The mayor has mentioned:

1) $500,000 from the February bond ordinance... except that ordinance does NOT mention using the money for turf, and if it did then it would be substantially identical to the bond ordinance that was voted down in the referendum. The language of the Ordinance also suggests that if any non-bond money is available for any of the projects the bond would cover, then that money must be used to reduce the bond; we can't just add that money on top of the bonded funds.

2) $200,000 from a Green Acres loan... except that artificial turf is not what Green Acres is all about. I've read that Green Acres has funded a handful of artificial fields, but that's a questionable practice at best and not something we can count on being available.

3) $300,000 pledged by the GRAA: that's way more than they've ever raised before, or any other town organization has raised, I believe. There's no guarantee that they can do it, so we shouldn't spend their money before they have it.

4) $300,000 matching county funds... if the GRAA manages to raise $300,000, and if the county follows through. (Also, guess where the county gets it's funds: our pockets. County and State funds are not "free money".)

That adds up to $1.3 million, which is $100,000 to $500,000 short of what's actually needed. Hardly the "whole nut". Is the Mayor going to cover the rest out of his own pocket?

GIven how much GR spends on its schools, isn't abysmal the sorry state of our HS's track and field. Lights yes, turf no, grass yes . . .

Isn't there a really simple answer to all of this?

WE CANNOT AFFORD IT!

It is a discussion that is had in every household in the country when a major expenditure is discussed. Do we have enough savings for it?

Why is it that municipal governments are the only entities that budget backwards. "Lets figure out what we want and then we will raise taxes to pay for it." The rest of the world figures out how much money they have, then figures out what they can afford.

The Council's gymnastics to attempt to show that we can pay for it is an outrage. That money is not going to be there, and we are going to wind up being taxed for this field.

WE CANNOT AFFORD IT.

Buy some grass seed.

I read thru the report that was issued on maintaining the grass and it did not seem to say that turf was needed. It had a whole program of how to maintain the field.

Having performed on grass at Hurrell and on Turf in college I would go with grass every time.

I also believe injuries will go up on turf and the costs will be higher.

Maintain the grass correctly...

"It is a discussion that is had in every household in the country when a major expenditure is discussed. Do we have enough savings for it?"

One of the big problems in this country today is that most people don't do this. Too many people buy things on credit and think about paying for it later.

It's amazing that after two years of hearings and work on the project and all of the information that is/was available to the public that there can be so many posters that demonstrate what little to no knowledge of the actual facts they have (assuming they all live in GR). There are certainly a few that have lots of knowledge and at least with them I can disagree or have general discussion, but some of these posts are so uniformed it's scary.

The issue seems to be turf v. grass. It would seem to be a reasonable requirement that town planners publish the basis for their apparent decision that turf is preferable. This would include an analysis of total expenditures for turf (high installation cost, low maintenance cost) versus grass (low installation cost, high maintenance cost). Perhaps this has been done, I don't know. My guess is that such an analysis would show turf and grass to be about the same cost, over the life of the field. Towns, though, seem to be particularly bad at maintaining grass, which I guess is why they generally go with turf.

The subsidiary question, expressed by one poster above, is whether the town can afford fields at all. This, I believe, is a long-tail opinion. If the answer is no, then perhaps the town should sell the land, build condos and let all the kids get fat.

Another problem solved!

Mr. Cheese,
I have to ask if there's a chance that you are mistaking opposition to spending the money as being "uninformed"?

Similarly, if fellow voters view the same data and come to a conclusion that the fields should stay grass (whether because they don't like turf as turf, or because they just don't feel that the "problem" of crappy fields needs solving, or for some other reason), do you feel they are "uninformed"?

This reminds me of so many other political fights, just on a smaller scale. You won't win converts by just insisting that the other side is wrong or uninformed. You need to persuade.

Start with the (apparently) many Glen Ridgers who are not persuaded that the field "problem" is enough of a problem to require spending a million dollars or more. Beginning with the premise that there is a problem that requires resolution runs counter to how those people view the issue, so you won't make progress there. You need to keep working to persuade them that there is a problem.

Others seem unpersuaded that turf is desirable due to aesthetic reasons -- they'd rather have choppy grass and dirt than something kinda fake looking. Hitting them over the head with blunt statements isn't going to bring any of them over to your side.

