What a monumental task! Going through a list of Google Docs, I have tried to list significant documents obtained either through Right To Knows at various government levels or emails. I hope it is helpful for those attending Saturday's Anti-Turf Project Protest.
*November 19, 2013, Linfante announces to a turf supporter that it will pass with 3 votes
and again here 3 votes plus White going after Fraasch again
Nobody wants organic infill according to Deiseroth
Gateway donates to turf project
White mocks ESB and "diffuse Kelly F"
Linfante battles with Fraasch
Linfante/Hrabovsky and igniting/ignoring
Darren Gill, VP of FieldTurf contacts Elaine Gillen
Technical deficiencies, including proposed zinc treatment system, identified by the Allegheny County Conservation District
Franklin's research papers including 2009 Ridgewood Park, NJ study ---> April 2011 Ridgewood repairs turf after flooding ---> August 2014 Ridgewood repairs artificial turf fields after costly flooding
Deiseroth requests infill with the least amount of lead
Franklin "rain on the organic parade"
Turf Project Task Force Presentation Spin Initial contributions and annual contributions
Deiseroth not billing us for his time spent fundraising
Addresses for April 24, 2014 "neighborhood meeting about the turf project"
McGill no Planning Board recommendation required for turf project
*Parks Advisory Board pushes back
* Environmental Sustainability Board's statement to the Commission concerning artificial turf and an audio montage of Linfante lying about the ESB's position on artificial turf
Fundraising updates, ESB reviews, Planning Board review - none occurred
McNitt "neutral third party to the project"
Bendel vetting McNitt
McNitt fee Not from Penn State, but from his own business
Morgans instructs McNitt - don't discuss potential harmful effects of artificial turf
ESB NOT cosponsoring McNitt presentation
McNitt's rehearsed answers for Q and A before presentation
Turf donation checks including $50,000 from Mt. Lebanon Baseball and $50,000 from Mt. Lebanon Soccer Gateway and other corporate donors are not identified by the Mt. Lebanon Community Endowment.
Silverman's economic plan
Deiseroth's future turf replacement cost estimate based on 108,000 sq. ft.
Evans misrepresenting himself to GeoTurf, Silverman contacted about hazardous materials in turf, Franklin berating Fraasch, Notes from initial Turf Project Task Force meeting
Application for NPDES Permit
Post Construction Stormwater Management Report
Department of Environmental Protection Responses and authorizing NPDES permit
Almanac Commissioners hear flooding and financial concerns
It never floods. Cedar Blvd. Closed due to Flooding
Fraasch on artificial turf
Update November 3, 2014 3:19 PM In addition to the videos that Albert Turfstein provided, please view the October 3, 2013 Sports Advisory Board Meeting. Click on Turf Project and watch Tim White say, "Mr. Bendel pissed away all the money we had."
*added at 9:51 PM
Update November 4, 2014 12:56 PM The Sports Advisory Board Meeting Agenda is available here. Comments are limited to five minutes. They are allocating ten minutes for Citizen Comments.
Update November 7, 2014 5:43 PM The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the Middle and Wildcat Fields artificial turf project
Certainly looks several Mt. Lebanon organizations are putting up some dough. Are those groups ignoring the will of all the people they represent too?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the baseball, softball, soccer, football, lacrosse and field hockey associations all want turf. Even basketball appears to want turf which I don't think works very well in their sport.
I think if you took a poll of all the people whose children play these sports whether they want turf you'd get a bunch of "Yes", a bunch of "No" and, most likely and overwhelming majority of "Doesn't Matter".
But I suspect if there was a scientific poll taken, the result would be "Yes" for turf. I hear your point, but in reality the conditions are quite poor of the fields. While the TCO are similar (+/- 10-15%) for turf vs natural over 10 to 20 years depending on the survey you look at their is no doubt that the annual maintenance costs are cheaper, so unless funds are going to be reserved and allocated for twice weekly mowing, fertilizing and over-seeding, divot replacement, leveling, aeration and replacement sod for heavy traffic areas during playing seasons there is no way a grass field can kept in the same "playing" condition as a turf field.
