Letter to the editrix: Turf Field Steals Home
I read that the divisive synthetic field to be installed at Mamaroneck High School has quietly progressed in spite of a budget that has struggled along, terminating 54 district employees including 10½ teachers plus raising taxes.
This may be the lowest tax increase in a while, but it has the highest mortality rate I can remember.
For me, the issue of “infill” is only part of the challenge of a synthetic field. This type of field is out of date before we begin. Currently, these fields are being removed across the country, from the Pittsburg Steelers to the
Financially, this synthetic field is not supported by a majority of our community. In an aggressive campaign to raise funds, our school Public Relations office touts that between 4-500 families made contributions. However, there were 4,160 voters in the election that defeated the synthetic fields. This means at most 22% (if both members of a family contributed money) of the voters were willing to contribute. This is nowhere near a majority. And the total cost will be expensive.
At the bond vote, Plan B (no track) cost just under $3 Million. Last fall, the Board’s website said $1.7 Million scaled back to remove lighting, bleachers, parking and storage building/bathrooms. I was also told these items would be paid for solely by the district, without Fields For Kids funds.
The tally of money raised is now $1.35 Million which includes $250,000 of State money! Where is the additional $350,000? Will the extra money come from the Board’s discretionary fund, or from small projects under Operations and Maintenance? What changes have been made or items left out completely?
I believe this Project should be put on hold until the total expense and the options can be fairly reviewed with the Public. Or sod the field for $50-60,000. The initial money should be well spent even if it was allocated at the very end of last year. I would rather support an environmentally-responsible grass field and retain our programs and teachers.
–Michele Lewis, Lewis and Gould Architects
Thank you for voicing this. There are many of us who feel the same way, especially with the budget vote coming up.
The proposed 2010-11 budget does NOT include any monies for the renovations of the MHS Memorial Field. As has been discussed at numerous public board meetings, the Memorial Field 2010 project is a private-public partnership and has been made possible by generous private donations.
Funding for the field renovation consists of: $500,000 that the community approved for field renovations at the high school as part of the 2004-05 school budget in May 2004, a $250,000 grant made possible through Assemblyman George Latimer, and $615,000 of private donations, including $100,000 from the Larchmont Junior Soccer League and $50,000 from Larchmont Mamaroneck Youth Lacrosse. Thanks to the community’s generosity, this fall, we will have a new field at the high school that our students and community will enjoy for years to come.
[b][/b][b][/b][b][/b][b][/b]
[quote][i]You can milk a cow the wrong way once and still be a farmer, but vote the wrong way on a water tower and you can be in trouble.[/i]
– John Fitzgerald Kennedy[/quote]
[i]’Funding for the field renovation consists of: $500,000 that the community approved for field renovations at the high school as part of the 2004-05 school budget in May 2004 … ‘[/i], ‘Mamaronecks Schools’ said here. — Did the community have a line item vote or veto in 2004 budget voting? Did the community approve a synthetic field in the 2004 voting? Is the community contractually bound – a lame excuse being bandied around in other cases – to what was done in different economic times? Inquiring minds simply want to know the truth.
By my math, the total donations come to 1,515,000. If the field costs 1.7 million, where is the other 200,000 coming from? And where is the interest on the money from the 500k that has been sitting in escrow (I assume)? And do you really think that NY State, which is broke, is going to fork over 250,000 for a “rich” neighborhood’s turf field? I bet the folks hurting in Ithaca or the Bronx will think this is something worthy of their tax dollars.
The school board spent plenty of time and (our) money promoting the field, yet it was STILL voted down. The school board assumes that it was voted down because of the money. But many, many community members do not want ANOTHER turf field shoved into our midst. At every gathering I go to, someone will whisper to me, “I’m against synthetic turf fields, but this is a small town, so I’m reluctant to speak out.” And no wonder. I have been vilified, even harassed and called names, while the proponents are lauded at the school.
Unless the district polled every voter, there is no way to know why it was voted down. Only that it was.
But wait, kids! Here’s a lesson in democracy! If your community turns down something you really, really want… well… if you’re rich enough, and connected enough, you can BUY your way around the vote!
Plus, the cost is really smoke and mirrors. There are still lights, scoreboards, bleachers, the track… and don’t forget the replacement costs. Many fields need replacing to the tune of 500,000 after as little as 6 years! See http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html
So Debbie, please don’t tell us it’s not going to cost us anything. From maintenance to replacement to environmental damage (in the form of global warming, off-gassing plastic and removal of carbon-sequestering plants). We will just get stuck with the bill for this expensive plastic carpet, sooner or later.
just to set the record straight, there was no “community referendum” on whether to build a turf field. The only vote was whether to authorize the school district to issue bonds to funds such a field. Not wanting to have it and not wanting to pay for it are not the same. Nothing precluded the schools from accepting money or other donations for a new field, much as I doubt the district would object to donations to fund music or other programs being cut (hint, hint).
