Below is the official statement from the Environmental Sustainability Board read at the February 11, 2014 Commission Discussion Session by ESB member Maria Joseph. Video is here.
To the Mt. Lebanon Commission -
It is our understanding that the Sports Advisory Board (SAB) of Mt. Lebanon will be presenting their project proposal for installing artificial turf on the Middle and Wildcat Fields of Mt. Lebanon Park at this evening's discussion meeting.
As an integral entity within the township, our mission as a board supports the overall mission and comprehensive plan of Mt. Lebanon, and specifically its goal of promoting environmental sustainability in projects going forward.
The Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB) would like to officially make a statement as to our opinion on this matter. We would also like to note that the ESB was misrepresented at an earlier Commission meeting, in which our then liaison stated the ESB was in favor of installation of artificial turf in Mt. Lebanon – to be clear we are not in favor of artificial turf.
As a board, we feel that the installation of artificial turf, especially turf which uses plastic and rubber materials, is counter to our mission and the overall mission of the township. Our concerns stem from reports, both scientific and anecdotal. We believe that the health of the young children who will play on this material, as well as the surrounding ecological system, may be at irreparable risk.
While studies have only been performed on adult athletes, additional studies have been ordered by the EPA to determine health effects of artificial turf on children, since children are more susceptible to toxins due to their higher metabolism and the fact that they are lower to the ground.
Some of our environmental concerns have to do with storm water runoff from artificial turf which has been shown to contain enough zinc to negatively affect water ecosystems. This should be of great concern with Painters Run creek nearby. Potable water may be wasted due to the watering of the fields to decrease the heat to an acceptable level for play, and subsequently, that watering will increase storm water runoff which is a critical regional issue.
We ask that the Commission and the SAB take time to think further on this project, as well as educate the residents of Mt. Lebanon on this project to allow for a wider understanding and opportunity for comment. As residents ourselves, many of us are concerned for our neighbors living near the park where this turf is to be installed. Are they aware of possible noxious fumes emanating from the newly laid artificial turf? Are they aware of the potential for “Heat Island” effect, not only for those playing directly on the turf, but for nearby residences which can see increased temperatures as a result? Have the residents of Cedar Blvd., Cedar Lane, Mayfair and Vee Lynn drives been notified of this project?
As a board whose mission it is to support environmentally sustainable practices in this township, we ask that you seriously reconsider the installation of artificial turf on these and any other fields in Mt. Lebanon. However, in the event that this project continues forward, we strongly suggest the use of organic turf materials for these fields. While this option may be less used in communities throughout the United States, we believe that this would be an excellent way for the township to shine above other neighboring communities and be a leader in sustainable efforts. As it is, both materials would have to be replaced after a number of years. Why not use organic turf materials as an experiment to further
sustainable practices in the township, and minimize the potential health and environmental risks in the long run.
We thank you for your time and further consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
The Environmental Sustainability Board of Mt. Lebanon
Update February 15, 2014 12:49 PM Post Gazette Artificial turf could come to Mt. Lebanon fields
As an integral entity within the township, our mission as a board supports the overall mission and comprehensive plan of Mt. Lebanon, and specifically its goal of promoting environmental sustainability in projects going forward.
The Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB) would like to officially make a statement as to our opinion on this matter. We would also like to note that the ESB was misrepresented at an earlier Commission meeting, in which our then liaison stated the ESB was in favor of installation of artificial turf in Mt. Lebanon – to be clear we are not in favor of artificial turf.
As a board, we feel that the installation of artificial turf, especially turf which uses plastic and rubber materials, is counter to our mission and the overall mission of the township. Our concerns stem from reports, both scientific and anecdotal. We believe that the health of the young children who will play on this material, as well as the surrounding ecological system, may be at irreparable risk.
While studies have only been performed on adult athletes, additional studies have been ordered by the EPA to determine health effects of artificial turf on children, since children are more susceptible to toxins due to their higher metabolism and the fact that they are lower to the ground.