So, I'll go with grass if Mt. Lebanon is going to commit the same $750,000 for the next 10 years to that level of care on an annual basis for grass.
So, do the folks on this blog agree with that level of commitment to maintain a grass field at Wildcat/Middle or is it actually you don't want the money spent on athletics?
Additionally, don't misinterpret my $750,000. It's $75,000/year for 10 years. Not $750K/year. But also not $5,000 one year, $15,000 the next, then $90,000 the year after. $75,000 per year for this single field.
ReplyDeleteSign your name and let's discuss it openly. Here's your chance to make sure nobody misrepresents any of your details.
ReplyDelete8:43 AM, I am trying to find data which shows the cost of maintaining grass fields at Wildcat and Middle Fields. Would you mind sharing that with me? I would appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteIs that your only concern? I think the emails speak for themselves.
Elaine
8:43am, This is exactly the debate that has not not been allowed to occur. As for cost, the level of upfront and periodic capital offsets by many times any possibile gain in the reduction of annual maintenance. It also reduces future optionality on spending.
ReplyDeleteFrom conversations I have had with folks on both sides, a grass option with improved maintenance was a non-starter for those favoring artificial turf. The reason given was that time required to allow the grass fields to "rest" too long in duration. This pronouncement was most certainly not from a field maintenance expert.
I would have no problem committing greater annual maintenance to a grass field at Middle/Wildcat. It should satisfy everyone involved - better fields, cheaper cost, less risk, etc. That option has not been allowed to be discussed.
Construction on the drainage of the fields has begun. If both sides come to the table to discuss things in a reasonable manner, there is no reason the design could not be altered to include improved drainage and a natural grass playing surface.
Opposition to the artificial turf project would begin to fade away.
Parents would still have a choice about what sports their kids should play. The various sport associations get an improved playing surface. Sport associations would have to worry less about drop in enrollment. Potential health risks are negated. The town saves money. A win for all.
Would the sport associations agree to this?
And yes, we spend quite a bit of money on athletics. We bought Twin Hills, McNeilly, spend millions on a sports wing at the high school school, and over $4 million on the swimming pool. We pay top dollar for recreation directors, athletic directors, and coaches.
ReplyDeleteIs that the best you can come up with, 8:43/9:19 AM?
If you are unhappy with the amount of money being spent on athletics, please attend the budget reviews starting tonight. You may be surprised as to what the actual dollars spent on recreation/athletics are in Mt. Lebanon.
Elaine
Googling I've found the TCO from "pro-turf" spin and from "pro-grass" spin. Some that appear to be unspun, but throwing out the highs and lows they appear to all generally wind up at the point that it's generally wash when including all the costs of installation, maintenance, replacement/resodding and disposal (turf).
ReplyDeleteIf it's a wash from a cost standpoint over 10 to 20 year lifecycle depending on the model used, grass requires a higher level of annual maintenance while turf requires more upfront and disposal costs and typically in the longer term studies a mid-cycle replacement.
The number of usage events is a consideration so I'll lean to a higher number of events annually as opposed to a lower sub-100 number. The anticipated level of usage to maintain an equivalent playing surface between grass and turf would require a higher level of annual maintenance for grass.
Would it be acceptable to the group that doesn't want turf if a figure of roughly $750,000 was reserved for the exclusive use of maintenance for these specific fields without being allowed to be used for any other purpose besides maintenance? That's a "yes" or "no" question.
This amount, reserved exclusively, would appear to be enough to keep a grass field in the same playing surface as turf.
Grass instead of turf to alleviate the chemical exposure health concerns balanced by exclusively reserved maintenance funds to create a premium grass playing surface equivalent to turf. A win-win for all. Yes or no?
8:43, looking back at the YSA/School District/Municipality issue about field maintenance it is questionable as to whether these 3 entities spent a collective $75,000/year on maintenance for all of the fields in Mt. Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteWould I accept $750,000 over 10 years for maintenance at Wildcat/Middle? Certainly not!
