As revealed in my January 24, 2014 Right To Know, the Sports Advisory Board (SAB) or field sports associations, isn't doing the lion's share of raising non-municipal funds. It is the Municipality! Gateway, our municipal engineer has donated $4,000 in 2013, with promises of more in 2014. Gateway is also doing the engineering on the project and any traffic studies required; however, a major portion of the dollars required will have to come elsewhere. What I discovered is a sweetheart deal with...drum roll please...Dick's Sporting Goods. Orchestrating what should be something entirely by the private sector are Mt. Lebanon Commissioners, the Director of Recreation, MTLSD Athletic Director, and the Municipal Engineer creating the pathway for the SAB and the Turf Project Task Force (TPTF).
Keep in mind that the RTK information requested was from November 1, 2013 to January 24, 2014.
Steve Silverman, elected but not yet sworn in as Commissioner, started communicating with Tony Lombardo, V.P. of Dick's Sporting Goods (DSG) on December 5, 2013. Steve indicates, "I am hopeful Dick's will help Mt. Lebanon with our new Turf Field."
On December 11, 2013, Steve followed up with Tony and brought Commissioner John Bendel, and Director of Recreation David Donnellan into the conversation. Steve suggested that Tony meets with the three of them.
A question arises as to what Dick's might do for the turf project and how Dick's would benefit is addressed in the December 19, 2013 email from David Donnellan to several SAB members, including Municipal Engineer Dan Deiseroth of Gateway, and MTLSD Athletic Director John Grogan. Click here --->THIS IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT EMAIL. <----- Is the School District aware of Grogan's involvement with this partnership? Does it conflict with Policy KGD Partnerships and Sponsorships? Why is Mr. Grogan involved with any fundraising project of this magnitude while MTLSD is trying to raise $6 million?
The December 20, 2013 emails indicated that Chip Dalesandro, representing Football, didn't like the deal. Donnellan thanked Silverman for reassuring Chip that no such commitment had been made. [Yet.] Silverman, using his mtlebanon.org address, is now aware and involved.
Donnellan copies Commissioner John Bendel on his December 19, 2013 message about Dick's, so Bendel is involved.
Mr. Lombardo indicated on December 20, 2013 his looking forward "to helping in any way.." and a meeting with his V.P. of Community Marketing on January 6, 2014 in a reply to a Donnellan message of December 19, 2013.
The holidays slowed things down for a while until we find that another Dick's executive, Jim Famularo is contacted by Commissioner Silverman, and cc's Bendel and Donnellan about a meeting scheduled for January 30th when all will be present.
January 17th and 18th emails describe meetings and the very revealing Tim White message of January 18 at 9:48 AM sent to John Bendel, which states that "While they (Dick's) can stroke a check for a huge position on this, my understanding was they wanted some type of access to our constituency (defined as sports groups grant them access to email lists) and they want a contract for blanket procurement for sports products" found here. The "blanket procurement for sports products is still on after all. Bendel and Silverman are parties to this as well.
So here we have it. The Municipality is doing the major "private fundraising" and a Municipal part time employee, Katherine Heart, doing fundraising for the "private" funding as well, as I revealed in Big enough for its own post UPDATED. Why isn't the Municipality working toward raising its balance of $112,600?
This stinks. It has been kept entirely out of the public knowledge.
Meanwhile, this appeared in Pittsburgh Business Times on March 7, 2014. Dick's Sporting Goods launches campaign to fund youth sports "Every year we’re seeing more and more cutbacks in sports,” said Gruden in a prepared statement. “Budgets are being decreased, coaches are being eliminated, and fewer players are going out for youth sports. We have to do something about it!”
Update March 9, 2014 3:13 PM I scanned turf vendor correspondence and wish that my RTK was later than January 24, 2014. The responses to the turf vendor questions were either sent after the cut off date or they are MIA. I have also scanned the Field Analysis completed by Jordan Halter in May 2012.
Update March 9, 2014 3:13 PM I scanned turf vendor correspondence and wish that my RTK was later than January 24, 2014. The responses to the turf vendor questions were either sent after the cut off date or they are MIA. I have also scanned the Field Analysis completed by Jordan Halter in May 2012.
