Saturday, April 21, 2012
Another Cancelation
The following notice from the Mt. Lebanon Soccer Association more or less sums up the issue relative our community's lack of multipurpose field space. Unfortunately, the need to protect an already worn field overrides the desire to conduct this 2nd grade clinic. Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the rain date will likely be conducted indoors. The Mellon turf project that has been proposed by many would prevent disappointing cancelations like this.
Second Grade Soccer Clinic Weather Update
Sorry, but the rainy forecast is forcing us to postpone the 2nd grade clinic scheduled for 10:00 this morning at Jefferson.
The clinic is now scheduled for Saturday, April 28th from 10-11:30 at North Gym, Mt. Lebanon High School, OR another Mt. Lebanon field.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am struggling to figure out why all the taxpayers in Mt. Lebanon need to band together and spend over $1million to bail out a 2nd grade soccer clinic.
ReplyDeleteWeather happens all over this country. Maybe all grass fields should be replaced by turf so there will never again be a rescheduling of a 2nd grade soccer clinic in America.
I'm sure you know that no plan to turf Mellon (or any field) is intended solely for the benefit of 2nd grade soccer or even soccer in general. However, cancelations like yesterday's are simply a symptom of the greater problem.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you asked your question though. Ultimately, there may not be enough support to move forward, but I think the many families that want to improve these facilities are intent on trying to see it through. Why? Well probably for the same reasons that we as taxpayers have banded together to spend thousands of dollars on things like parades and farmer's markets. For the same reasons we have banded together to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a best in class library. And for the same reasons we have banded together to spend millions of dollars on a nationally recognized public safety department. We spend our tax dollars on these assets and programs because they make our community better. We spend our tax dollars on these assets because they improve the quality of life for our residents. I think most people chose to move to Mt. Lebanon or stay in Mt. Lebanon - at least in part - because we offer services and amenities not available in other communities and because we have long adhered to to the philosophy that these assets and programs should be maintained.
I will grant you that the proposals for field improvements represent more "wants" than "needs". But as outlined above, much of what is included in our annual budgets is there not because we need it, but because we want it. As voters, taxpayers and elected officials, we have determined over the years that things like a golf course, a library, parades, tennis courts, a SWAT vehicle, leaf pick up, street trees, central business district signs, Christmas decorations, Easter egg hunts, car shows, 5K races, First Fridays, a swimming pool, a magazine, televised meetings, and a host of other "wants" are good for our community. We don't really "need" any of these things, but ask yourself if you would like Mt. Lebanon without them. Ask yourself if you will be able to sell your home in 5, 10 or 20 years without them. Why have communities like USC, Peters, South Fayette and Bethel invested in their field spaces and consistently decided to use artificial turf in the process? And yes, I do think that in some respects keeping up with the Jonses is important. Our community is a multimillion dollar business and we are competing for customers in the form of home buyers, tax dollars, businesses, students, teachers, etc. every year.
Turfing Mellon through a collaborative public/private initiative would create a unique showcase facility in the heart of our central business district. In my opinion, this would not be adding a new facility, but instead maintaing what we have already decided that we want. Currently, Mellon is a disaster. It doesn't drain a bit, thus making it unusable for days. After some rains, portions remain unusable for weeks, thereby adding undue stress to the remaining parts. A band aid will not fix Mellon. Don't take my word for it. Visit it today. We need to fix it, or we should get out of the recreation business all together. Until we decide the latter, the proposal to turf Mellon becomes more of a need everyday.
Dave Franklin
Dave, same person who wrote the first comment here....I am not going to say what you are writing is dishonest. You truly believe in your heart the things that you are saying. But your view is clearly biased. Your sports groups are using the same tactics that were used by the folks that demanded the high school. While you call the meeting last Thursday a group of people coming out to work together, it was instead a group of people intimidating others of a differing opinion. Your group consists of sports parents and perhaps some others, but the values of your group do not reflect the values of the entire community. Showing up en masse after email blasts is just silly.