But I would back a pause to have a turf expert come in and discuss exactly what we need to spend to maintain ALL of fields.
That investigation was never allowed to happen.
8:43, before we bloggers agree to any maintenance dollar amount, do you agree to having a professional come in and tell us what we need to do, like Cranberry did?
ReplyDeleteI think everybody would agree that the conditions at ALL of our fields leave something to be desired and PW is not up to the task.
http://www.holganix.com/how-we-help-you/email-archive/cranberry-township
“It was time to take it to the next step,”says Rebecca Auchter the Sports Turf Manager of Cranberry Township in western Pennsylvania. Auchter was referring to the turf program designed for Cranberry Township’s three parks, which contain 40 acres of athletic fields (the parks themselves total 300 acres of green space). The newest athletic field, known as the Dicks Sportsplex at Gram Park, contains 18 acres of fully irrigated turf. Not long after a phased opening in2008/2009, it was clear to Cranberry Township that they needed a professional to help maintain the quality of turf they have come to expect. Auchter, an Ohio State Turfgrass Management graduate, had spent the first 15 years of her career in the golf industry before delving into sports turf. She managed the grounds at Ohio Dominican University and then Washington and Jefferson College, so she was well suited for the task of managing Cranberry Township’s fields."
11:24--yes. I think that is a reasonable amount ($75,000/year) to maintain the natural grass fields. My children are adults now so I don't have a concern about them being exposed to toxic substances from playing on the fields. I just prefer natural grass to turf for a variety of reasons--most of them health and environment related. Also, because these fields are in such a visible location I think grass just looks better compared to ugly, plastic turf. The $75,000per year to keep the beautiful grass fields at WCM would be worth every penny. I really think that we need to have this discussion before it's too late to save these fields. Just an opinion from a 30 year resident of the great state of Mt. Lebo!
ReplyDeleteI checked page 47 of the 2015 Manager's Recommended Budget available here
ReplyDeleteSee service level number 2.
"2. Repairs and General Maintenance.
Increases park refuse collection to daily pickup in the summer. Bi-weekly maintenance inspections determine repairs and cleaning necessary to maintain park beautification and prevent equipment deterioration. Basic plumbing and electrical repairs are provided. Municipal ballfields are mowed weekly to include preseason preparation and regular maintenance."
And what is that number? $120,890
But here is the strange part. The 2014 Manager's Recommended Budget which includes maintaining Middle and Wildcat is only $87,600 on page 47.
See service level number 2.
"2. Repairs and General Maintenance.
Increases park refuse collection to daily pickup in the summer. Bi-weekly maintenance inspections
determine repairs and cleaning necessary to maintain park beautification and prevent equipment deterioration. Basic plumbing and electrical repairs are provided. Municipal ballfields are mowed weekly to include preseason preparation and regular maintenance. "
Both include five ballfields, even though 2015 should be maintained by the School District.
Elaine
Interesting Elaine.
ReplyDeleteIs the following just one of the revenue sources that allows MTL magazine to show a minor profit?
Page 48 - Park Maintenance
Item #4. [$5,000] Deer Management Education (Current Level) Provides for funds to educate the community on deer management strategies.
Where does the $5,000 go and for what?
These documents are fascinating, especially when read one after the other. What I have learned so far:
ReplyDelete(1) The inmates are running the asylum; and
(2) The inmates are also bullying Kelly F. regularly... she must seem more like a "resident" to them, because that's exactly the same condescending attitude they have towards people during Citizens Comments.
- Jason M.
*Page 43 of the 2014 Manager's Recommended Budget, not page 47. 2015 should show three ballfields, not five, since the School District agreed to maintain Middle and Wildcat.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Elaine...did the District actually sign the maintenance contract for WC/M turf fields ? If so, starting when ?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the July 21, 2014 minutes,
ReplyDeleteIt was moved by Kubit and seconded by Cooper that the Board approves the agreement with the Municipality for maintenance of their turf field and authorizes the Superintendent to sign the agreement. (Copy in official minutes.)
