Here is an exchange that showed up in my mailbox. Please read what Commissioner Bendel has to say to one of his constituents.
On May 12, 2014, at 6:17 AM, XXXXXXXXX wrote:
Mr. Bendel,
I've learned of the plan to remove natural grass and install artificial turf on the fields on Cedar Blvd. I think this is ill advised, especially when there are so many miles of our roads that are barely passable. There are substantial health and environmental issues, and the plan has the appearance of being rushed through without community discussion.
This is a substantial, permanent financial burden to put on our static, if not declining, tax base. I urge you to oppose this idea.
From: John Bendel <jbendel@mtlebanon.org>
Sent: Mon, May 12, 2014 9:10 am
Subject: Re: artificial turf
Thank you for contacting me about the turf project.
The turf project approved for Middle/Wildcat field (MWC) field in Mt. Lebanon is the culmination of many years of discussion, analysis and research to address the shortage of field space. Addressing the shortage of fields has been a long-standing priority for our community, and over the last decade there have been multiple attempts to expand the number fields and/or increase the use (the number of games/practices) on existing fields. However, until the MWC project, no significant enhancements have been implemented to address this priority.
Most fields in Mt. Lebanon are diamond-based, which are designed primarily for baseball and softball. Over the last decade or so, the popularity of the sports using rectangular-based fields such as lacrosse, soccer and field hockey has increased significantly. Therefore, the focus of field enhancements has been to expand the number of rectangular-based fields.
Information on the approved turf project - description, concept plan and a variety of presentations, can be found on the Municipal website at:
http://mtlebanon.org/index.aspx?NID=2199
I support the project because it:
- Increases field slots available by 60%; turf will withstand continuous use
- Benefits many residents - there were 3,600 total registrations in field-based youth sports programs in 2013, plus many more residents involved on School District sports teams
- Is supported by all field sports associations
- Includes non-municipal contributions of $250,000 toward the $1 million initial capital cost, and requires a use fee that will pay for a portion of the field replacement cost
- Involves a partnership with the School District whereby the District will maintain the field (reducing maintenance cost to the Municipality by almost $14,000 annually compared to the current maintenance cost. The estimated annual maintenance cost for the School District is $7,000, a net saving to the tax payers of $7,000 per year); and in return the District’s sports teams will have use of the field
- Leverages existing access, parking, restrooms, concessions and lights at MWC
With respect the health and safety issues relative to a new turf field, Mt. Lebanon is able to draw upon about 40 years of direct experience. Turf was first installed in Mt. Lebanon in the 1970s. In fact, over that period, we have the experience of a variety of different and improved turf products as they have evolved over the years. Therefore, as the Municipality has evaluated turf generally, as well as the specific turf products currently under consideration for Middle and Wildcat, we have relied upon the following criteria: (1) specific experiences in Mt. Lebanon, (2) independent testing under conditions that are similar to those present in Mt. Lebanon, (3) information provided by governmental agencies (Department of Environmental Protection, etc.), and (4) other information that is widely accepted as independent and credible.
Field enhancements and this project have been discussed in public meetings, included in long-range and short-range plans for many years. I have prepared the follow summary to put the long history of this project in perspective.
My historical knowledge doesn't go back as far as others, but I know that the land purchases at McNeilly and Twin Hills were intended, at least in part, to expand our athletic fields. For a variety of reasons, primarily cost related, the fields were never developed at these locations.
The Municipality's priority for field enhancements is well documented. The Municipality's annual Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), which is our five-year plan for identifying priority projects, has included field development for many years. In fact, the turf project has been included in the last six CIPs beginning in 2009. The CIP is recommended annually by the Planning Board and approved by the Commission, and is discussed at several meetings each year at the Planning Board and Commission. All of these meetings are open to the public and the Commission meetings are video recorded.