Some of our environmental concerns have to do with storm water runoff from artificial turf which has been shown to contain enough zinc to negatively affect water ecosystems. This should be of great concern with Painters Run creek nearby. Potable water may be wasted due to the watering of the fields to decrease the heat to an acceptable level for play, and subsequently, that watering will increase storm water runoff which is a critical regional issue.
We ask that the Commission and the SAB take time to think further on this project, as well as educate the residents of Mt. Lebanon on this project to allow for a wider understanding and opportunity for comment. As residents ourselves, many of us are concerned for our neighbors living near the park where this turf is to be installed. Are they aware of possible noxious fumes emanating from the newly laid artificial turf? Are they aware of the potential for “Heat Island” effect, not only for those playing directly on the turf, but for nearby residences which can see increased temperatures as a result? Have the residents of Cedar Blvd., Cedar Lane, Mayfair and Vee Lynn drives been notified of this project?
As a board whose mission it is to support environmentally sustainable practices in this township, we ask that you seriously reconsider the installation of artificial turf on these and any other fields in Mt. Lebanon. However, in the event that this project continues forward, we strongly suggest the use of organic turf materials for these fields. While this option may be less used in communities throughout the United States, we believe that this would be an excellent way for the township to shine above other neighboring communities and be a leader in sustainable efforts. As it is, both materials would have to be replaced after a number of years. Why not use organic turf materials as an experiment to further
sustainable practices in the township, and minimize the potential health and environmental risks in the long run.
We thank you for your time and further consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
The Environmental Sustainability Board of Mt. Lebanon
Update February 15, 2014 12:49 PM Post Gazette Artificial turf could come to Mt. Lebanon fields
The new Comprehensive Plan was designed with very high standards for the municipality to uphold when it comes to environmental issues. These environmental concerns filter through the entire document and include every department. I believe the commission voted unanimously to approve these high standards and the taxpayers paid dearly for the consultant. Although the Comprehensive Plan is not an "official" document as far as policy is concerned, it should be noted that this plan had substantial input from stakeholders who considered every possible topic. These taxpayers did not blink when these highly prioritized environmental issues were incorporated into the plan. Take a look at how "green" the plan is detailed. I always thought that Democrats are pro environment?!?
ReplyDeletePresident Linfante mentioned Matt Kluck's name as the former commissioner liaison to the ESB during the turf discussions about Wildcat/Middle fields. Matt was on the ESB when they voted on the Pool/McNeilly bond project. Artificial turf was not a topic then because McNeilly was going to be grass. Increasing fields was the top priority. I guess if you say it often enough it becomes true. They are contradicting themselves and rewriting history.
Elaine
There was an interesting article published today regarding the possible link between children's exposure to chemicals and our escalating autism statistics.
ReplyDeleteFood for thought to the residents of LEBO who care about kids and turf chemicals.
I am sure that others who viewed the turf discussion noted that when Mr. Franklin was asked whether fall soccer would be displaced by the new turf installation, he said "yes" but noted that it would be easy to find players another field, paraphrasing, "we have nine other fields they can use".
ReplyDeleteSo how is it that there are 9 fields for soccer to use when teams are displaced next fall if a field shortage is the reasoning behind this entire project?
When the commission discussions start over the sorry state of our municipal roads due to the harsher than normal winter and how they'll have to raise taxes... remember where our undesignated funds balance went!
ReplyDeleteIt isn't just the infill that is the problem. The blades specifications are to be a slit film with a monofilament blend of polyethylene.
ReplyDeleteCheck the composition here.
The turf has to be replaced every eight years. I am not sure if that is the polyethylene backing plus the infill or just the infill. If the backing has to be replaced, that is going in landfills.
I am not sure if the ESB really wants ANY artificial turf, organic or otherwise.
The other problem with an organic infill is that it floats. Think about where these fields are located and think about all the flooding in that area. All the cork will float away.