Can we please move on from fields? We need to fund our schools and shouldn’t oppose the budget just because we don’t like turf. And, yes, I believe in fiscal responsibility and that unnecessary items should be cut. But it’s offensive to have to cut education items to reach a barebones tax hike.
I’ll go a step further for prospective residents, if you don’t want high taxes and don’t want to pay for a public school system, please don’t move here. When we bought our home umpteen years ago, we anticipated a 5% annual increase. Guess what; that was pretty much on the money.
The folks in Ithaca already got their fancy field courtesy of the taxpayers, thank you. I grew up in one of those blighted upstate towns. It now has the most beautiful high school football stadium I’ve ever see, complete with turf, lights, concession stands, concrete risers, a huge section for the “away” side, etc. All paid for by bonds and largely reimbursed by New York State and the Feds! Since moving here, I’ve bemoaned the lack of a high-quality, community gathering place for athletic events. If the rust-belt upstate New Yorkers can make it happen, why can’t we?
[quote][i]You can milk a cow the wrong way once and still be a farmer, but vote the wrong way on a water tower and you can be in trouble.[/i]
– John Fitzgerald Kennedy[/quote]
[i]’Funding for the field renovation consists of: $500,000 that the community approved for field renovations at the high school as part of the 2004-05 school budget in May 2004 … ‘[/i], ‘Mamaronecks Schools’ said here. — Did the community have a line item vote or veto in 2004 budget voting? Did the community approve a synthetic field in the 2004 voting? Is the community contractually bound – a lame excuse being bandied around in other cases – to what was done in different economic times? Inquiring minds simply want to know the truth.
Oh BIGMOMMA, perhaps you anticipated certain things ‘umpteen’ [sic] years ago. Wish you told warned others about the changing in the economy more recently. Will you move too when your children graduate and leave those the students who try to stay here with massive debt.
Yes, we need to fund education, but funding our schools as we do now expensively does too little of that. So our math say we must vote no to the entire budget.
By my math, the total donations come to 1,515,000. If the field costs 1.7 million, where is the other 200,000 coming from? And where is the interest on the money from the 500k that has been sitting in escrow (I assume)? And do you really think that NY State, which is broke, is going to fork over 250,000 for a “rich” neighborhood’s turf field? I bet the folks hurting in Ithaca or the Bronx will think this is something worthy of their tax dollars.
The school board spent plenty of time and (our) money promoting the field, yet it was STILL voted down. The school board assumes that it was voted down because of the money. But many, many community members do not want ANOTHER turf field shoved into our midst. At every gathering I go to, someone will whisper to me, “I’m against synthetic turf fields, but this is a small town, so I’m reluctant to speak out.” And no wonder. I have been vilified, even harassed and called names, while the proponents are lauded at the school.
Unless the district polled every voter, there is no way to know why it was voted down. Only that it was.
But wait, kids! Here’s a lesson in democracy! If your community turns down something you really, really want… well… if you’re rich enough, and connected enough, you can BUY your way around the vote!
Plus, the cost is really smoke and mirrors. There are still lights, scoreboards, bleachers, the track… and don’t forget the replacement costs. Many fields need replacing to the tune of 500,000 after as little as 6 years! See http://www.synturf.org/maintenancereplacement.html And the old turf has to be disposed of. Experts say disposal is not only bad for the environment but can cost more than $100,000.
So Debbie, please don’t tell us it’s not going to cost us anything. From maintenance to replacement to environmental damage (in the form of global warming, off-gassing plastic, infill runoff polluting streams, removal of carbon-sequestering plants and eventual disposal of plastic). Taxpayers will just get stuck with the bill for this expensive plastic carpet, sooner or later.
The problem with relying on property taxes for the school district is that people move here for 12 years (the length of an education) and then move. Community members like seniors on a fixed income, who raised their kids here too, are needed, because they pay for services like schools but don’t use them. If every community member used the school system, we couldn’t accommodate the growth. But I have seen many older neighbors move because they cannot afford to stay in the community that was their home for decades.
[quote][i]Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.[/i]
– Will Durant[/quote]
Catherine W. is correct, our schools and school taxes have become a Ponzi scheme, with people moving here for K-12 and forcing others by taxation to leave the neighborhood they’ve built; robbing Peter to pay Paul. How ironic that we’re called a developed country and an educated community.
Catherine W.’s math is also on the mark. It appears that our schools must teach a new math and a new economics, omitting crucial numbers and facts.