65 comments:
Dicks involvement would certainly be a welcome addition to our recreational facilities, look at what they helped create in Cranberry.
But why is it limited to field sports and throught the SAB?
We have golf, tennis, hockey clubs, etc.
This should be municipal relationship.
Whoa. Wait a minute. Why wasnt any of this discussed in public meetings? Why are four commissioners working all kinds of backroom deals? Why are they hiding information from the public? Why was a commissioner who hadnt even served in that capacity having offline discussions regarding spending public money? Why didnt resident big mouth Dave Franklin reveal all of this with his silly orchestrated show of support at the commission meeting in the fall? Why is our public government involved in raising private funds? Why have elected officials gone to prison for using paid staff to help their campaigns but our commissioners think it's acceptable and legal to use public municipal resources to raise money on behalf of a private group? If Iform a group called Pay My Mortgage, expect the same level of both deceit and support from the Lebo Gang of Four? Why isn't there any news coverage of what is blatant corruption and multiple violations of the Sunshine Law? When will those four commissioners resign? Why does the Democrat Committee condone this behavior? What kind of defense can Dave and Dave offer for this despicable behavior? When will Linfante apologizefor flat out lying? How is our illustrious school board involved? When will the state attorney general begin an investigation? When will the state ethics board get involved? Why does the commission insist on spending money they shouldnt have from overtaxing residents instead of giving it back to us?
Elaine, please don't stop or give up. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Forgive me, 11:43 AM. I am a little cranky because I started writing this post at 3:30 AM and I am as sleep deprived as I was when I had little babies.
You do understand that everyone is working for Franklin, right? To satisfy the non-municipal commitment to the project?
Elaine
I don't believe the Municipality has an official Policy on partnership's or sponsorship's like the School District does. The local government prefers to create a customized policy to suit their needs - not the public's - for each and every case. They make them up as they go.
Note that only two commissioners were identified as being directly involved. Any more and they would have had to make it all public. Doubt that Commissioner Fraasch was aware that any of this was going on
I am glad I didn't narrow my request, as Steve Feller suggested. It is hard to request information that you didn't know existed!
Who is going to file a RTK for everything after January 24, 2014 concerning artificial turf, anything associated with the non-municipal share of the turf project, or the Turf Project Task Force?
Elaine
1:06PM, you are correct! Look at what is on the Discussion Session Agenda for future meetings:
Wildcat/Middle turf and revised sign policy (March 24)
They have to revise the sign policy.
Elaine
Quite all right Elaine, you may be as cranky as you wish, but please don't misunderstand my comment.
I'm not condoning any of this, but Dicks is a fine company and the Dicks Sportsplex is one helluva nice facility.
We'd be lucky as a municipality to have their participation.
It is on the other hand curious as to why they'd throw their lot in with youth field sports when Mt. Lebanon skews to a much older population. About 70% are 25 years of age or older. Over 25% being in the 45-65 bracket and 18% over 65.
Then look at our recreation facilities. We have a golf course, a beautiful tennis facility, a community ice rink. If a huge majority of the population is 25 and up, the K-12 population is falling why would Dicks market to the smallest segment?
Look how many people jog and power walk, the shoe and apparel is huge. Adult hockey is popular and tennis participation is extraordinary.
In my mind, there's nothing wrong with courting Dicks. Why youth sports gets to be chaperoning the courtship and why Dicks would go after the smaller market segment baffles me.
Golfers spend far more on clubs, balls, shoes and clothing than young parents spend on kids soccer and lacrosse. As do older tennis players and joggers.
Mt. Lebanon is a mature market, Cranberry is a young and youth oriented market.
Just look at the TOD being discussed. They're not building 3-4 bedroom housing. They're arguing for condos and apts that appeal to singles and empty nesters.
The Dick's Foundation $25 million Sports Matter campaign must also have these athletic supporters salivating. It would also not at all surprise me to learn that legal beagles Dave & Dave are attempting to wordsmith a proposal for a Lebo field sports grant that would qualify them as being "financially challenged youth sports teams - teams at risk of elimination or never able to form because of financial limitations".