DeleteBut, on to a few of your points. Has anyone from your group ever done any research into how much more business would be created on Washington Road if Mellon was turfed? This point kills me. First, you have homes and condos back there that would fight the lights. Second, it is a school district field, one that I am sure they would have trouble maintaining when turfed. Third, turfing Mellon only gets a few hours a day more practice time and you avoid the occasional cancelled 2nd Grade Soccer Clinic. Fourth, a couple hours extra per day of practice means bubka to the businesses on Washington Road, especially if the practice fields is always occupied as it is. One more late night practice won't make any difference on Washington Road. And finally, how is turfing a field that sits behind three large buildings and is unviewable from the main drive going to impress people? A showcase field that is only viewable if you take a side street? I think that defeats the purpose of "showcase".
Mellon is funny. It seems to me that the school district needs to invest money into the field to make it drain better so that it can be usable after heavy rains. Why would you not take this practical approach costing perhaps $70,000 instead of demanding over a million dollars in turfing?
Having watched the municipal meetings, their people are saying that even turfing a field will not make much of a difference. The problem is one of field space. Adding a field at Cedar (often talked about) at a cost of maybe $500k (I don't know if the real number has been released) seems to make sense if it is indeed a field space issue.
You see, I am not a "no spend ninny". I want to make investments that make sense and most of all I don't want a small group of folks to try to bully commissions and school boards into spending money and silly projects that make no sense. Yes we compete against other school districts and municipalities, but our taxes have gone up and will continue to go up higher and farther than those places with which we compete. This was done partly based on the tactics used by the school folks- the very same tactics you are using now. Mass emails, show up en masse at an occasional meeting, start a blog, use the "it's important to invest in our community" tagline. Next thing I hear out of your blog will be, "it will only cost $18 a month for a turfed Mellon Field.
Listen, in my mind this community just invested $27 million into sports via the new sports megaplex at the high school. I'm a little tired of spending money we don't have. Your group got what it wanted- and now it wants more. How much do we have to spend on sports in this community before this stops? $27 million wasn't enough. Will $30 million be enough after we turf Mellon and Wildcat Fields? What about the $16 million indoor practice facility proposed for the rockpile? Is that going to come back again because we have to keep up with the Jones'?
How about this...you raise the money privately and do whatever the heck you want!
I do like you Dave and I appreciate your passion for this cause, but this has got to stop
OK, Mr, Anonymous, I have to respond this time. I'm one of the band of "deadbeat athletic supporters" that acccording to legend and myth "promised" the school district $8M toward the high school project athletic facilities. That is a bald faced lie, and anyone who says anything to the contrary is a liar. Early in 2009, our group formed to address the pathetic state of our athletic facilities at the stadium, specifically the field house, the turf and the press box. The high school design had not been finalized. We proposed major renovations to the field house, the (absolutely necessary) replacement of the turf, and the construction of a new (modular design) press box. In addition, we researched an indoor practice facility constructed at Massillon High School in Canton (with strictly private funding) - go take a look at it on the internet - that we proposed to build on the Rock Pile. (And by the way, Mr. Expert, the indoor facility cost, based upon Massillon's design, is $3.5M, not $16M.)
DeleteAs we talked to more people in the community, it became apparent that turfing Mellon would produce a community asset that would be available to all field sports participants and the community at large for practically year-round use.
The total cost estimate for these projects approached $8M. We approached the school district administration, the school board (and candidates for election), and a couple of sitting commissioners that would listen to make a proposal for a public/private PARTNERSHIP that would lead to our vision become a reality. Our group offered to spearhead the efforts to raise the necessary funds IF - and ONLY IF - the school district and the municipality would support and ENDORSE the
efforts, including cutting through red tape and turf (not the artificial variety)issues that were obstacles to the plan. In the end, there was no support. There was no endorsement. The high school final design removed the field house from the picture, and took away the Rock Pile from consideration. THERE WAS NEVER- EVER- A PROMISE OF ANY KIND.