Finally, how do you propose to win over those people who feel that GRAA should pay more for its activities and/or limit use of the fields? It seems that some number of your fellow Ridgers feel that the problem of overuse might best be cured with using less. As an outsider, I can't say I've seen much persuasive action from the pro-turf side to bring around some of those folks.

Please feel free to disregard everything I say, as I'm only a spectator from the Montclair side of the border -- the side that never, ever has heated municipal arguments about spending or about politicians disregarding the wishes of voters. ;)

Why was the Gas Lamp Players, along with RAMP and a bunch of volunteers able to get the extremely abysmal auditorium at the RAS fully repaired, every seat replaced, painted, etc etc with nary a penny of the taxpayer's money? It was all donations and it was over a million bucks! How come they got that done that way but the GRAA has to dip into my pocket for this?

Appletony,
In response to your post, it simply isn't a grass vs turf discussion. The field use has gone up exponentially with our growing enrollment and expanded sports programs over the past decade or two to the point where it is impossible (this is not a staement, but a fact) to maintain the fields (finite number, no more available) in grass without resodding each and every year (and even then it is destroyed before the year is even over). This has been confirmed by several similar studies (one of which was specifically done on our fields). So the grass vs. turf arguement is not even the basis for discussion. The discussion is whether turf (or some other solution that has not yet come to light) can multiply the field useage enough to allow one turfed field (it would actually have two playing surfaces) to absorb enough extra playing time to allow the rest of the fields to be properly maintained in grass. See what I meaned about how easy it is in this arguement to have no idea what you are talking about on this topic?

Good luck with that approach, then.

Luck thankfully has little to do with it (though I appreciate the sentiment). It will be ugly whichever way it proceeds from here. I am sure Liz and Debbie will not miss a chance to stir the pot like this as we go forward so you'll stay up to date.

'Cheese',

In response to your post, the studies also stated that putting artificial turf on Hurrell, even with lights, will not be sufficient to reduce activity on the other fields to a maintainable level. They also say that the grass fields could be maintained properly if High School goal sports (lacrosse, football, soccer) were not played in back-to-back seasons on the same field.

A viable solution seems to be a combination of reducing overall usage somewhat combined with scheduling that takes field maintainability and the impact of different sports into account. This approach could probably satisfy everyone, but the Council has refused to give it a try; they'd rather push through their high-cost artificial turf.

Doug,
The studies I was referring to had nothing to do with turf. They were simply studies dealing with what it take to properly maintain grass fields in a high use environment The Rutgers study and similar studies done at other universities. So by reducing useage are you implying cutting sports? If so, which one(s)? If not, what method would you porpose to reduce the current fields useage by some 40% I believe the number is in order to even get into the ballpark for all natural surfaces?

Did you read the Field Advisory Group's Report? It's right on the Glen Ridge home page. It discusses all of the options, and points out that artifical turf on Hurrell alone is not a viable solution.

Reorganizing the schedules, and perhaps moving some sports off of GR fields (in alternate years, perhaps) might do the trick. My point is that no one, to my knowledge, has tried to come up with a schedule, because no one can even definitively state how many games of each sport, with how many players, is needed. Scheduling is completely haphazard, and the impact on the fields is the last thing that's considered.

Throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it: scheduling will still be haphazard, maintenance will still be poor, and our brand new million dollar fields will wind up going home with the kids stuck to their clothes. Then what are we going to do?

Okay, I'm now formally checking out of this conversation. I haven't read the Field Advisory Group's Report, I haven't seen the dang Glen Ridge Web site, I don't know what the heck Cheese and Doug are talking about. Please wake me up when there's a problem simple enough for an idiot to solve.

The Professor is on sabbatical!

Turf fields are not only initially costly, they have additional costs due to maintenance requirements, replacement, higher rate of injuries, on and on. Not of much use either when temperature exceeds 80 F as the turf is exceedingly hotter.

See below. (Don't forget about MRSA either.)

Synthetic Turf Playing Fields Present Unique Dangers

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/ats/news/2005/synthetic/

Good Choice Walleroo, I'm out on this one too. It's just too tiring going over and over the same stuff again and again. Coulcil takes it up next Monday at 7pm in the municipal building I believe. Though don't quote me cause I going from memory on this one..

