NY4P turf study
Although the WRA has reported that the Matt Altieri / Mary Fritz / Jim Amann turf has already been rubberstamped approved by the state bonding commission, and it appears this is a fait accompli... I still think it'd be worthwhile to try to take an objective look at turf.
I found this study by the group New Yorkers for Parks. They claim to be independent and their executive summary seems fair. But for Cheshire to use their guidance may be impossible.
Why?
Well, the NY4P study calls for including "maintenance plans and cost-benefit analyses in requests for capital funding for athletic fields so that educated funding decisions are made."
And we all know that in Cheshire... "costs" don't necessarily exist. I mean, with regard to our recently adopted Democratic tax hike fund balance policy, a cost/benefit analysis would be impossible because as we've been told "the start is a false premise that there is a cost involved. There is no cost; there is a revenue investment."
So there you have it... "costs" don't exist in Cheshire Town Government. Yippee! Everything done by the town is an "investment." So a cost/benefit analysis of the turf would be impossible. Right?
Maybe not. Perhaps the budget committee could consider doing a cost/benefit analysis? Maybe if the Budget Committee had a CPA, they could figure out how to do one?
Ok, ok... all kidding aside... I hope you take a look-see at the NY4P study and comment. It seems to provide a fairly objective view of turf.
As for me, I'm still of the opinion that it's more important to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil (and building a natatorium, such as they have at the Milford/Orange YMCA, could help with that) than it is to have a turf field.
Tim White
4 comments:
Perhaps someone could check with the city of West Haven or Southern CT State University and find out what the true costs of maintaining these kinds of fields are.
I know you will need some kind of special machine to remove bacteria. I see a lot of geese flying over the field.
From the report.
"Initial results showed that the surface temperature of the synthetic field was, on average,
39 degrees higher than the natural turf and 8 degrees higher than asphalt. At its
hottest point, the synthetic turf was 86.5 degrees hotter than grass."
This sure makes AstroTurf a winner if you like heat.
Before deciding on it, maybe an enviromental impact study should be done to determine what effect the heat would have on live plants and animals, including students, in the area and how the neighbors feel about installing something that will increase the temperature of their property.
As we all know when we have gone to a mall in the summer, those 95 degree days are unbearable when you get out of the car. Well, AstroTurf is hotter that asphalt.
So why would we want our kids playing on this hot material and have the spectators dieing of heat exposure? A benefit would be that you can sell more soda.
One thing I don't understand is why do the taxpayers have to pay for the ball fields. Users of the ball fields should pay for all the costs associated with them. We expect the users of the pool to pay for the pool and some get people get very upset because that's not working.
Well, good luck to Astro Altieri.
Just take the bubble from the pool and place it over the new turf field.
Tim...I am a senior on a fixed income, and its not alot...this money for the turf is a slap in the face to seniors. We can't help with a tax freeze but we can buy a new field. Where's the logic? If you are going to tax me for the schools,keep them updated and clean...use the $$$ for that....turf, we didnt even need grass in my days to play ball.
Post a Comment