It seems some people will go to any lengths to achieve their agenda's.
1:38 PM, the purpose of this post is not to discuss how wonderful Dick's Sporting Goods is as a company. They are a fine company. I am exposing the unethical behavior of our municipality and school district employees, all in the name of artificial turf which was forced upon us.
Let's not lose focus here, OK?
Elaine
Oh I'm not, locking in a commitment to buy uniforms and equipment from one source is never a good idea in my opinion.
"Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin[1]) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other. English speakers often use the term to mean "a favour for a favour"; phrases with similar meaning include: "give and take", "tit for tat", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours.""
This isn't about the TOD either. A very generous person bankrolled my RTK because the whole artificial turf issue stinks. Please, I am much too tired to be discussing other issues.
Elaine
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quidproquo.asp
A good question is why are rec employees, commissioners, board members setting up a deal using municipal property— i.e., field fences for sign advertising space and naming rights coupled with a promise by independent sports groups to buy uniforms and equipment exclusively from Dicks to generate "private" turf contributions.
There's something that just doesn't pass the smell test here.
Dalesandro is correct in his concerns about entering into an agreement that elimnates bidding.
Providing mailing list of participants isn't a good idea either without consent.
I am sure that the muni and school district would argue that they always provide this sort of fundraising support to residents and groups that are responsible for paying a "non-municipal" share. A list of precedent setting projects would be helpful to illustrate that all projects presented to the commission are provided equal access to community resources and support from the commission, school district, and municipal employees. Isn't that what we ought to expect from our government?
So do I have this right... Dick's is going to risk a bunch of bad press giving FREE money so rich kids in Mt Lebanon can play football, soccer and lacrosse? All the while kids in poor communities don't have a place to play? This doesn't make any sense.. Dick's isn't that dumb or are they?
Well when Monday rolls around a very simple phone call to Dick's Corporate Office will answer alot of these questions. We do business with Dick's and they have always been above board when dealing with questions on ethics.
11:09 PM, this group has been known to call companies and say that since he is the official representative, XXXX Company should only speak with him. It doesn't matter if you do business with them or not, 11:09 PM.
Elaine
Although supposedly only a non-voting Commission liaison to the Sports Advisory Board (SAB), Bendel seems to be running it. White stated in their June meeting that no members should approach potential corporations for funding for a single athletic purpose, but rather in behalf of all sports. Hear that hockey, tennis and swimming to name a few ? Dick's was not mentioned anywhere in the minutes. The Franklin's are ever present. The SAB seemS to be deferring most of their agenda items in favor of field discussions and actions.
10:49- Dicks understands that the bad press is fleeting and soon forgotten, if it occurs at all.
mtl magazine isn't going to write about it. The PG and Trib won't cut off their own noses and lose a big advertiser.
The lock on uniform sales, access to email/home addresses and the obvious site advertising trumps any short-lived bad press.
Bendel is up to his eyeballs in this. If he decides to run again, I hope there are some strong candidates to give him opposition (R's and D's) in Ward 1. I don't want to see another Brumfield deal go down.
Elaine
Isn't Kubit the district's liason to the SAB?
He's never in any of the emails, b-u-u-u-t-t-t there seems to be a belief the SD will maintain the WC/M turf?
Unless Kristin is mistaken...again...and commissioners resign..
Believe Kubit attended the first meeting early last year, but has been a no-show since, which is pretty standard practice for him. Grogan attends as a liaison, but wonder if he really keeps district folks up to speed ?
119--not sure what you mean but your comment implies only matters involving a majority of the commission should be public?? That's not how it works. It doesnt matter if there is only one commissioner trying to make offline shady deals. It's public time and money.
As these wannabe Neros fiddle, the Lebo streets fall into ruin, sidewalks dont materialize, more and more people choose young and forward-thinking school districts. The FOUR commissioners involved need to resign.
We are opposed to any marketing of our contact information through our children's activities.
1:00 pm to expand on your comment a little bit.
All this nonsense about public and non-public money for turf is ludicrous.