ROLL CALL: For: Birks, Cooper, Kubit, Lebowitz, Moorhead, Riemer,
Cappucci
Against: Remely
MOTION APPROVED
Elaine
See Update: "Mr. Bendel pissed away all the money that we had."
ReplyDeleteElaine
95% of Bendel and Brumfield's assertions are lies. Keep that in mind. When they aren't busy lying, the staff do it for them. #itsreallythatbad
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the quote from Bendel that "He pissed away all the money WE had". Who is "We"?
ReplyDeleteElaine @ 1:04 PM. I seem to recall from a muni doc, possibly from a RTK several months ago posted on this blog, that the annual muni maintenance cost for WC/M natural grass fields was only about $21,000. Can you confirm that ?
ReplyDeleteIf so, this compares now to $87,600 on page 47 of the Managers recommended 2015 budget for artificial turf, which is almost $57,000/ year higher than natural grass ! If this is true, a number of elected and appointed officials should be sued and jailed.
8:21 PM. Sorry, I'm a Lebo grad using TERC Math above - the difference is really almost $67,000/year higher, not $57,000.
ReplyDeleteI still need to add three more links. I have to add the ESB's position on artificial turf, the Parks Advisory's position on artificial turf, and the email where Kristen said that they have three votes and that it will pass, BEFORE THE VOTE!
ReplyDeleteElaine
7:59 The "we" in the money "we had" is the Sports Advisory Board. I know this because my block and residents from area streets petitioned for sidewalks during 2013 (after already petitioning in 2005) and we were not told about the unassigned funds despite repeatedly approaching John Bendel about appropriate methods for obtaining sidewalks in Mt Lebanon on our street. The street met qualifications as a hazardous walking route for children by the PA Code.
ReplyDeleteI only learned about the funds when someone told me to look into this blog and Kelly Fraasch's. Both blogs contained essential information about capital projects, unassigned funds, and an upcoming meeting to discuss spending.
-Kerry
I added the links mentioned in my 9:30 PM comment.
ReplyDeleteBrumfield has seen dozens of studies and not a single one says that turf creates any risk. I guess he missed the ones sent by Kelly Fraasch. See the last link "Fraasch on artificial turf."
What a bunch of scumbags.
Elaine
Regarding the last link: "Fraasch on artificial turf": it appears that only Kelly has done any kind of due diligence regarding artificial turf. She is the only Commissioner that has any integrity!
ReplyDeleteYou mean you didn't get FREE sidewalks like those "certain" people on Crystal Drive?
ReplyDelete8:43, 11:24, 12:51
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of maintaining Wildcat/Middle is a good one, but how did we suddenly arrive at $75,000 for annual maintenance?
See the info below from the University of Arkansas and Michigan State University.
Read what it contains one has to wonder what kind of maintenance has been done on our fields and who's doing it!
http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html
"Maintenance
It is a myth that synthetic fields require less maintenance than natural turfgrass fields or to say that artificial turf fields are maintenance free. Synthetic fields require 1) additional infill, 2) irrigation because of unacceptably high temperatures on warm-sunny days, 3) chemical disinfectants, 4) sprays to reduce static cling and odors, 5) drainage repair and maintenance, 6) erasing and repainting temporary lines, and 7) removing organic matter accumulation. In a recent presentation by the Michigan State University, Certified Sports Turf Manager, she cited that the typical annual maintenance costs of her artificial turf fields ranged from $13,720-$39,220, while the typical annual maintenance costs of her natural turf fields had a similar range of $8,133-$48,960 (1).
Long-term costs
Long-term costs are less with natural turf fields compared to synthetic turf fields. Artificial fields need replacing every 8-10 years, whereas a natural turf field does not need as frequent renovation and can be renovated at a much reduced price compared to an artificial field. In a 16-year scenario, Fresenburg came up with an annual average cost for each field type as follows: the natural soil-based field, $33,522; the sand-cap grass field, $49,318; the basic synthetic field, $65,846; and the premium synthetic field, $109,013 (2).
