Letters to the Editor: Residents Say Athletic Field Complex is Too Expensive, Urge Compromise or Referendum

On Tuesday, Garwood Council will vote whether to approve the bond ordinance that would fund the borough's long-discussed Athletic Field Complex. Many residents have been outspoken about their objections to the project because of the expense taxpayers will bear to fund it. This week, we received several letters to the editor voicing similar sentiments. Read them below.

---------------------

It’s Time for Compromise On Garwood’s Athletic Field

The proposal for a $3.2-million athletic complex in Garwood has been presented as an all-or-nothing deal, and that’s unfair.

The costs have not been broken down so that we can see what we’re being asked to pay for. What part of that $3.2 million will go to a new field house, for example? How much will the soccer field cost? What about the baseball field?

The proposal is far too expensive for a small borough like Garwood. It should be scaled back to a reasonable size, perhaps by remodeling the existing field house rather than building a new one. Or eliminating the lighting, which would probably be a relief to the nearby neighbors. There wouldn’t be so much as a whimper if the bocce court disappeared.

If the costs were broken down, it would be easier to see how to reach a reasonable compromise. And compromise is necessary. As the plan stands now, it’s simply beyond our municipal means.

 - William Connolly, Garwood

-------------------------------

The Borough of Garwood intends to build a state-of-the art athletic field complex anticipated to cost $3.2 million dollars.   

$1.6 million needed in bonded funds over 15 or 20 years will increase the borough’s debt by 58 percent. Councilwoman Sara Todisco pointed out that debt in other towns is higher than Garwood’s would be even if the project were approved. Cranford is at .92 and Clark at .79, Garwood is now at .56.  Five of six Garwood Council members feel that it is o.k. to saddle the town with $1.6 million because other towns have even more debt.

So far the tax payers of Garwood have not received figures showing additional expenses for likely cost overruns, construction deficiencies, code violations, additional legal and professional fees etc.

How much will cleaning and maintaining kitchen, bathrooms and other interior areas cost?  It would be irresponsible to spend 3.2 million, and then leave the complex in the hands of volunteers for maintenance and upkeep.

How much will the regular clean-up and on-going repair and maintenance of the outdoor facilities cost and how does the town plan to pay for this?

Has anybody estimated the cost of electricity, gas and water? What about the cost of regular police patrols and the DPW’s extra burden? Have the heads of those departments been consulted about the new demands the complex will create?

Before voting on this extravagant project, the Council members owe it to all Garwood taxpayers to be open and transparent about the total cost of construction, and maintenance over the life of the facility.

- Roswitha Metz, Garwood

-------------------------------

It appears that Garwood’s mayor and town council want to take the residents’ tax money and spend as they see fit, without listening to what a majority of the public have to say. Of course I am referring to the ballooning Athletic Field Complex (AFC) project. At the Council’s July 24 meeting, five out of six of the Council members voted in favor of a bond ordinance, in spite of appeals from attendees to consider putting the project on November’s ballot as a referendum.

As I stated at the meeting, this is an emotionally charged issue that involves a huge amount of money for a town the size of Garwood. Why not let the public decide whether or not the AFC should be undertaken at this time of economic distress for both individuals and municipalities? The project has been discussed in various iterations for the past decade, so why the rush to push it through now? In fact, people who favored a $1 million project 10 years ago may not support a $3.2 million project today. It seems only right that they – and people who have settled in Garwood in the last 10 years – should have the right to express their views through a referendum.

I hope the mayor and town council members will reevaluate their position and allow the residents of Garwood to be part of the decision making process before committing to a project that impacts everyone in the town. If they would listen, they would learn that most residents would support updating the existing field, but oppose a multi-million dollar complex that is far more than Garwood needs.

- Christine Spear, 210 Chestnut Court, Garwood

-------------------------------

My husband and I have been lifelong residents of Union County.  We moved to Garwood in June, 2012.

We were amazed at the Garwood Council meeting when a Project to build an Athletic Field costing over 3 million dollars was denied access to the ballot. Although we had heard about the project, it was just recently that the cost came to light. If this project is so wonderful and right, why not put it on the ballot? Give the residents of Garwood the choice to vote for it or against it!

There are many concerns with this project as no one seemed to know the exact cost of it or of its maintenance. Only Councilman Mathieu questioned and voted against the project. It seems ludicrous in this bad economic atmosphere that 5 councilmen and 1 mayor should have the power to make that decision. But no matter where you stand on the merits of this Field, the residents of Garwood deserve a say, especially now that the costs are just beginning to come to light.

Put this on the ballot, it is the ONLY right thing to do!

- Esther & Richard Ahle, 200 Chestnut Court, Garwood

-------------------------------

What do you think of the proposed Athletic Field Complex? Tell us in the comments.

Have something to say? Submit your letter to the editor to jessica.remo@patch.com.