The municipality is not a business, it does not have any money that is truly "public." Everything it takes in is from private sources whether it be from income taxes, real estate taxes and fees etc. Even state and federal grants only come from ptivate money sent by people and businesses.
The athletic fields, the parking lots -- those "lucrative field sign spaces" were built with money taken from citizens and businesses in the private sector.
Because the commissioners assign the authority to sports groups to sell the sign space doesn't make it non-public.
If a homeowner erected a sign board on their front lawn across from the Cedar Fields and rented it to say "Joes Pizza & Ice Cream Shack" then GAVE the income to the municipality... that would be a non-public contribution.
Someone sending a $1,000 check to the rec department just because... that would be a non-public contribution.
If the soccer team sold Gatorade and hot dogs in the parking lot and gave all the the profits to the turf construction... that would be a non-public contribution.
But the municipality offering public fencing constructed with taxpayer money is public money.
Otherwise, we all should sell some company a sign space at WC/M and decide for ourselves... I'll keep this "private" money for myself or maybe I'll contribute it to turf.
1:37 - then you need to make that perfectly clear to any sports group your children participate in and to the commissioners.
At the very least there should be a 'opt out' option on the
sports registration form. Because you kid plays soccer, lacrosse, football that shouldn't give the organization the right to invite people into your home or email.
If you want Dicks or any other business to have your contact infor, kids age, sports preference you can always sign up for their rewards cards.
Which by the way most companies declade they don't share that indormation. Why should it be acceptable for youth sports organization?
1:37p - you can be opposed all you want to but there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. The local fascist government and their sports and district buddies will do whatever the *&^% they want to, and they will do it even if somebody brings suit against them and they lose. That's just the way it works around here.
1:37 PM and 1:49 PM, it has been many years since my kids participated in any youth sports. Is there anything mentioned on registration forms about email addresses, home addresses, and phone numbers being shared? Is that something that needs to be disclosed?
I like 1:49 PM's suggestion of opting out. It should be right under the warning, "Artificial turf may be hazardous to your child's health. The Municipality of Mt. Lebanon and MtL youth sports organizations are not responsible. Play at your own risk."
Elaine
I am starting to get into the turf vendor information. Please check my 3:13 update to this post.
Elaine
I find Halters analysis and numbers suspicious though I'll admit I haven't measured the spaces.
He states on page two that he assumes simultaneous play at WC/M for two teams. Is this space large enough for two 100 yard sports played at the same time?
Memory serves that two baseball games often shared the outfield. Fly balls and hard hit liners crossing into the others outfield. I can't picture say football or soccer going on simultaneously with a baseball game or even another FB or soccer game.
This business with Dick's is extremely interesting. The Donnellan E-mail leads one to speculate as to the amount of money Dick's would be willing to invest in a field complex, assuming that the company's self-interest could be satisfied. After all, Dick's isn't a charity; they are in business to make a profit (good!) and not fund the idle desires of a few families and their children. This sentence in the Donnellan message, "I think there a lot of potential to get a big chunk of the funds needed in one shot," raises an important question: Would Dick's have been willing to invest in a sports complex in Mt. Lebanon if suitable property were available? For instance, if the proposed McNeilly for Robb Hollow swap had occurred, and the Municipality was free to sell the McNeilly property, would Dick's have been open to developing it into the type of sports utopia that we are told is wanted by every resident of Mt. Lebanon? After all, does it really matter who owns the fields as long as our children have access to them? We've been told that artificial turf on the Municipality's fields along Cedar Boulevard will increase our property values. If true (and I doubt it), what is more "alluring" to a prospective sports-oriented family; living in Mt. Lebanon, the home of a couple of turfed fields, or living in the home of "Dick's Mt. Lebanon Sports Complex?" (For the record, I doubt if that would increase all property values either.)
In a phone conversation with Mr. Franklin some months ago he told me that the sports organizations in Mt. Lebanon do not have the money to buy McNeilly and develop it into a sports complex, and I believe him. And I'm willing to concede that Dick's may not be willing to go so far as to invest in a state-of-the-art sports facility in Mt. Lebanon. But did anyone in the sports organizations or at the municipal level even put a plan together to take to Dick's to see what they might say? Maybe they did and I simply don't recall it.