Turfing any field is just a bad idea. The lack of transparency, designating excess tax dollars from over taxing this year and next year to fund this project, the health risks involved, the lies, keeping it from various groups, and the ever changing reasons for "needing" this turf are my reasons for filing the Right To Know. The whole thing stinks.
Elaine
After reading the environmental issues in the polyethylene link above it certainly seems ludicrous that the commissioners are pursuing Pay As You Throw recycling while putting in plastic grass.
ReplyDeleteKind of — "lets destroy the environment so we can save the environment" or better yet— "do as we say, not as we do!"
ReplyDeleteIf these fields become impermeable due to turf, can someone calculate the yearly contribution the sports groups will need to pay for storm water fees? It seems that when Gateway helped the municipality develop storm water fees for Mt Lebanon (the only municipality in PA that has instated these fees), the fees were calculated based on property space that is impermeable. For example, the Catholic Diocese balked at paying $20k/year for storm water fees due to their 3 properties within Mt Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the new Crown Jewel storm water fee?
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/south/2011/10/13/Diocesan-properties-balk-at-water-management-fee/stories/201110130338
Alcosan estimates that our water fees will go up over 10% per year over the next (at least) 5 years to deal with the problems they are having with sewage and other toxins dumping into our rivers and then into our drinking water.
ReplyDeleteCan we thank the SAB for doing their share to reduce the strain on our waterways, and Alcosan?
I hated organic chemistry and was thankful to have gotten a passing grade. I meant to say that the blades are made of polyethylene, but the backing is made of polyurethane,which is much worse.
ReplyDelete"Fully reacted polyurethane polymer is chemically inert.[30] No exposure limits have been established in the U.S. by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) or ACGIH (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists). It is not regulated by OSHA for carcinogenicity. Polyurethane polymer is a combustible solid and can be ignited if exposed to an open flame.[31] Decomposition from fire can produce mainly carbon monoxide, and trace nitrogen oxides and hydrogen cyanide.
Liquid resin blends and isocyanates may contain hazardous or regulated components. Isocyanates are known skin and respiratory sensitizers. Additionally, amines, glycols, and phosphate present in spray polyurethane foams present risks.[32]
In the United States, additional health and safety information can be found through organizations such as the Polyurethane Manufacturers Association (PMA) and the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI), as well as from polyurethane system and raw material manufacturers. Regulatory information can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 (Food and Drugs) and Title 40 (Protection of the Environment). In Europe, health and safety information is available from ISOPA,[33] the European Diisocyanate and Polyol Producers Association."
Elaine
Oh, this isn't good. Check out all the news reports of how flammable artificial turf fields are.
ReplyDeleteSynthetic Turf Fires
Elaine
Excerpt from Linfante's 12/2013 MTL Commissioners Column contribution.
ReplyDelete"The next step in the process is to establish “principles” or community values for the project so that developers can best understand the needs and desires of the community. The Mt. Lebanon Partnership will be spearheading the public participation process in order to solicit broader community input into the project. In addition to providing a community-wide survey, the Partnership will develop an ad hoc Public Participation Committee composed of a variety of stakeholders. The goal of the committee is to assemble the community’s “wish list” of principles and values, which will ultimately be presented to the commission for consideration. This list will accompany a short list of priorities that have already been established by the municipality. Those include a consideration for green building principles, a response to market realities that will offer long term returns to Mt. Lebanon, and a desire to have the space integrated or “folded” into the fabric of our existing community."
Ah Ms. Linfante, where are your considerations for "green building principles" at Wildcat/Middle Fields?
Do you stand for anything, Ms. Linfante. Remember, your mother taught you not to lie.
As a community how friggin' stupid are we?
ReplyDeleteWe'll spend thousands of dollars putting up NO IDLING signs- that no one pays attention to cut down on pollutants and energy consumption.
We'll also discuss switching to PAYT garbage collection to cut waste and pollution, then turn around and buy tons of plastic grass.
UNBELIEVABLE!!!
"How much oil is used to make plastic?
In the United States, plastics are made from liquid petroleum gases (LPG), natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas. LPG are by-products of petroleum refining, and NGL are removed from natural gas before it enters transmission pipelines.