In addition, the recently adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan (Plan), which is our community's planning and development guide for the next 10 years, specifically includes the turf project as a priority. The Plan development included significant opportunity for resident and stakeholder participation. A core planning team made up of a cross-section of representatives of boards and authorities led the process, and a variety of sub-teams focused on specific issues. The opportunity for public input was provided multiple times via a variety of means throughout the 18 month long planning process. The Plan was recommended by the Planning Board and approved by the Commission in 2013.
More recently, in 2012-14, the Commission established recreation and field improvements as a high priority during its annual goal setting retreats. As a result, the Commission has made significant capital investments in recreation facilities in recent years - pool improvements, tennis center (lighting at two courts, concrete stairs and sidewalks and renovations at the tennis center building), several neighborhood park projects, upgrades to the recreation center and ice rink and new equipment (lawn mower at golf course and electric Zamboni). Additional recreation enhancements at Robb Hollow and Northmeadowcroft Park are in the planning phase. Despite this cumulative multi-million dollar investment in recreation, the Municipality has done little to address the long-standing priority for field enhancements.
Since 2012, several field enhancement alternatives have been evaluated by the Commission. The assessment of field options was completed parallel with the development of the Comprehensive Plan as was the case for several other community priorities. If fact, several goals in the Plan are already complete and many more are in the development and planning stages. The Commission began addressing the lack of field space by assessing the opportunities to increase use of its existing fields. Options such as resting fields to improve conditions and better drainage were considered. The Commission did invest in better drainage at Bird field in 2012. With the high demand for field space, the ability to rest fields was not considered a viable option.
The Commission next looked at creating new field space, which is difficult in a highly developed community like Mt. Lebanon. On March 13, 2012, with the assistance of Gateway Engineering, at a discussion session, the Commission reviewed the alternatives listed below. Gateway's presentation can be found at http://mtlebanon.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2660
- McNeilly - $3-4 million, multi-field development
- Robb Hollow - Three fields, one on the upper section and two near the Public Works area along Cedar
- Twin Hills - one field
- Brafferton - drainage improvements and conversion from a diamond-based baseball field to rectangle field
- Turfing of MWC and Mellon
The field enhancement alternatives presented in March 2012, were the subject of discussion at various times throughout 2012 and 2013. The projects at McNeilly and Twin Hills were not supported by the Commission and were not pursued. The McNeilly project was not considered viable for several reasons, including the $3-4 million cost and the distance from most areas of the Municipality. The proposed field at Twin Hills was not considered due to its relatively small size, access issues and other development constraints.
The Municipality continued its evaluation of the Robb Hollow, Brafferton and turf options.
Robb Hollow - after additional discussion, the upper field at Robb Hollow was considered the best option at that location. The project in the upper section of Robb Hollow included a full-sized field and unlike the proposed fields along Cedar, it did not encroach on the area used by Public Works. This project was discussed multiple times in 2012, including October 9 and 22. The Municipality completed additional engineering work on the proposed upper field. In late-2012 the Commission decided not to pursue the upper field development due to the rising cost estimate of at least $1.3 million, which included field development, access, parking and transfer of leaf processing to a new location. It was estimated that the transfer of the leaf processing would add approximately $30,000 annually to annual operating expenses. The project would have resulted in the loss of nearly 7 acres of trees, created steep slopes due to excavation and was to be built in close proximity to homes in an adjoining neighborhood.
Brafferton - the Commission approved $197,400 for improvements to Brafferton in 2012. The proposal was to make drainage improvements, remove the baseball diamond and convert the surface to a rectangular field. The Commission reviewed this project multiple times during discussion sessions in 2012 and 2013. The project recognized the need to add an access road and parking to accommodate this new configuration. The access road and parking were estimated to cost an additional $133,000. The newly formed Sports Advisory Board (SAB) and the Commission supported this project. On September 17, 2013 the Brafferton bidding process resulted in one bidder submitting a bid of $845,000 for a large field plus parking and access road (alternate 2A). The Commission rejected this bid due to the high cost and has not pursued this project since that time.