I believe Richard a resident did put together a private/public partnership for the McNeilly property and the commissioners rejected it on the spot.
See the last 4 or 5 comments in the "Appeasing a select few" post. They relate to this conversation.
Are Mt Lebanon students required to disclose their private email addresses to the School? Does the School District provide each student an email address? And who's email address will be provided to Dick's? Parent(s) or Student(s)? What other info is going to be required? Family income? Parent's occupations? How about if they are Republican or Democrat? If this information is refused what happens then? How about a section for a donation to the Turf fund. Sorry, forgot this is Mt Lebanon... That would be a donation for your kid to be a starter, to be on the team, and benchwarmer. No donation no jersey! Right Dave B?
Anyone else think that this Dick's thing fell through? Big mouths Dave Franklin and Dave Brumfield would be on every Local News screaming how their hard work scored this massive deal with Dick's. Have you heard anything? Not here... But the School District tries to slip in that they are going to turf the "Rock Pile". Next worth they will add lights. And next comes a Bubble like they use at the Tennis Complex.
If they turf WC/M and the turf the Rock Pile, where will they hold high school track & field events like javelin, shotput and discus?
Plus, how come turf was never mentioned over at the big grass field at Jefferson?
Oh forgot, residents don't want it near their front yard, right.
Q: Richard why did Franklin say they didn't have the money to "buy" McNeilly?
There's no need to buy it- the municipality already owns it.
The only thing the sports groups would have to do is develop the fields.
Give them a 99 year lease, let 'em sell fence signs and naming to everything from the parking lot to the porta johns. Let them market it to other sports groups and keep the income.
We've been paying for this useless piece of property-- might as well put it to some use.
4:34 PM, sounds like a good plan. Good luck with that.
Elaine
Thanks, my preference if Kelly actually got an OK to sell off McNeilly would be to develop her improvements at Robb Hollow as uncommitted fund balances allow.
Build a grass field first then add recreation and park-like enhancements as budgets allow.
No tax increases or bond floats permitted.
Since MTL is an oder suburb (with a lot of pluses in its favor) beautification and adding amenities to a broader population will keep it an attractive place to live and our home values high.
We shouldn't want to be like everybody else!
I generally do not address anonymous posters, my philosophy being that if I'm willing to put my name out there then you should be too, if you wish to have a public conversation with me. Having said that, there is a generic component to the post of March 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM that I feel compelled to address.
In all fairness to Mr. Franklin, he did not adduce the fact that the sports organizations could not afford to buy McNeilly; he was answering MY question to him, which was, "If the McNeilly property were available for sale would the sports groups have the money to buy it?" Answer: "No."
My position on this "turf" situation has been that I don't care one way or another about turf, but I do care quite a bit about the morality of a forcing taxpayers to pay for something that is non-essential to the mandate of a local government. This is a matter of priorities, and I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but people do not have a RIGHT to turfed fields. I don't doubt that they may be attractive, may possibly extend playing times, and will make some people feel good, but the first and primary role of local government is to provide for police, fire protection, and infrastructure. There are too many infrastructure issues about to hit this town (including the little discussed fact that part of the town is sinking due to subsidence) to be spending my (and yours) tax dollars on entertainment venues - and that, my friends, is what "sports" is all about. I have the "The American People's Encyclopedia" to back me up on that one.
I agree in principle with the sentiments expressed by 4:23 in terms of public/private partnerships - if all else fails. I certainly prefer it to "total government funding." It just bothers me when people go running to government to fulfill their self-interests. The irony is that most of these folks will condemn self-interest (and profit) as being opprobrious; a rather hypocritical attitude to assume!
Thanks Richard for clearing up the buying comment.
On the issue of government paying for non-essential items I'm divided on your post. If you're arguing that govt. 'can' provide non-essentials if the majority approves the expenditure, I agree.
If you're saying that govt. should never provide non-essentials then we're not in agreement.
Since I find nothing wrong with anon post on a blog that are polite and pertinent maybe we'll have an opportunity to continue this conversation in a face-to-face sometime.