In 20101, about 191 million barrels of LPG and NGL were used in the United States to make plastic products in the plastic materials and resins industry, equal to about 2.7% of total U.S. petroleum consumption. Of those 191 million barrels, 190 million barrels were used as feedstock and 1 million barrels were consumed as fuel
In addition to petroleum, natural gas is used to manufacture plastic materials and resins. In 2010, about 412 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas were used to make plastic materials and resins, equal to about 1.7% of total U.S. natural gas consumption. Of the 412 Bcf, 13 Bcf were used as feedstock, and 399 Bcf were burned as fuel.
Electricity is also used to manufacture plastics. In 2010, about 65 billion kilowatt-hours were used, equal to about 1.7% of total U.S. electricity consumption. Only about 1% of the total U.S. petroleum consumed in 2010 was used to generate electricity."
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=34&t=6
Hwy Brumfield, how come your gal pal writes about soliciting broader community input in the MTL Partnership, but you say on the turf issue you need ask for input from your constituents, boards or the people living in close proximatey to the fields????
ReplyDeleteCould it be that you don't give a crap what people think on this one?
sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas- use your own property as not to injure your neighbors.
ReplyDeleteCome on now... Dave Brumfield is only a Commissioner so he can step into the Democratic machine at both State and Federal levels. That's what failed lawyers do.... They become politicans. Cut him some slack! It's hard to emulate your favorite democrat. You have to learn to lie. To say one thing and mean another. To get what you want when other don't. Lets hope Miller or Smith move on so Dave moves on too.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2014/02/16/Alcosan-adding-green-element-to-sewer-system-fix/stories/201402160103
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand Mt. Lebanon Commissioners are doing their best to undo any Alcosan green initiatives by expediting storm water run off from our main sports fields and adding some hazardous chemicals to the mix for good measure.
So in Lebo, we pay to dirty the waters, then pay Alcosan to clean them up. All in an effort to keep Franklin, Brumfield, Linfante, Bendel, and their sports pals happy.
The municipal storm water flow at the Cedar/Greenhurst juncture already exceeds capacity. The existing 56" diameter storm water pipes cannot be replaced with a larger size - they don't come any larger.
ReplyDeleteThe current natural grass Dixon, Middle and Wildcat fields are 100% permeable and do not add storm water to the Cedar Blvd. pipes. However, will the proposed artificial turf system be totally permeable, or will it actually require drainage into a connected or integral underground storm water collection system that will be connected to the Cedar Blvd. muni pipe ? What do the turf system specifications specify ?
From FieldTurf's "Field Building Handbook", they recommend "Drainage costs should never be cut..." (Planning and Design Considerations - Water Management on page 3 of 28).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fieldturf.com/media/W1siZiIsIjIwMTIvMDgvMDEvMjIvMjUvNDEvMTQwL2ZpZWxkdHVyZl9idWlsZGluZ19oYW5kYm9vay5wZGYiXV0/fieldturf-building-handbook.pdf
As of yet, I don't believe anyone from the Commissioners, Gateway or the SAB/Taskforce has addressed how stormwater runoff will be handled.
If the storm pipes are already inadequate as you suggest, we can pretty much assume like the pool and Brafferton the bids will come in substantially over the budgeted amount.
Unlike Brafferton, Linfante, Brumfield, Bendel will go ahead anyway with their plans.
Too bad that area of Cedar is one of the worst flood plains for LEBO residents. Looks like the SAB and Comissioners don't care to protect residents' property.
ReplyDeleteShame on them.
As far as the specs required to irrigate for the heat island issue, it's my understand from the commission discussion session that Mr. Franklin says (paraphrasing) that "since it doesn't get hot here, we aren't going to irrigate". In other words, the heat island impact won't be addressed.
ReplyDeleteSo, my guess is that they won't truly address the storm water issue either.