Turf - as noted above, the turf project has been in the Municipality's CIP every year since 2009. The engineer's opinion of probable cost has roughly been around $1 million for the turfing of either Mellon or MWC. The sports community has supported a turf project for many years. On June 25, 2012, the Youth Sports Alliance (YSA), which at the time represented all field based sports in Mt. Lebanon, presented a proposal to turf and add lighting to MWC at a public meeting. On July 10, 2012 the Commission had a follow-up discussion on the YSA proposal. On July 23, 2012 a presentation opposing the turf project was made to the Commission.
A series of Commission discussion sessions on August 27, September 11, September 24, 2012, included the use of the Municipality’s unassigned fund balance for capital projects. Field enhancements were part of these discussions.
On November 26, 2012, the Commission unanimously voted to form the SAB (refer to the purpose statement below). The creation of the SAB provided an opportunity to have a board focused on enhancing the recreational facilities and services in Mt. Lebanon. Boards and authorities exist 1) To discuss/assess specific issues in greater detail than is possible at Commission meetings, and 2) To make recommendations to the Commission on issues important to the community. The SAB's members were appointed by the Commission in early 2013.
Since its first meeting in March 2013 through April 2014, the SAB has discussed field improvements at seven meetings, in particular the Brafferton and turf projects. On June 6, 2013, the SAB voted to recommend a turf project to the Commission as its highest priority. At the SAB's October 3 and November 7, 2013 meetings the SAB voted to recommend the MWC turf project for the Commission's approval. The SAB's recommendations to support the turf project were presented to the Commission on June 24, November 12 and November 25, 2013. All of the SAB meetings are open to the public and are video recorded.
SAB's Purpose
- Review and assess all sports-related facilities and services in Mt. Lebanon.
- Recommend possible changes and improvements to sports-related facilities and services.
- Assist in the continued safe provision of athletic opportunities to Mt. Lebanon residents.
- Receive and consider public comment and other public input regarding sports facilities and services.
- Support, promote and/or provide programs and services to assist athletes and coaches in Mt. Lebanon.
From June 24, 2013 through April 28, 2014 the Commission has had the turf project on its discussion session agenda seven times either as a stand alone item or as part of SAB presentations. On November 25, 2013, the Commission approved the MWC turf project and Municipality's $750,000 financial commitment. As part of the motion, the Commission formed a turf task force and provided specific direction for them to flesh out the details of the project, including design, engineering and non-municipal share fund raising. The turf project concept has been presented to the Planning Board on April 22, 2014 and to property owners near MWC on April 24, 2014.
In conclusion, the turf project has been discussion in public meetings numerous times over the last two years, and it has been part of the municipality's plans for field enhancements for the last six years.
Thank you for contacting me with your opinion regarding this project. I appreciate your concerns. While we view the project differently, I hope this information is useful.
Sent from my iPhone
I hope that the person who contacted Bendel knows better than to accept his response at face value. This is Bendel's mantra. Most of what he says has been proven false, so keep the pressure on!
ReplyDeleteBendel - The turf project concept has been presented to the Planning Board on April 22, 2014 and to property owners near MWC on April 24, 2014.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you wait 5 months to tell the Planning Board and nearby property owners like us?
So now the primary ratiional for turfing MWC is rectangular sports games rather than diamond oriented sports like baseball and softball.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't they just state that objective from the get go?
Then, the question begging to be asked... can't a natural grass field be rectangular?
The other questions needed to be asked, how many people that were involved in the Twin Hills and McNeilly purchases are involved in this arrangement?
For openers, Bendel claims the Municipality has been considering this turfing misadventure for years. Like so many statements athletic supporters like Bendel make, his statement is not absolutely true based on historical records and facts.