RG, that is what stinks the most. We have said that from the very beginning. Turfing fields is a want, not a need. I have said that we need help people with flooding issues, where the municipality is responsible.
But Dave Franklin, John Bendel, Kristen Linfante, and Dave Brumfield had other ideas. They want this so bad, that they forget that people are watching.
Elaine
What part of town is sinking? That's news! I know there are mines and subsidence is possible, but a section is actually sinking? Where's the PIO on this?
*we need [to] help people with flooding issues, where the municipality is responsible.
Elaine
Can we save that for another time, 6:19 PM? Please?
Elaine
Remember, Linfante basically said we have 3 votes, we don't have to consult with anyone.
They could eventually say we don't need the $250,000 non-public funds and proceed anyway, footing the whole project on the taxpayers dime.
6:26 PM, that is what scares me the most. Find an official document where it says that we're waiting for $250,000 in non-municipal funds. There isn't one.
Elaine
I could swear I listened to Bendel say in a discussion session and Brumfield in a commission meeting if the non-public funding doesn't come through turfing doesn't start.
But, I guess that doesn't mean much because I also heard Linfante say the ESB didn't have any objections to artificial turf.
Have I seen in writing that Non-public funds in the amoint $250,000 or 25% of the cost must be in hand before the project is started... no I haven't seen that.
I did read the email from Franklin to Kluck that "almost 50%" would be covered by the sports groups. Can we take DF at his word? Probably not?
For all who have referred to McNeilly in their comments above, please consider some factual history:
The McNeilly 25 acre property was paid with a $2.0 million bond issue, which when interest expense is added, brings the cost to now something over $2.6 million for a piece of raw, sloping land at our Northern border sometimes confused with Baldwin. A 2009 market appraisal indicated the property had a market value of less than $1.0 million, before the federal restriction on use was discovered.
When the property was purchased in about 2002/3, the Gateway Engineering cost estimate for development into a regulation baseball field, two soccer fields, stadium seating, concession stand, bathrooms, lighted parking lot was $1.75 million. Lebo had submitted a grant request to Harrisburg for a portion of the funding required, indicating in their grant request that Lebo soccer had pledged $125,000 towards the purchase as an incentive for grant approval and award. The grant request was approved for $150,000 and awarded.
Lebo soccer did not come forward with their pledge, nor was it apparently demanded (two commissioners were soccer people - Colby & Ely).
By 2005, the Gateway development cost had risen to $2.5 million. Quoting from an April 13, 2005 P-G article, "Recreational sports groups in Mt. Lebanon had planned to donate money to help build community athletic fields on a parcel off McNeilly Road, but now they've learned just how much one municipal commissioner wants them to donate : $850,000." That commissioner was David Humphreys, who led the original purchase effort. The YSA and Lebo soccer said they could provide $125,000 but not $850,000. The groups are working with a fund-raising consultant and hope to have a plan soon, the article went on to say. Humphreys put the demand forward out of frustration with the sports groups procrastination on making any funding commitments.
By 2012, Gateway's development cost for McNeilly had risen to $4.0 million.
Learn from history, or be doomed to repeat it.
My comment at 5:02 PM was for the person who submitted a comment which was not for publication. It was a message to me.
Elaine
Elaine, did you receive the attachments referred to in so many RTK e-mails you've shared with us ? I believe they are required in the RTK law as well, are they not ?
8:12 PM, yes, it has been said during commission meetings, but go back and read what it says about assigning funds.
Elaine
9:02 PM, I am missing quite a few. Since I am appealing this, I am not sure what to do about that. Do I make a list and send it to the appeals officer? I need to look into that.
Elaine
That got by me.
Curious with the lawyers involved in this turf plan they'd sneak in the word 'intends.'
I wouldn't want any of these people writing a contract or legal document for me.
'Intends' how non-commital can they be!
I'm a big supporter of the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood. (http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/)
I wonder what they would think about Mt Lebanon supplying the emails of youth sports participants to Dick's Sporting Goods in exchange for a contribution to their synthetic turf field.