Too many have learned too little from the current economic crisis – that we can go on spending money we don’t have, leaving the debt to some distant future. It doesn’t work and not fair to the sportsmanship of those who might play on the fields. Winning now may not compare to their future losses – financial and health.
Do we pay ‘Debbie’ from the school to provide what appears to be propaganda?
[quote][i]A child educated only at school is an uneducated child.[/i] – George Santayana[/quote]
‘Adults’ who expect the schools to be responsible for all education and child care are certain to be disappointed. And probably disappointed in the schools and their children as well. Perhaps they’ll expect others to throw more money at the problem, to obtain a magical solution. Dream on or wake up and do something about it.
Oreo – if I don’t leave here for warmer weather, then, like my parents in a different community, I will take the moral high ground and support the schools even though I no longer use them. Too many people turn their back once it no longer serves their immediate interest.
And Oreo, at least anyone born before 1970 should have known that jobs can be lost and that salaries and real estate values can go down. It happened in the 1980s and early 1990s, especially in the NYC-area.
[quote][i]The greater the knowledge, the greater the doubt.[/i]
-Johann von Goethe[/quote]
BIGMOMMA, two very good roads from which to choose. Obviously you can afford either, perhaps both.
The simple equation, that more money for the school budget and higher school taxes equals more money for the school budget and higher school taxes, is true.
But, alas, [u]the equation that more money for the school budget and higher schools taxes equals better education, is false.[/u]
Well known equations and answers among those with knowledge of education.
Was no one on the school board and no one in the union born before 1970? Perhaps they, as you say, ‘should have known that jobs can be lost and that salaries and real estate values can go down.’ It appears from the ‘contracts’ that they didn’t, and still don’t.
There is a ways to go to following the ‘moral high ground’, supporting education and our neighbors. For following the moral high ground requires knowledge and requires all the people treating all the people with respect and concern for their well-being.
Ah, the 500k squirreled away way back when. Another one of those “reserves” that the District built quietly. So in 04/05 500k were squirreled away. 5 years later, they reappear to be used. In the meantime, they have been part of the year on year comparison of budget hikes, so that 05/06 could start with another 500k cushion (not for the fields, that one) etc etc. The honest (in an ethical sense) way of doing things would have been to raise the 500k in 04/05, put them back to the pot in 05/06 if not used and come to the voters in 10/11 for 500k for the fields.
Regarding interest, thanks to Magic Greenspan and his successor, interest rates have been so low that the interest produced is negligible, by the way.
I am not for the turf field.
Hello. Am I living under the allusion that I live in a democracy? When the bond for new playgrounds and turf fields was defeated, there were no line items. Therefore, was the bond defeated because of the cost, the desire for no new playgrounds, or for no artificial turf fields?
In as much as artificial turf fields are dangerous to staph infections, heat retention, and an undesireable playing surface, many professional sports areas are replacing their artificial turf fields with sod.
If this is a democracy, what gives the select few the right to install an artificial turf field without voter approval? The taxpayers in our community are going to bear the cost of replacement of this field in 6 to 8 years. The taxpayers should have the right the decide how their money will be spent.
Lets just state the obvious, the school board and Field for Kids have purely served their own interest here, they have willingly trampled upon due process and the wants of the community. They have both acted shamefully and have both spent far more time trying to stifle any dissenting voices, rather than look for common ground or common good. They have reached into the pocket of every student and parent and removed what ever meets their fancy. They should both be deeply ashamed, deeply ashamed
We voted artificial turf down a few years ago and we had our reasons. Our decision seems not to matter now. I don’t think that this is fair or right. Real grass for all.
What is most hypocritical is the Fields for Kids argument that the turf field will “bring everyone together.” Let’s face it: our community is divided along social class lines, and no turf field is going get the Latino families from Mamaroneck Avenue invited to the cocktail parties and barbecues at the homes of those who paid for the turf field.
I am thrilled for the new field and made donations to pay for it. I believe sports is vital for our kids and the grass fields don’t work because we don’t have enough of them, they get overused, worn down and rained out more than most towns because of our low-lying locale. It is not possible to maintain the fields given the huge demand of the schoool, recreation, and travel teams.
Personally, rather than complain about the field, I am now trying to help raise funds for the eight modified and high school teams that have been cut due to the school budget. There are lots of programs being cut (not just sports). Everyone who wants to get involved can to improve sports, music, theatre and the other activities our kids deserve.
Finally, as we raise private funds, we are involving the full Larchmont/Mamaroneck community – reaching out to everyone. I think if we keep the focus on what’s best for the kids, everything will work out, despite these difficult time.