The Allegheny County Comprehensive Plan includes a map of our county's Natural Heritage Inventory. Places are identified that are environmentally significant for their contribution to the natural environment. There's very little in and around Mt Lebanon, with the exception of the Painters Run Biodiversity Area.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see if this area is still worth highlighting 10 years after artificial turf is installed in close proximity to a creek that leads to Painters Run less than .5 mile away.
Forgot to provide link to the Painters Run Biodiversity Area map:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alleghenyplaces.com/maps/ec/NHI.pdf
Another added contributor to the growing storm water issue at Cedar & Greenhurst will be results of the High School project. Don't think many government folks have thought about that either, or are willing to acknowledge it if they have.
ReplyDeleteElaine We are new to this area and find the pushing of "turf" to be quite funny. When I worked for Microsoft in Redmond WA the various communities that surrounded that area "turfed" the majority of natural grass fields. The politicians and coaches blamed the rain. When we were packing up to move here those "turfed" fields were NOT being used. They sat unused because of the dangers ie injuries and toxic chemicals. My Mom always said the East Coast was years behind and guess this proves her point. In a couple of years a bond for 3-4 million will be needed to clean this mess up.
ReplyDeleteThe Almanac just published an article on the subject...
ReplyDeleteBy Nick Lewandowski
For The Almanac
writer@thealmanac.net
South Hills News
Commission blindsided us with turf project, Lebo board alleges
Sunday, February 16,2014
Feb. 11 saw a seemingly routine presentation on Mt. Lebanon’s field turf project devolve into a debate over whether the commission and Sports Advisory Board blindsided other groups with the original proposal. The commission approved an initial allocation of funds for turfing municipal fields at its Nov. 25 meeting.
Commissioner Kelly Fraasch, who opposes the project, triggered the spat when she asked whether the Parks Advisory or Environmental Sustainability Board (ESB) had weighed in on the Sports Advisory Board’s proposal.
Recreation director David Donnellan replied that the commission had not asked for official positions from either board.
In response, Fraasch invited Maria Joseph, a member of the ESB, to read a statement signed by six of seven ESB members.
“In the time I’ve been on the board, artificial turf was not brought up as a point of discussion, because we were told the funding was not there and this project would not move forward,” Joseph said. “We feel we should have been alerted to the fact this was something on the commission’s radar.”
The ESB statement touched on health concerns related to artificial turf, the negative environmental impact of runoff and potential water waste associated with cooling turf in the summer months.
Commissioner Dave Brumfield asserted that the turf issue has been discussed publicly for years and the proposal should not have surprised anyone in the community. “To say this hasn’t been out there is wrong,” he said, adding that the ESB statement came at a time when design specifics (such as using artificial turf versus organic infill) had yet to be finalized. Thus, the final design may mitigate or eliminate ESB concerns. “At times, we’re going to do certain things certain boards disagree with. We can’t go out and hand everything out to everyone who might possibly have an opinion on an issue,” Brumfield concluded.
Commission president Kristen Linfante echoed Brumfield’s statements. “I know you’re questioning whether we care what the ESB thinks,” she said. “But this especially is the point in the project where we need your input, especially as we consider design elements such as materials.”
According to the Turf Task Force presentation, a rough timetable would see the project bid in June with construction to begin sometime in late July or early August.
http://www.thealmanac.net/article/20140216/NEWS11/140219962#.UwGE-8u9KSM
ReplyDeleteIf you are concerned about the health of streams, athletes, residents, neighboring communities, you can file a complaint with the Allegheny County Board of Health. They do accept both anonymous and signed complaints.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.achd.net/newweb/contactForm.html
If the project begins in July or early August doesn't it take two of our best fields out of use just at the height of field sport activities.
ReplyDeleteWe supposedily don't have enough fields but somehow we'll be able to juggle schedules to get by.
If we went with developing Robb Hollow fields as Fraasch proposes, none of our current fields would be taken out of service this year.
Then next year with play divided up amonst more fields-- each natural grass field could 'rest' due to lighter schedules.
But the sports babies want their plastic and there want it now.