ReplyDeleteEvery year since 2010, facts show the Recreation Dept. (Donnellan) has proposed turfing and lighting of Wildcat & Middle Fields for $1 million funded with bond issues, but the project has either not been recommended by the Manager or approved by the Commission for years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 ! It was not considered by the Manager for 2014 in his recommended budget. This does not demonstrate that the Municipality has all been behind and been considering turfing in any overall positive or supportive manner, which Bendel's wording implies or have us believe.
Turfing did not take wings until last fall when Franklin convinced kindred jock spirits Brumfield, Bendel and Linfante to create the SAB, and they passed a formal motion (not a Resolution or Ordinance) indicating an intention to turf the fields using surplus undesignated fund balance money (excess taxation), bypass the supermajority vote required for bond issues and siphon money from other budgetary funding (e.g. Brafferton field, etc.). It has not and will not be actually approved until the bids are in and a selection is proposed and voted on in a 3/2 minimum basis. I don't know that a prior motion indicating intent without a full and disclosed factual basis is legally binding for execution.
What makes this worse is that the turfing itself is not by any means the total intent. This is really a muti phase, multi year series of capital projects, and turfing is only the 1st. project, 1st. phase.
We have not seen the project description and specifications that will go out for bid yet. They were reportedly completed some weeks ago, but have been withheld from public disclosure. Although proposed by Recreation to include Wildcat lighting, the formal SAB presentation of the project does not include lighting. The intent is clearly there and there will be lighting now or later, regardless.
Then there is the Wildcat parking lots, slipped into project and budgetary funding as being an unspecified lot for tennis, basketball, rink, bocce ball needs. Revealed only via a RTK, Gateway recommended it for Wildcat at 93 spaces they estimated to cost $249,000 behind the scenes. The actual cost will likely be $416,000 based on bid contract amounts for Phase 1 35-spaces, plus revised cost estimates for the additional 58 spaces in 2016.
How about the storm water mediation and costs required for the additional run off from the turf and paved parking into a flood plain area and into an already overloaded Muni storm water conveyance system along
Cedar into the very worrisome Peters Creek ?
The drum beats on and the intentional deception to gain an unfair advantage (i.e. one definition of fraud) continues !
I love the 60% number.
ReplyDeleteThat is a bald-faced lie.
First, the 60% (as inaccurate as it is) would apply ONLY to WCM.
Next, the 60% number was made up PRIOR to them finding out that you couldn't have two practices going on at the same time.
You can't have practice on the field while anyone is using Wildcat field.
The Robb Hollow plan made the most sense. His disagreement on that point can't be cost (it is the same cost to ADD fields to RH as it is to add turf to WCM). His argument comes down to trees and to being close to neighbors. Has he seen how WCM backs up to a steep slope leading up to neighbor's yards?
I just don't get it.
Turfing adds MINIMAL playing time per year. It only adds playing time in the sense that it dries more quickly so you don't lose 2-5 days per year for fields to recover after a rain.
I'd like to see a proposal to KEEP the grass but to regrade and redo the field to be quick drying. These guys do realize that just an hour after heavy rains the Pirates played a game on their grass field Friday night, right? Guarantee that transforming WCM to a quick drying sports field will attract FAR MORE families to Mt. Lebanon than turf would. Would could be the only community that has that.
Heck, I would even donate $100 to that project!
No one with any legal experience has chimed in on these two topics.
ReplyDelete#1. Could someone with legal qualifications analyze Home Rule Charter, Article IV, Section 401, Item B under the Functions and Reponsibilities of the Treasurer?
It reads "The Treasurer shall receive all municipal moneys from [ALL SOURCES] and promptly deposit the same in a bank..."
So wouldn't revenue from field signs, hanging on municipal field fences be consider a municipal source of revenue? Therefore "public" revenue, not "private".
I'm not a lawyer, but it reads to me like the commissioners are violating our existing HR Charter.
#2. "Definition of 'Real Estate'
Land plus anything permanently fixed to it, including buildings, sheds and other items attached to the structure."