I believe the problem is the excessive sports schedules. The population of GR is at its historic lows, there were more that a 1200 MORE residents in 1970. There is no reason other than status to turf ANY field in GR. The turf companies are as bad as the drug manufacturers when it comes to promoting their product by obfuscation. The overall consensus of independent studies clearly shows that turf is more expensive than grass in the 15 - 20 year range, has a questionable environmental and safety record and is almost impossible to keep sanitary (spit, urine, blood, feces). On top of all that you are saying it’s fine to increase the use of the area that already can't handle the traffic that exists, all for a mere 1.8M. The people of GR want to be cutting edge? Put the idiotic athletic programs back into perspective; give our kids an education with extracurricular sports, not sports with an extracurricular education. (They voters really did that, the current administration IS really that arrogant!)

Ambidextrous,
Only a post as idiotic as yours could have drawn me back into this conversation. You post is by far the dumbest I have read in recent memory on this topic. You have demonstrated you know almost nothing about the situation you posted about as though you were an expert. At least have half a clue before you post. You know the saying: "Better to silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"? Well too late in this instance but perhaps next time. Since Glen Ridge is already ranked among the top High Schools in the State as far as Academic peformance etc, when did the CO-CURRICULAR (as defined in Glen Ridge not extracurricular as you mistated) athletic programs get out of perspective? And yes I am advocating more playing time on a synthetic surface than a grass one because they can handle the extra use without breaking down like grass fields do. This would also allow the opportunity to get most of the remaining fields back into proper shape. See what you can learn if you actually do some research before spouting off at the mouth?

I'm not going to waste as much space as you saying nothing, attacking me personally is just your low life style as nothing but an instigator who must think he's really cool. I never stated that GR was low in academics. I did state that sports is over done in the schools, that there are very real problems with artificial turf, that the artificial turf costs more and that most of the voters don't want it. Look up the studies not paid for by the industry, see what you could learn if you weren't a cheesy wino.

mmmm...wine...or in your case Whine..

"I did state that sports is over done in the schools,"

What does that mean exactly?

As you read the thread Cheese and Doug agree on one thing. TOO MANY PROGRAMS

MAYBE THE GRASS DOES NOT HAVE TIME TO GROW. Talk about a money saver just lose a couple programs.

I don't know, choice is summer camps in bridge engineering (Newark college) or wrestling for 7th graders (had acquaintance with 11 yr old with defined abs and no-other interest). Do you want gladiators or scientists? (abbreviated for blog, I'm sure that someone will do community service to explain to cheese). Use your brain; nobody wants bad knees when they're 35, assrags like you only perpetuate competition on a warlike level, instead of an intellectual one to further survival instead of annihilation.

Turf is bad for many reasons and the town officials should see it that way but it doesn't look like they do. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!drug resistant staph infections are here. TURF DOESN'T BREATH. It breeds.

Turf is bad for many reasons and the town officials should see it that way but it doesn't look like they do. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!drug resistant staph infections are here. TURF DOESN'T BREATH. It breeds.

Geez I thought it was a simple question of clarification. So if I get you somewhat evasive answer correct, you think that we are giving our kids bad knees because we offer too many sports? Don't want to misquote you, but your not really being overly forthcoming with clarification. It's like the good old days of listening to Bill Clinton answer questions. "Well that depends on what the definition of is..is"...

This is an astounding position to take. If you are for turf -- or even if you are not dead set against it but want to learn more before rejecting it -- you are an "assrag", are perpetuating warlike competition, want kids to have bad knees, are in favor of sending toxins into the atmosphere, care more about athletes than scientists, and value athletics over academics.
Is this the sort of reasoned dialogue favored by so many in GR? Is this the way folks disagree with their neighbors? Does Ann Coulter live in GR?
There are some good arguments on both sides. This is not a black and white issue. But, at some point, a decision has to be made. It may not be a popular decision, and in many cases governments on all levels make unpopular decisions. This thing has been talked to death, it seems to me. If it is to be, then it is time to find a way to make it at least palatable to those who oppose it, and for God's sake we could all do with less of the hysteria and name calling and all around bullshit going on and on.