“At times, we’re going to do certain things certain boards disagree with. We can’t go out and hand everything out to everyone who might possibly have an opinion on an issue,” Brumfield concluded."
ReplyDeleteThis just might be the most ludicrous statement I've ever heard a local politician make.
You can't hand over proposals to boards to analyze and return with opinions and advice. Isn't that their primary function, Mr Brumfield?
And another thing, we made this board to tell us what we wanted to hear.
ReplyDeleteOr, was it they told us to make this board to tell us what they wanted us to hear?
No, they told us, to tell them, to tell us, what they wanted us to hear, so they would then hear us tell them what they told us they wanted us to tell them.
So why do we need someone else to tell us what they want us to hear, because we already got all the input we were told we should get? Before and after we got it.
Get it.
Of course when it comes time to push the PAYT garbage collection plan, the commissioners will call on the ESB to 'sell' the environmental benefits.
ReplyDeleteWe will read countless submissions in mtl magazine that we send too many plastic bags & bottles, plastic lawn furniture and kids playsets to overstretched landfills. They'll bombard us with evidence that "we must absolutely save the environment for "the kids."
In the mean time, we'll let the kids inhale ground up rubber tire pellets and carcinogens from polyurathanes and poolyethylenes.
Saving the kids can come later, the realtors need a "crown jewel" to sell our homes!
When Mr. Feller comes crying that taxes need to be raised to cover street repairs, maintenance, overtime and salt replenishment from a harsh winter, lets be sure to ask him where the $829,000 in undesignated tax revenues went!
ReplyDeleteHey , want to rethink your position?
ReplyDelete"AnonymousFebruary 9, 2014 at 1:05 PM
I will jump.
These turf fields will be the crown jewel. Everyone has turf, why would they have turf if it was so unhealthy?
Who wants another park to maintain? Kelly Fraasch's plan has nothing to do with this community and helping the children here in Mt Lebanon to play sports and be active."
What happens if the federal safety organization takes enforcement action against turf manufacturers? Will Wildcat/Middle Fields still be our "crown jewel?" Or another short-sighted waste of taxpayer money like Twin Hills and McNeilly.
Personally, I'm not in favor of gambling when there are cheaper and safer alternatives. Contrary to what Linfante claims.
http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/2013/11/12/voters-reject-artificial-turf-in-three-states/
Washington, DC — One under-the-radar pattern in last week’s elections was voters turning down new artificial turf fields, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Besides these local setbacks, a federal safety agency is reviewing “possible enforcement action” against turf makers for marketing their lead-laden products to young children.
In the November 5th elections, voters in New Jersey, Vermont, and Maine all turned back efforts to fund artificial turf fields:
In northern New Jersey, voters in Glen Ridge rejected two related referenda to authorize purchase and installation of artificial athletic fields in the borough. This was the second time in six years that Glen Ridge voters have spurned a turf referendum;
In Vermont, voters defeated a $1.5 million bond to fund replacing two of the seven grass athletic fields at suburban Champlain Valley Union High School in Hinesburg with artificial turf; and
In Maine, voters in Freeport, Durham and Pownal townships supported a bond to renovate the local high school but voted down a separate bond measure to pay for a synthetic turf field and track at the school."
Since my readership has increased substantially in the last month, I would like to bring to your attention four posts and two videos concerning how this turf proposal went down.
ReplyDeleteSon-of-a-bitch
Catch Dave Brumfield's scathing response to my email. Note how there was no publicity for the vote. No public hearing for a million dollar project. Notice what Dave Brumfield's "focus" is for his second term as reported by The Almanac.
Don't miss how Brumfield and Bendel are lacrosse and baseball coaches. See how municipal employees are working with the Mt. Lebanon Community Endowment for the non-municipal share of the project.
It's been fun, but I am done The Almanac reported that Kristen believes the project will bring value to every single home in Mt. Lebanon. Not that it was their only option. Don't miss Dave Franklin's deceptive True/False test and readers' reactions to his test.
