Turf email
For anyone who was surprised by all the "turf comments" on the prior post, my understanding is that there were several emails circulating today that discussed my "opposition" to the turf. Frankly, I'm not sure where that came from because if you read TWL or if you read the Cheshire Football website, there's no mention of my "opposition" to the turf. If anyone happens to know where that originated, I'd be curious to know. Regardless, people are clearly interested in my thoughts on the turf... so here are some random thoughts, including some questions/comments on costs and benefits:
1) I got to the fundraiser late and didn't get to share your thoughts with the Governor. But I did speak with Rep. Al Adinolfi who told me the turf is not in tomorrow's school construction bonding package. However, he said that the turf is still a possibility... with Rep. Mary Fritz' assistance... I don't know anything about the timing of that possibility.
2) If the turf cost less than $850,000, would the Council have anything to do with the turf? Or would this be exclusively handled by the BOE?
3) Are the recent health concerns legitimate, bogus or simply inconclusive?
4) If the town got the $850,000, would that cover the initial cost (ignoring 10yr replacement costs)? What are the lifecycle costs of turf and grass? (I'm an accountant. I like to see numbers written on paper.)
Finally, as I've said to several turf supporters... my feeling is that the best way to build support for something (including the turf) is to gain community support... and the Council will generally follow. To do that with the turf, I'd suggest highlighting what Mike Ciborowski mentioned in another post... the most important benefit... increased use. I understand the use of the field would increase from 30 days/yr to 200 days/yr. I think if more people knew that, there would be greater community support for the turf.
So how do I suggest building community support? Send a letter to the Herald. And have several people send them... highlighting the benefits of the turf, while acknowledging that there would be costs... such as a replacement cost. Be as upfront and candid as you can be. If people read your letter and feel it's being disingenuous, you risk losing credibility and hurting your cause.
Anyway, from my perspective, the best (if not easiest) way to achieve anything in Cheshire is to build widespread support for your cause.
Tim White
20 comments:
If artificial turf will be used so much more than the cost ought to be recovered from field rental. Otherwise, it will not be an ecomomical investment and will therefore be pork barrel
Seems Astroturf marketing is being used to sell Astroturf installation
"Astroturfing is a term for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising that seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behaviour. Hence the reference to AstroTurf (artificial grass) is a metaphor to indicate fake grassroots support.
The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the agenda of a client as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach," "awareness," etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by anything from an individual pushing their own personal agenda through to highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
we aren't trying to get astroturf......I think what everyone wants is Field Turf. Different Products.
Tim,
The majority of the Republicans on the town council will not support a turf field even if the money is raised privately, or given to the town as a grant from the state.
How do I know? Two of them have told me.
I do not think the turf should be considered if there is even a remote possibility of a health hazard. We should think of our children's health over their ability to play sports on a better field. How will we feel as parents and residents if we put their health in jeopardy later in life. We have to get our priorities in order.
"use of the field would increase from 30 days/yr to 200 days/yr."
Ha, ha, ha...... 200 daze?
We should sell memberships like we do with the pool. How many year for payback?
more of the white waffle-put the finger in the wind and find out
You never supported the turf time so don't try to say you did
Vote yes on the turf
It will be a great thing for our town and will save money
I haven't heard of any DEFINITIVE studies done that show health hazards associated with field turf. A lot of us grew up playing on grass fields sprayed with chemicals all spring, summer and fall. Go take a look at the field right now; dirt patches everywhere, small rocks everywhere and very minimal grass. It's a shame that all these athletes work so hard during the off-season and season and then the town can't even provide them with a suitable playing field.
I'm aware that years ago our fields were sprayed with multiple insecticides and poisons(as we have found out was a bad practice). Does that justify the installation of a field today that may cause health issues later. Until we rule out any hazards associated with this turf we should not consider it.
Tim
You are a two face here
You never supported the turf and now you are not sure
We will remember the white waffle
and we will make sure the south end remembers
Plant grass and fix the field. Spend the money on other projects in the schools so that all students can benefit. All past atheletes and coaches that have made it to the professional level can they be contacted and asked to make some type of contribution? I never heard of any $$$ being donated to the schools or the town. After all, we helped to give them their start.
19 years ago Lori Rusnack got a playground built with private fundsand donations. Maybe the turf people should do likewise, instead of trying to blog their way to taxpayers money.
Wow like the town did for the linear trail or did the state pay for most of it? It is funny that the republicans thought it was great the Doolittle parents got money from the state for their playground, but turf they don't want it. I also think that AL sponsered the bill, oh well.
An ex Uconn basketball player just donated $250,000 to Hartford. That's what I'm talking about. Let's hope some of our own follow this great example.
State money is not free. It was taxes collected by the state from us. We always pay. Keep this in mind.
Just watched the Hand vs Cheshire game. The field looked fine to me. Cheshire lost. No injuries occurred...except maybe for some egos. Having turf won't protect against the most serious of injuries like concussions.
Forget the turf.
The turf is just another project that the dems are trying to push - especially Altieri - he tried to suggest doing the 2 million dollar ballfields and then opted for the consultant (more of our money spent). Spend, spend, spend..the dems love to spend...they spend to no end!
go turf
go ballfields
down with the lin trail
up with the schools
up and coming
CINDY FOR COUNCIL she won't let the turf be put in, her and all the republicans that want her to run.
Post a Comment