Nice post Croiagusanam.

If this doesn't say it all, it says a lot:

http://www.newsobserver.com/weather/drought/story/742218.html

OK. I read it. You have to water turf fields. So?
What else?

Kit,
Since fields and not water is what we are short of, I fail to see your point (which I might add is quite often the case when I hear your points).

Croiagusanam: from your previous posts on the GR teacher's demonstration (which I found to be civil and intelligent) I had the impression you were a teacher,
or involved in education. From your post above, it would seem you're a gym teacher.

Cheese: Your posts have been too low & uncivil to deserve a response.

Kit,
So you drop in and post a link to an article that has nothing to do with the conversation (well, ok almost nothing) and then you speak (write in this case) like you brought us the Holy Grail. Forgive us if we are somewhat disappointed. I've heard you speak, you shouldn't be throwing stones..

The installation of turf at Montclair's Woodman Field has resulted in increased usage and all that comes with it: increased traffic to the neighborhood, parking problems, noise, litter/trash. This fall the field has been used from about 8 am-7pm Saturday and Sunday by high school and pee wee teams. Lights are a more disturbing issue. Lights create what's called a "halo" and would illuminate neighborhoods beyond those immediately adjacent to a stadium. And night football games create problems that day games don't. Fans are more rowdy. Many, including students, will have been drinking. Fights are inevitable. Bottom line: people behave differently Friday night than they do on Saturday afternoon. And the noise from Friday night football games (cheering, bands, traffic) will last well into the evening when young families are trying to put little ones to bed. Get real, Glenridge -- NO TURF, NO LIGHTS.

I'm sorry if you assumed that I was a teacher. I was once involved in education, if that is relevant to this discussion at all ( I don't think that it is ), and I was never a "gym" teacher (I think the preferred term these days is PE, but whatever).
In any event, I don't know what your post was supposed to prove, other than the fact that turf fields require watering, which I think most people knew. So do grass fields. We don't live in Arizona, so I fail to see the point.
That's all. I fail to see the point. Asking for clarification is not uncivil nor is it unintelligent.

The installation of turf at Montclair's Woodman Field has resulted in increased usage and all that comes with it: increased traffic to the neighborhood, parking problems, noise, litter/trash. This fall the field has been used from about 8 am-7pm Saturday and Sunday by high school and pee wee teams. Lights are a more disturbing issue. Lights create what's called a "halo" and would illuminate neighborhoods beyond those immediately adjacent to a stadium. And night football games create problems that day games don't. Fans are more rowdy. Many, including students, will have been drinking. Fights are inevitable. Bottom line: people behave differently Friday night than they do on Saturday afternoon. And the noise from Friday night football games (cheering, bands, traffic) will last well into the evening when young families are trying to put little ones to bed. Get real, Glenridge -- NO TURF, NO LIGHTS.

Jerzee,
While certainly some, if not most of what you say is true, it will be viewed somewhat differently depending on your personal opinion. In GR's case we can't support our needs on current fields and need the added playing hours that you can get on a synthetic playing field vs a grass one. It's not necessarily turf that we want, but nothing so far as offered the same multiplication factor that turf does (in essence creating more fields with no additional ground). I can certainly understand the light issue as well, but am told that IF that goes forward they would be extremely limited for just that reason. We have to consider our neaighbors and friends that live in close proximity to Hurrell and keep them in mind during this process. Everyone certainly won't be happy but the Council certainly appears to be giving it their best effort. Ok, now the hate posts about usurping authority, and going against the will of the people etc. can begin...

This is interesting

http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/ats/news/2005/synthetic/

"We have to consider our neaighbors and friends that live in close proximity to Hurrell and keep them in mind during this process."

Honestly Cheese, unless you truly give a rats ass about the Hurrell neighbors, lights would never enter into your mind. This will ruin their quality of life. I hope its worth it.

I coached for GRAA a bit and was taken back by how serious the other parent coaches were about winning,practice times,making sure that ones own child gets his due etc...I went into it thinking that I could make a difference but no. The other parent coaches wanted to kick my ass and my kids too. I feel bullied again. This time by the pro turf guys and a town council that has no conscience.

Nice post Wayweusatodo..lots of facts and very little opinion and generalizations..lol...NOT