patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Turf Fields Spark Passionate Response Around Union County

Several towns or school districts in Union County have or are grappling with the issue of whether or not to construct artificial turf playing fields.

 

Turf field and athletic field complex developments have been provoking passionate response in towns around Union County recently.

In Springfield, after years of debate and wrangling, a turf field complex for shared municipal and school district use at Jonathan Dayton High broke ground this month and should be operational by fall 2013.

In Garwood, council just approved a controversial $3.2 million complex that includes a turf field for soccer and field hockey, a new building with a full kitchen and an activity room for seniors and other groups, a bocce court, basketball courts and a lighted baseball field. Groundbreaking is expected in the coming months. 

In Westfield, the $3.3 million to construct a synthetic field at Westfield High School has been bundled with millions more for school roof repairs in a bond referendum scheduled for September 24.

Westfield

Accross the towns, the passionate responses have arisen for a myriad of reasons — pro and con. In Westfield, the topic has become so intense as to spur Patch Local Editor Liz Altnerman to create a Lighted Turf Field Topic Page where readers can easily find all stories on the issue.

Since the Westfield Board of Ed’s decision in June to include funding for both district roof repairs and a lighted turf field installation as a single bond proposal, the public outcry has been loud. Some members said they would have preferred to decide each project on its own merits. Taxpayers contrasted the roof repair – almost unanimously viewed as an urgent necessity – with a turf field that some felt was more of a luxury.

Near-neighbors to the proposed Westfield project cite negatives including cost, traffic and parking, and bright lights. They fear that the increased noise, light and traffic on game days will diminish their property values. Others balked at the sheer size of a $16.9 million bond and the all-or-nothing stakes that attached the two projects. Proponents note that the town's other two turf fields — Sid Fey/Houlihan owned by the Town of Westfield  and Kehler Stadium — will need to be replaced in the near and mid-term, respectively.

But after a summer that saw impassioned meetings in public and fierce discussions online, a September BOE discussion of the topic remained largely civil and calm. Still, dozens of anti-turf lawn signs were stolen during the evening hours of Saturday, Sept. 15. And this week, a number of letters to the editor pro and con have populated the Westfield Patch website.

Springfield

In Springfield, a four-year effort to create a turf field complex for shared municipal and school district use at Jonathan Dayton High came to fruition — after being interrupted by changes in town leadership. Mayor Ziad Shehady, who supports the cause, helped to pass an ordinance in December 2010 but was voted out of office for 2011 and back in for 2012. Shehady wrote, "Our existing fields are unable to meet the demand and lack the most basic necessities for sporting events, such as seating, lighting or restrooms."

Springfield Township Committee Democrats who had expressed skepticism and opposition to the proposed turf field experienced a change of heart, saying that the voluminous research presented about artificial turf and the proposed facility’s potential positive impact on alleviating flooding in the area convinced them to support the project — as well as the fact that the facility would be shared by all in the town.

The ordinance was approved by Springfield's Town Committee in February 2012 and ground broke this September, with the turf field expected to be operational for the fall 2013 sports season.

Garwood

In Garwood, a $3.2 million bond was approved by a 5 to 1 vote in August to construct an Athletic Field Complex where the borough's Little League field now stands.

The complex has been discussed for more than 10 years and finally is set for construction to begin. The funds to be raised by taxes will mean a $65 increase in taxes per home assessed at $100,000 every year for the next 15 years. The complex will also be paid for with $1.1 million in grant funds from the state and county including Open Space grants and Green Acre grants.

The price tag for the complex was heavily debated, with many residents showing up to borough hall to voice their opposition and asking that the project be put up for a referendum in the November election. Ultimately, Garwood Council members decided to move forward, and the project was awarded in September.

In addition to the turf field for soccer and field hockey, the complex includes a new building with a full kitchen and an activity room for seniors and other groups, a bocce court, basketball courts and a lighted baseball field.   

Elsewhere around the county:

New Providence

In 2007, New Providence Borough released the Recreation Master Plan which demonstrated a need for five synthetic turf fields or three synthetic fields with lights to accommodate New Providence’s recreation programs. As with many communities, New Providence lacked the funds to make these improvements. The New Providence Partnership for Recreation (NPPR) raised funds through private and club donations, grants, golf outings, and evening events to pay for the installation of FieldTurf and Musco focused lighting on Lieder Field at New Providence High School possible.

In early July 2011, the installation of four new field lights at Lieder Field were completed and tested for borough ordinance compliance.

The sale of Oakwood Park to Union County for $1, in exchange for $3.5 million to use for park renovations, was the source of controversial debate in the Borough from 2008 to 2010. In a ballot referendum question on Nov. 2, 2010, residents voted "no" to the sale of Oakwood Park to Union County. If the referendum had passed, it could have resulted in the installation of two additional turf fields at the "Oakwood Park Complex," according to former Councilman Vincas Vyzas's 2010 article, A Viable Alternative for Oakwood Park. This would have effectively satisfied an additional 40% of the stated goals of the Recreation Master Plan in that 2 of 5 unlit turf fields would have been installed.

Scotch Plains

There are four turf fields in Scotch Plains: The township of Scotch Plains owns one which is used primarily for soccer and lacrosse programs. The Board of Education owns two turf fields which are used by the district schools and, when the schools are not using them, the town recreation department schedules the fields — primarily for the lacrosse program and some soccer. In Scotch Plains, Union Catholic also has one turf field. UC is a private school and the field is used for their own sports programs.