Section 151.1 Real Estate in the MTL Code states:
"No real estate owned by the Municipality shall be sold or leased except upon authorization of the Commission by Ordinance. [They passed a field sign ordinance, but they haven't followed up with advertising for bidders. They automatically assigned the sign space to sports groups.)
Additionally, no real estate owned by the municipality shall be sold or leased for consideration in excess of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), except to the highest bidder after public notice by advertisement bids or advertisement of public auction."
So when did the "leasing" of public field sign space get advertised and where are the competitive bids?
I'd say the commissioners are counting on a whole lot more than $1,500 from the lease of field sign space?
Another rule violation???
12:39, here is at least one resource for quick drying natural grass sports fields.
ReplyDeleteBe sure to watch the attached slide show of the field drying after a heavy rain.
http://www.usaturf.com/hummersportsturf/sand-grid/
I emailed this company with the specs from the MWC proposal, what I perceived the SAB was looking for in a field. They responded their system was an option, though there were others.
They also said their sand grid system could be installed at MWC for no more than $350,000.
They offered they would be happy to come to Lebo, look at our fields and present a proposal.
I forwarded the contact information to the commission.
I do not know if it didn't pan out or not, but I find it curious this alternative or similar ones couldn't solve our field problems better than artificially turfing one field.
And solve those problems in an enviromentally safe manner.
I still don't understand why the Brafferton plan was rejected by the commission. It will add a large rectangular field, parking and an access road for $845,000. It was rejected due to the high cost but the MWC plan that was approved is more expensive (over 1million) and will expose our kids to carcinogens and toxins due to rubber tire crumbs and plastic grass.
ReplyDeleteDoes the commission prefer MWC because the central location is desirable and convenient for the realtors to showcase the turf for prospective home buyers? If that is the case, how is that in the best interest of the children of MtL? Isn't this supposed to benefit the kids?
MWC is desirable to the 'lacrosser double-crossers' because it is centrally located and convenient to the Virginia Manor elite.
ReplyDeleteIt is a hop, skip and a jump for them and there is no prestige sending out-of-towners on a trek thru Sunset Hills!
It is the same reason they didn't want to do anything at McNeilly.
It's not covenient to drive thru Dormont or Baldwin to get to a 6:00 pm game.
Jefferson Field would be an availble site, but then the residents have to put up with increased traffic.
Mellon was Franklin's first choice for turfing, until they realized Middle School football was the first priority!
ReplyDeleteThe original draft of the most recent comprehensive plan (on file at the library) has as more anti-turf comments in it than the slim "we are going to turf something come hell or high water" section. In fact, there's a picture of wildcat field with little kids playing soccer above a quote against turf.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about soccer. A simple analysis of email frequency requesting donations from parents via soccer and lacrosse would demonstrate that lacrosse is much more vested in the outcome.
ReplyDeleteSoccer players want to play on a pool table (turf) as much as pool players want to play on grass. Add the toxicity, environmental impact, increased fees and it's a no brainer: GRASS IS BETTER.
2:50, soccer players prefer grass?
ReplyDeleteThen where have they been all this time. How come none have appeared before the commissioners voicing their opposition of artificial turf?
They're too short to reach the microphone or its past their bedtime.
ReplyDeleteDoes that go for their parents too?
ReplyDeleteI did not see anything in the commissioner's recap about the ESB or Parks Board or that the public was kicked out of a turf task force meeting, as the story was told
ReplyDelete3:45 PM, I guess you missed my comment from the other day.
ReplyDelete"Here is another recent article regarding artificial turf. It is from March 2014, not something from 2006 or 2007, which Dave Brumfield likes to use. Here are what 99 major league soccer players have to say about playing on plastic. Player Perceptions of Artificial Turf"
I don't know any of the 99 major league soccer players who would be willing to appear before the commission.