Disposal costs
When artificial turf (in-fill systems) needs renovating every 8-10 years, there is a hidden cost of disposal. Because the field is filled and top-dressed with a crumb rubber material (typically made from ground automobile tires), the material may require special disposal. Disposal costs are estimated at $130,000 plus transportation and landfill charges (3).
Warranty concerns
Artificial turf (in-fill type) is a relatively new product. As such, its complete life span and maintenance requirements are not fully known. When considering the purchase of one of these systems, the answer to several questions should be researched prior to purchase. These questions include (adapted from Natural Grass and Artificial Turf: Separating Myths and Facts)(3):"
The Sports Advisory Board Meeting Agenda for Thursday's meeting is available here. Comments are limited to five minutes. They are allocating ten minutes for Citizen Comments.
ReplyDeleteElaine
What does Dave Brumfield and the President have in common? Approval numbers! Under 30%... Take out their families and the number is in the upper teens.
ReplyDeleteMaking some assumptions, based on available data, Cranberry is a town of comparable size; 30,000 residents vs about 33,000 for Mt. Lebanon. Cranberry has 40 athletic fields vs 14 for Mt. Lebanon including schools. That's a field for every 750 residents in Cranberry vs one per every 2,750 here. A ratio of 3.67:1.
ReplyDeleteCranberry hosts according to their website 3,755 field games. An average of 93.75 events per field. Assuming that the two towns offer similar rec and sports association activities this would mean each this would mean each field in Lebo would host 312.91 events per year.
Using the 213 days between April 1 and Oct 31 as the prime usage period that's less than half, 0.44, events per field per day in Cranberry. It's 1.47 per day here. It's over 3.33 tines the use. It's as though our 12 fields hosted 12,500 events in 213 days as compared to Cranberry.
At that level of use it is no surprise that our grass fields are in poor condition. The traffic is too high for the grass to recover from the use.
What we need is at least a dozen more fields. But given the availability of land this is really not possible. There is no space for a dozen more fields.
In order to be able to play on a field were the grass is not divot filled and worn down, turf would seem like the logical conclusion. While expensive, given a lack of available space, it would seem the logical choice.
Assuming our level of usage is similar to Cranberry, we have too few fields for our population. The solution is either more fields, turf or a reduction in activities that use the fields. More fields in not possible. Parents want these activities for their children. So this leaves turf fields in my opinion. Either that or reduce the number of baseball and soccer events that are the primary users of these fields. So are those parent whose children play soccer and baseball OK with reducing the number of scheduled games by their children by half? It would be best for the condition of the fields and potentially eliminate the need for turf.
12:09, Have all the fields you want turf or grass, beautifully maintained or not, JUST HAVE THE PARENTS PAY FOR THEM IF THAT IS WHAT THEY WANT.
ReplyDeleteTo 12:09:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure Cranberry has 40 fields. I think their site mentions 40 acres of athletic fields. From my count, Cranberry has 29 fields (baseball or rectangular) and Mt. Lebanon has 21 fields (baseball or rectangular).
That's not bad considering the topographical differences between Cranberry and Mt. Lebanon. Adding the rock pile field and new fields at Robb Hollow as proposed by Commissioner Fraasch would have made the total number of fields close. The main issue is that Mt. Lebanon lacks regulation-size soccer/football/lacrosse fields, not really the total number of fields. I think a better scheduling and maintenance plan would help the natural grass fields. Adding more grass fields, which was proposed, would also have helped.
Here's my math for MTL fields (please correct me:
Jefferson (softball, baseball, and football/soccer for 3 total)
Lincoln (2 baseball)
Foster (2 baseball)
Howe (1 baseball)
Markham (2 baseball)
Mellon (football and baseball for 2 total)
Bird (football/soccer)
W/M (2 baseball)
Dixon (1 baseball)
MTL HS (1 football/soccer)
Brafferton (1 baseball)
KO HS (football and 2 baseball)
Seton HS (football)
12:09 AM, are those soccer and baseball parents OK with these fields being turned into Brumfield's lacrosse fields? Are the parents OK with having to buy different shoes for these two fields? Is that why the high school turf didn't last four years, because they didn't comply?