Summit

Summit has three turf fields, one at the Washington School ad two newer city turf fields called the Glendside fields.

Clark

In 2007, Clark bonded for a $1.3 million turf field and track at Arthur L. Johnson high school that was built that same year. The field is used for all high school field sports including football.

Related Topics: Turf Field

J

6:51 am on Monday, September 24, 2012

So Garwood gets a whole facility for what Westfield is paying to upgrade an existing field?

Reply

Joe

6:59 am on Monday, September 24, 2012

J's comment makes absolutely no sense. How is Garwood getting a new facility? It is going over their existing fields as well. If anything, Westfield residents are paying less for it (compare the numbers) and for a larger field. Vote as you want today, but at least be factual about it.

Reply

Jim Madden

8:49 am on Monday, September 24, 2012

I'm very glad to see Springfield getting a turf complex. Long overdue. I'm surprised that Springfield did not Apply for or qualify for Open Space, Green Acres or Kids Recreation Trust Fund grants.

Missing from the discussion around the County is the opening of Snyder Ave Park in Berkeley Heights which has been hugely successful, to compliment the Governor Livingston High School Field which was largely funded by the Highlander Club organization privately.

Summit actually has turf fields at both Tatlock Field as well as Summit High School in addition to the ones built by Union County at Glenside.

Anyone truly wishing to see if field lights create bothersome spillage should view the lights at Lieder Field in New Providence. Get an ordinance for spillage in place and Musco does a fantastic job engineering conformity to the spec. Light is on the field and not the neighborhood, it can be achieved if that is truly the desire of the project.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Mary Mann

9:40 am on Monday, September 24, 2012

Thanks, Jim, for the additional information.

Sara

10:37 am on Monday, September 24, 2012

Don't see why we need a new turf field, just update the needed facilities, like restrooms etc. We really need street lights in this town much more!

Reply

Gary McCready

12:28 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012

One common thread amoung the above projects is that they happened by being passed by town councils or via private fundraising. I don't think any were voted on by the public. There may be a reason for that...

Reply

Andrew Timoni

2:52 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012

You'll never see a European soccer pitch that's turf. The deciding factor that had Thierry Henry sign with the New York Red Bulls is because they have a grass field. Maybe turf is easier to maintain... but for sport grass is absolutely better.

Reply

Tom McFoot

4:20 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012

In Springfield, They have the wasted field on Meisel that is used for a practice field. There is much more space there for the turf field but many feel the soil beneath is STILL polluted and maybe that's why they didn't want to go there!
Also, WHY, WHY, WHY.....are they just starting the Construction now in the Beginning of Dayton's School Year??? It is a traffic nightmare and will cause accidents. They had all summer to work on it. Pure Politics.....

Reply
Comment_arrow

Shane Ronan

7:58 pm on Monday, September 24, 2012

Meisel field is owned by the County who is not interested in properly maintaining the current field, let alone turfing it. They tried repairing the field once before and did a horrible job of it.

As for why the construction has just started at the High School, it has taken all the time since the bound ordinance was approved, to receive the proper permits. This includes permits for soil erosion, etc. There were no politics involved in the timing. I'm curious how construction on the field going to cause accidents?

Nancy

9:36 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Please note that the New Providence Athletic Foundation was instrumental in the NPHS athletic complex upgrade with the turf field and lights. As Jim noted earlier- there have been no real issues with the field or lights- it has been very beneficial for both the school athletics and town
teams.

Reply

Catherine Alexander

5:23 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012

I have also heard for a long time now that real turfgrass is superior for promoting skeletal health to players on the field and for preventing injuries that are more frequent or worse on synthetic turf. Also, aren't synthetic fields largely impervious to stormwater; what's the percent impervious if anyone knows??? And if less pervious than real turfgrass on aerated and well-seeded soils, what does that do to an already beleaguered County regarding stormwater (mis) management? Couldn't we just manage our real turfgrass better, like they have done now throughout Canada for more than a decade with frequent aeration and high over-seeding schedules? Wouldn't this approach to management help both the health of our athletes and our groundwater recharge areas (alleviating/preventing flooding)?

Reply

Monk

5:42 pm on Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Can "turf" fields be made of recycled shopping bags? There are a bunch of people debating recycling on another blog.

Reply

barb scucci

12:56 pm on Saturday, September 29, 2012

That is the problem in Springfield every thing is decided by a township commitee and never put to a vote! And Children deserve a education not a turf field!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Shane Ronan

5:05 pm on Sunday, September 30, 2012

We live in a Representative Democracy, where we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. This is why the elected members of the Township Committee make decisions such as this one. It would not be effective to put every decision to town wide vote. This is no different then our elected members of Congress.

Comment_arrow

Chrys

11:47 am on Sunday, February 24, 2013

Not happy Barb? Start a petition and ask Mr. Shehady and the BOE how they will come tup with he $1million dollars that will not be part of the money factored in to help soften the cost of the turf field. Or, you can sign the one I've created. Mr. Shehady stated he had a petition that showed that the majority of people were in favor of the field. I think he collected around or little over 200 signatures out of around 15,000 residents. I can see how 200 makes a majority.
http://www.change.org/petitions/now-that-it-has-been-revealed-the-promised-land-to-offset-cost-is-contaminated-what-will-the-turf-field-cost-springfield-nj-taxpayers

Leave a comment