3:53 PM, thanks for that mental picture. :)
Elaine
I was assuming since the soccer comment referred to the number of solicitations for turf money that the soccer players they referred to were local soccer players, not 99 major leaguers. Are there any living in MTL, and have they been solicited to make a donation.
ReplyDeleteAre they too short to reach a microphone and have early bedtimes?
I believe we have heard from some soccer parents here. Their children will not be playing on these fields.
ReplyDeleteI am hoping that parents will come forward tomorrow evening and tell the commissioners directly.
Elaine
That is good. When are sign ups for youth soccer?
ReplyDeleteIf there is a dramatic drop in registrations that will be a loud message to the commissioners.
Louder than blog comments, louder than lawn signs, louder than standing at a microphone.
It is also harder for coaches to do intimadating drive-bys.
From SAB meeting minutes of 1/9/2014:
ReplyDeleteHe [Dave Franklin] indicated that fund raising was underway and the following commitments for
the project were made: Gateway Engineers ($4,000.00), baseball association
($25,000), football association ($5,000.00).
Question from baseball parent: Why were the parents who pay to have their children play every year and help to fundraise for the MLBA never informed that so much of MLBA monies ($25K!!) were going towards this project??
AND..does anyone else think it could be a conflict of interest that Gateway Engineers is committing money to this project that they've been helping to ram down our throats??
8:34 pm Parents of lacrosse and soccer players haven't been told what the donation is going to be from those groups either. Parents were never asked to provide any input until they were recently asked for donations.
ReplyDeleteSo, if parents involved in the various sports were never informed of the donations from their respective organizations until the recent solicitation for donations, who has Bendel been in discussions with all these years?
ReplyDeleteThis is the craziest thing I have ever seen. John Bendel wasn't "comfortable" sharing the amount of the donation from a private organization. Looks like soccer and now lacrosse isn't comfortable sharing the amount with anyone!
ReplyDeleteElaine
Lacrosse home page
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hometeamsonline.com/teams/?u=LEBOLAX&s=htosports&t=c
9:36/9:38 I think this is where the term "a select few" takes on true meaning.
ReplyDeleteWhat is sad is that people in this town are so afraid of retaliation that they will only remain anonymous . That speaks volumes for the problems with leadership in Mt. Lebanon .
ReplyDeleteDid anyone notice in John Bendel's letter that one of the purposes of the Sports Advisory Board is to "Receive and consider public comment and other public input regarding sports facilities and services." How does one do that? Does the SAB have a mailing address? An email address? A telephone hotline?
ReplyDeleteThis story appears in The Tribune Review on June 26, 2013.
ReplyDeletehttp://triblive.com/mobile/4255881-96/sports-board-fields
Pay close attention to the comment attributed to Dave Frannklin.
"Advocates hoped turf would make the fields available for more sports and would absorb more wear and tear than natural grass, but they never got support from a majority of commissioners. The sports groups next turned to Mellon, off Washington Road and Castle Shannon Boulevard, Franklin said.
“Given the sense among the board about which asset needs it the most, we believe that Mellon really is in line to be improved with artificial surface and lighting,” he said.
Commissioners John Bendel, Dave Brumfield and Kristen Linfante — a majority of the five-member panel — later voiced support for putting some of the money toward the advisory board's recommendations, though Kelly Fraasch and Matt Kluck had reservations about doing so without a clear plan for the improvements."
Once again...
“Given the sense among the board about which asset needs it the most, we believe that Mellon really is in line to be improved with artificial surface and lighting,” he [Franklin] said."
So as recently as June 2013 the commissioners supported the SAB notion that Mellon was next in-line for turf and lighting.
Bendel responds to a constituent in the email at the start of this chain: "The Plan development included significant opportunity for resident and stakeholder participation. A core planning team made up of a cross-section of representatives of boards and authorities led the process, and a variety of sub-teams focused on specific issues."
I would assume he is referring to Franklin and the sports groups (SAB?).
They suggested Mellon was in line for turf. According to the reporter Bendel, Brumfield and Linfante concurred.