Please watch the municipal videos from November 25, 2013. November 25, 2013 Discussion session video is where Kristen lies about the ESB's support. Kelly asks if we heard from ESB at 41:47. Kristen starts talking about the ESB at 42:24.
The November 25, 2013 Commission meeting video at 14:35 shows during Citizens' Comments how I outed Kristen on her lie, how the three commissioners are sticking it to the state, the community, and fellow commissioners, and why had there been no publicity or public hearing for the million dollar turf proposal.
Yes, let's get the record straight. UPDATED
Discusses how Dave Franklin, the Parks Advisory Board representative on the Sports Advisory Board rallies for turf instead of improving Robb Hollow Park. Also, follow the money. Read about the McNeilly/Robb Hollow swap.
Also, I filed a Right To Know for all communication about artificial turf from November 1, 2013 to January 24, 2014 and was told that there are 1500 emails, many of which are two or more pages. At 25¢ a sheet, my RTK could cost around $750. See my post, A new twist in transparency here in the bubble
Elaine
Elaine, I think a side by side video of the statements Kristen Linfante has made about turf and the ESB would demonstrate the deception underlying this entire plan. I don't know if one of the readers would be able to make this for you to post.
ReplyDelete9:07 am. Mr. Feller has a trick up *every* sleeve on how to find money and at the same time, put problems back on residents. No matter how this issue turns up, Mr Feller's excuse will be that he suffers from a lack of attention to detail.
“At times, we’re going to do certain things certain boards disagree with. We can’t go out and hand everything out to everyone who might possibly have an opinion on an issue,” Brumfield concluded."
ReplyDeleteOR
"The fact remains that my constituents want recreational improvements. Perhaps the reason this as a done deal from day 1 is because hundreds if not thousands of households supported it steadfastly for years. Please understand your views are not shared by the vast majority of my ward."
Which way is it Commissioner Brumfield ?
Brumfield apparently borrowed a page from the Ed Kubit playbook.
ReplyDeleteWhich is, when confronted with opposition to your plan call up the ghost of thousands of anonymous supporters.
Of course there is no hard evidence to support the claim, but it does make for a good sound byte.
If what he says is true, put it to a referendum!
Kubit did everything possible to avoid having his "thousands" show up to approve the high school project.
As February 13, 2014 at 3:34 PM tried to say in an earlier post. You know, the one what someone said sounded like "Kristin" Linfante? Where are the 100 parents?
ReplyDeleteKristen, who represented the ESB, forgot to inform them of the commission plans to artificially turf Middle and Wildcat Fields. Dave Franklin, who represents the Parks Advisory Board on the Sports Advisory Board didn't inform the PAB about the turf plans. Tim White, who represents lacrosse, didn't inform his group about turf. Who was the PAB liaison last year? Members of the PAB were told that they shouldn't weigh in on the Middle and Wildcat Fields turf because those fields are not in a park. The "misrepresentation" seems to be ongoing.
Elaine
I keep thinking of Abbott and Costello: "Who's on first?" There's NOTHING funny about this bait and switch tactic. What a mess!!! : (
ReplyDelete1:40 PM. Elaine, all 3 Cedar Blvd. athletic fields - Dixon, Middle and Wildcat - as well as the Rec Center rink, pool, meeting rooms & offices, as well as the entire Tennis Center, as well as the Pavilions are all in and part of what is officially called MAIN PARK, sometimes a/k/a Mt. Lebanon Park !
ReplyDeleteWho told the PAB the fields were not ? The 2 Dave's ? Or was it Kristen ?
Yes, I am aware of that, 6:04 PM. I am not sure if it was one of the THREE Daves or Kristen or even someone else. I am hoping a member of the PAB will clarify that.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Did anyone ever hear that Mother Nature Knows Best? That means grass should prevail over turf.
ReplyDeleteHere's how Mt Lebanon achieved Silver Status from Sustainable Pittsburgh:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sustainablecommunityessentials.org/assessments/view_muni/40