ReplyDeleteCranberry is almost 23 square miles. Mt. Lebanon is 6. Mt. Lebanon has an older population. Is this your comeback to all the RTK information I shared here? Don't give me that crap abut the grass fields being in poor condition. Middle and Wildcat were our best fields. Brumfield told us that it is being turfed for our realtors' road show. We were told that the fields never flood. We were told that the non-municipal funds were going to be 25% of the cost of the turf project. Why haven't any of the commissioners answered my email as to the cost of DEP's changes for stormwater management will be? The DEP tells us that the changes are very expensive. Will the parents or the secret corporate sponsors pick up that expense? I sent this email on October 30 to Steve Feller, Dan Deiseroth, and the commissioners. "Based on the required upgrades for stormwater management, the DEP told us that the changes will be quite expensive. What is the new cost of the project? Will the SAB be contributing more funds to cover their 25% obligation?" I heard nothing.
Your story is weak, 12:09 AM. I threw you a bone by publishing it. This entire project has been a series of lies. The commission, SAB members and Mt. Lebanon staff bullied Mt. Lebanon taxpayers. You're a disgrace.
Elaine
You're the disgrace here. It is just so clear you intent. Middle was NOT our best field. Ever. If you knew anything, you would know that Wildcat is a high school field. Middle is a Little League Field. The outfield section of Middle was a swamp after rains. Literally water and mud up to your ankles swamp. The best field in the district is Dixon. That field is also Little League. If you really think the 'older population' should run the roost, maybe all the families here should leave. Then you can figure out why your taxes are going up. My neighbors are older and all their children are grown. The totally support turf and more rec facilities because they are smart enough to know that the only thing people come here for is the school district. Without young families, the rest of you are screwed in terms of taxation. Regardless of your stance on turf, these fields are overused and in deplorable condition. Kids do not need special shoes, these kids play on turfed fields in Peters, USC, Moon, West Mifflin, and the list goes on. And for Pete's sake, stop using bullying! If anyone is a bully it is people here who attack and threaten!
ReplyDelete1209:
ReplyDeleteAgain, using a false premise doesnt lend any credibility to the issue. Classifying artificial turf as a "need" is dishonest. It is a luxury. It is a want. It is not a "need".
I have said it before and I will say it again--if the concern is the creation of additional playing slots by virtue of adding sports, the problem is easily fixed. Say no to your kids. It's a great life lesson to impart. Thr message is, you can't always get what you want (unless, apparently, you are a Lebo school board member or commissioner and can lie and cheat your way through the municipal process).
Comparing Cranberry to Lebo is also dishonest. Strike that. It's delusional. It's like comparing Lebo to USC or Peter's. Not even close. Thanks to the brilliant spending habits of the school board and the lack of fiscal restraint bythe commission, our lovely hamlet has lost its shine. Additional wasteful projects won't help. Here's some food for thought. If those who pushed this asinine project are proud of it and believe its truly an "investment" in the community, why not be transparent with all the information? Who are the corporate funding sources? How much will the drainage cost? How will the sports groups who have now appropriated public land pay for all the maintenance?
8:17 AM, your comment is priceless, too good to not approve.
ReplyDeleteLet's take it one step at a time. Wildcat Field belongs to the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon, not the Mt. Lebanon School District. We do not have Little League in Mt. Lebanon. Does Middle flood or doesn't it? I hear conflicting stories. Gateway says it doesn't flood. You say it's water and mud up to your ankles. Again, Dixon is not a District Field. It is a municipal field. An example of a District field would be the high school turf which is in poor condition, with worn spots and holes.
Our school district taxes are increasing. So far, our municipal taxes are not, unless Kristen gets her way and adds deer culling as a line item in our budget. Our municipal taxes are so high that the slush fund, I mean unassigned funds, are being used to fund the turf project.