We'll wait to see what the appetite is with the school district and the commission is to move forward with improvements to our recreational facilities. Our group is still ready, willing - and able - to do what we can to help.
For the record, I don't have a "group" that advocated for the high school. I am on record as being opposed to an over the top high school project and I certainly didn't rally for or encourage others to rally for a particular amount to be spent on athletic facilities at the high school. I know a great number of folks who support youth sports and field projects, who don't support the high school.
ReplyDeleteI'm also still trying to understand why attending a public meeting is silly. As best I can tell, the same 4 or 5 people show up at every meeting. Frankly, the introduction of new faces and new voices can only help the community, regardles of the issue. Would you have preferred that the Commission host a meeting that no one attended? Is there seriously something wrong with forwarding emails to others who might be interested in the topic and have something to add to the discussion?
Over the next several weeks, perhaps longer, the YSA and others and will be working to develop a plan that will be presented to the Commissioners and probably the SB as well. This plan will undoubtedly include a private funding component. No one expects this to come without contributions and fundraising on the private side, and I doubt anyone expects it will be painless. However, we believe that the need for better fields (including turf) is a sentiment that is shared by a large portion of the community. We intend to build upon that support and move forward.
I'm fine with the fact that you and others may disagree. If our proposals are so off the wall, or so disproportionate to the beliefs or desires of the rest of the community, they will surely fail. You certainly don't need to debate me here if there is such limited support for our proposal. I think those of us at the YSA and others understand that there will always be opposition to our plan. That's fine. We will nevertheless continue to move forward to try to make improvements in the community.
Dave Franklin
Before I'm accused of messing with someone's comments, I had to cut/paste GE anonymous comment from an email because I mistakenly must have deleted it on the blogger page. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteKudos on the new blog David. I find it interesting that someone would be opposed to sending a blast email. Perhaps they would prefer that you went door to door soliciting signatures?
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in hearing more about how much money the sports groups are paying to other communities to use their fields and gyms.
As far as the outdoor sports go, lacrosse and field hockey seem to be the big spenders outside of Lebo. Field hockey spent approximately 50% of its budget last year acquiring practice field space. Lacrosse rents field space from Seton La Salle, Canon Mac and Our Lady of Victory.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous April 23, 2012 11:50 PM said:
ReplyDeleteMellon is funny. It seems to me that the school district needs to invest money into the field to make it drain better so that it can be usable after heavy rains. Why would you not take this practical approach costing perhaps $70,000 instead of demanding over a million dollars in turfing?
-------------------------------------------
This is a great point, but we need someone with some real knowledge of Mellon and it's drainage, or lack thereof, to address the $70,000. I believe the cost to improve "drainability" would be exponentially more expensive. Can anyone address this?
In my opinion, it takes more than simply fixing the drainage. Natural grass athletic fields require a comprehensive plan to maintain their playability and durability. Mellon is simply too stressed. Draining Mellon will not alone make it a better facility. Take Bird for example. It doesn't have a drainage problem as much as it has a growing grass problem. The level of play on our grass fields is simply too much for them to bear, week after week, month after month, year after year. Most "experts" will tell you that properly maintained grass fields should be rotated in and out of use. Given the amount of play and the number of sports, we simply can't put a rotation plan in place without shortening seasons or eliminating certain sports or age groups all together. I don't think anyone has been in favor of those measures.
ReplyDeleteThe same is true for the plans for Cedar and Robb Hollow. The $800,000 or so that has been mentioned to create fields at those locations does not include any contingency costs for traffic studies, environmental studies, etc. Nor do those figures include annual maintenance costs that will be required to keep those new fields from ending up like Bird and Mellon. I think it is relatively undisputed that the annual maintenance cost for turf is significantly less than the annual maintenance cost for grass (assuming you are going to maintain the grass properly).