Likewise, I wonder what they would think about Mt Lebanon providing ad space surrounding child playing fields given that they are currently working to disrupt efforts to commercialize schools buses by districts across several states.
Repeatedly, its clear to me that these synthetic turf fields have nothing to do with the best interests of children, families and the community of Mt Lebanon.
I wanted to remind everyone that there is a Commission meeting on Tuesday. Meeting information and agendas are here.
During the commission discussion session, the commissioners will be discussing the next steps for the Home Rule Charter. There is nothing in the Home Rule Charter recommendations that deals with commissioners lying or doing back room deals.
If you have something to say about how our commissioners are governing, Tuesday at 8:00 PM would be the perfect time to express your feelings. You might want to say something after reading this article about some of the ingredients in artificial turf. Highly "plasticized" males not fast to reproduce Years from now, when you are hoping for grandchildren, you might be waiting for a long time. You can go with organic toxic turf or synthetic toxic turf. Your choice. Or you can say something at Tuesday's meeting.
Elaine
David P. Franklin Esq., Eckert Seamans, will do extensive research at work tomorrow to disprove your "plasticized" males article.
Jan 18 White: "That having been said, it is important to hear them out and support Mr. Silverman in his new role"
I am getting emails about Halter's numbers not adding up. I want to share this post, which supports those emails. Who cares about the poll? UPDATED
This just makes my blood boil. All that was written in 2012!
Elaine
A couple of 'facts' that need to be examined closely.
Halter states that game slot increase by assuming simultaneous play.
This is physically impossible if he's talking about regulation games.
Here's the official dimension for three sports.
Soccer Field - 110-120 yards x 70-80 yards
Lacrosse Field - 110 yds x 60 yds
HS Football Field - 120 yds x 53.33 yds
WC/M accomdates only ONE regualtion sport at a time and barely that if you include official team spaces and spectators seating.
Now then you can, I suppose, accommodate simultaneous practices in the one regulation area, but they rejected Fraasch's plan precisely because her fields wouldn't be regulation! But somehow because of their turf-- its OK.
Second Halter's/Bendel's proclamation that there are 60% more game units is dubious as well.
Are 60% of games on WC/M postponed because of rain and muddy conditions? Doubtful!
Ven if there were, turf doesn't allow for games in thunderstorms and heavy rain. So those games are cancelled regardless of the playing surface.
Then, if the field is booked solid there are no game units open to play make up games.
The only real games units picked up by installing turf are ones that might be cancelled after the storms and the field is still too wet.
Add in the fact that GeoTurf seems to recommend play up to 50 hours/week on their organic turf and it becomes difficult to believe Halters/Bendels calculations.
Plus, Hummer Natural Grass Fields sound like they recover just as fast as artifically turfed ones.
Another example of Brumfield's - for lack of a better term - BS!
He replied to Elaine in 2012, "Thank you for your input. I have seen those articles and they do represent one perspective. As to the poll, it is a shame that such a minuscule portion of our community participated.
Thanks again for your efforts.
Dave"
Yeah, its a real shame Dave that you only got 18 emails favoring artificial turf, as well. Eighteen, now that is a really, really minuscule portion of our community.
Of course commissioner you could offer hard evidence that a majority of the community favors turf, but you really don't have to do you.
You can say or spew info and claims all day long and there is no opposing legal procedure where someone can say "I object!"
This should be a key element added to our Homerule Charter.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901
"RULE 901. AUTHENTICATING OR IDENTIFYING EVIDENCE
(a) In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is."
That shouldn't be too harsh of a HR requirement for our government officials.
If they claim a majority favors turf or a high school renovation surely they have evidence of that claim.
If the say the ESB has no problems with turf, there must be minutes of the ESB meeting where that concensus was reached.
An elected official or public employee that stands for honesty, integrity and transparency should be all too willing to submit to a litimus test like authentication, don't you think.
It's all smoke & mirrors by these artificial turf creeps, all smoke & mirrors. They don't think the public will research their claims and call them out on their BS !
Nice going Elaine and anony bloggers
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_017083.doc
Act 13 funding (grants) to communities for recreation and parks projects.
Anonymous.
Post a Comment