So MWC hasn't been the focus FOR YEARS as Bendel claims. It had been discussed and rejected. Less than a year ago turfing Mellon was the focus at least by Dave Franklin and the sports groups!!!
Bend the truth much Bendel? Or is the Trib reporter lying?
Looking at the agenda for tomorrow night, I see that John Bendel will not be attending the meetings. That is unfortunate. I had some questions for him.
ReplyDeleteElaine
11:24 The Trib author writes another article in July, 2013 once again, highlighting Mellon as the field for turfing. I don't think Middle/Wildcat was made public until November, right?
ReplyDeleteWell lets see how this whole plan is going.
ReplyDeleteBuy Twin Hills and the sports groups will help fund a new field. Oopsie, that didn't work!
Turf the Rock Pile, maybe be indoor facility and the sports groups will help fund it. Ooopsie, maybe they won't.
Buy McNeilly and the sports groups will help fund new fields! Ooopsie again!!!
Let's turf MWC. The commissioners having been burned by the sports groups too many times reject the idea.
Franklin and sports groups recommend Mellon as the spot for turf and lighting. In a rare occassion, Brumfield, Linfante and Bendel concur with an advisory group.
One year later, bam the commissioners are hot to turf MWC. Andguess what Mikey, the sports groups are going to kick in 25% of the cost and continue to pour in money for its 8 year replacement.
Yes, Lebo certainly is the land of fairey tales and unicorns!!!
That is correct. I asked Kelly Fraasch when she first heard of the project. Listen to my comments from the April 29 post, http://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/2014/04/i-dont-know-where-to-begin.html?m=0
ReplyDeleteTurf has been discussed for years, but as of October 3, the SAB hadn't decided where to spend the chunk of change that Bendel was offering.
Elaine
November of last year, that'd be years ago in dog years wouldn't it, JB?
ReplyDeleteA year ago, wouldn't that just about coincide with the discovery that Pursuant Ketchum wasn't going to round up $15 million in contributions for the school district?
ReplyDeleteTherefore killing any plan that it would be able to foot a large portion of the Mellon turf/lighting idea.
11:50 pm. Hilarious. Dog years, JB.
ReplyDeleteThis current crop of leaders, the ones we blindly or perhaps apathetically allowed in office have more falbles and stories than Aesop.
ReplyDeleteLinfante... the ESB endorses artificial turf, MWC is the only viable alternative.
Bendel... MWC has been the plan for years.
Yeah, right. Caught you guys!
The free press, The Trib and Lebocitizens have proven you can't keep your stories straight.
Then there is Brumfield. We don't have to follow the advice of our advisory boards... but we will claim we're following the advice of our engineers, SAB and civil servants when they are on board with the turfing agenda, won't they?
Are you mad yet?
ReplyDeleteDo you now see why it's important to vote and understand who you are voting for?
The commission isn't going to listen to a petition (Dave Ballfield has already said that). The commission isn't listening at the meetings. They want you to go away. They got their ball field for their kids.
You voted for them (or approved of them by not voting at all).
That what you get when we elect Larry, Daryl, and Daryl!
ReplyDelete(Linfante, Dave, and Dave)
And another thing, there is no indication that the Parks Advisory Board representative on the SAB, represented the Parks Advisory Board's view of anything.
ReplyDelete6:50 Each time a election rolls around we get a knock on our door. The want-a-be commissioner or school board member tells you want they "Think" you want to hear. If I had a dollar for each school board candidate that said they would fight "till the end" to rein in teachers salaries I would be rich enough to move to South Fayette! That moron ended up being related to a teacher's union rep and gave teachers more NOT less. Let's face it.... For years we watched Dormont, City of Pittsburgh and Castle Shannon local governments run amok and laughed at how bad they were. Now Mt Lebanon has joined them. Upper St Clair, Peters, South Fayette joke at our "Monkey Politics".
ReplyDelete