Now, about the special shoes. Please watch Andrew McNitt's presentation from June 12, 2014. He talked in length about the special shoes needed. During Citizen Comments, a resident, who played professional soccer, told commissioners about routine shoe inspections prior to games. Bendel and Brumfield took notes during his comments. That is on video, as well. Perhaps Brumfield will deny that too.
Elaine
8:17
ReplyDeleteAmazing. The fields are "overused" and in deplorable condition. That's odd considering I spent a lot of time this summer driving by those "deplorable" fields, on dry days, and saw throngs of...crickets. Yeah. No kids. Same thing with other fields. Might sound a bit OCD oriented but there were days idle curiosity got the better of me and I would visit a number of locations in Lebo on days that, as a kid or teen, I would have considered perfect for outdoor recreation. Where was everyone?
This whole thing is sadly ridiculous. Had it not been for the amount of money and the layers of deceit involved, it would be pretty amusing. But please stop with the comments. It's embarrassing. Elderly couples are in favor of turf? Really? "The only thing people come here for is the school district". Mmm, not so much. Might want to get out of the bubble more often. There are other communities where that's true like USC, Peter's, South Fayette and on and on. And if it's about the schools, what the hell does that have to do with turfing municipal fields? They're still public, right? Or did I miss the meeting where the commission deeded the land to a private entity?
Grow up. You want more facilities for junior to chase a dream as a superstar? Then go buy some land and do it yourself. But stop pushing for the rest of us to pay for it. Let me resort to the line I've hears so many time from anonymous posters--"If you don't like it, move." Go to Cranberry. Apparently, they have enough field space to keep you and the other four sports zealots happy. It's not that far. OOHHH, better idea. Wait until the turf is done, then put your house on the market. Let's see if that "crown jewel" of plastic and ground up rubber really does help increase home values. Put your money where your...house is?
Your ignorance of how the fields are used is priceless. The point was Wildcat is USED by high school aged kids. Middle is used by Little League aged kids (up to age 12) and is not suitable for older kids. As is Dixon. I could address all your comments one by one, but the fact remains that a project you are not in favor of is happening. I was not in favor of a skate park being added to Main Park. On that one, I got my way. I was not in favor of a renovation of the high school. I didn't get my way on that unfortunately, but I don't accuse people of being liars, cheats, attack their families, and go after them in a disgusting manner. You didn't get your way, have your opinion, but clean up your act. Rec facilities are part of any community and if you don't support that, maybe you should move rather than tell those of us that want decent rec facilities to move.
ReplyDelete11:08, so what if the fields are used by the age groups you offer or not or by the school district or not. Every field in MTL has been neglected or poorly maintained for years.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they are SD or muni. Doesn't mean a hill of beans since both are financed by the same groups of taxpayers.
If you asked, I would agree we need a dedicated soccer/lacrosse field. Maybe two, but if you're asking them to be turf you're losing me.
The plan for WC/M is ludicrous and no matter what surface we put on it, only one HS-age sport can be played there at a time, so it does little to aleve field shortages.
Wow, you're really angry. You should address that. And for the record, I didn't go after your family. How could I do that when you don't have the integrity or self-respect to sign your name? Who are you?
ReplyDeleteBecause you seem slow, I'll try again. See if you can keep up, Mr. Anonymous.
The turf is not a need. It is a want. You obviously agree with me since you classify it as such: "but the fact remains that a project you are not in favor of is happening. I was not in favor of a skate park being added to Main Park. On that one, I got my way. I was not in favor of a renovation of the high school. I didn't get my way on that unfortunately". So you and I are on opposite sides in terms of what we favor. Got it.
So this is all about getting your way. Yeah, that's the underlying point. The turf is not a necessity.
Rec facilities are a part of any community. So is respect for fellow residents and the governmental process. I have to assume your ego is sorely bruised because you're either a current commissioner or a dear friend of one. If you're a commissioner, you're simply lending support to another of my points, which is this entire process ran counter to what we should all expect from a local government entity--transparency, honesty, respect, intelligent debate and an environment that fosters a dialogue. Instead, we had troglodytes threatening to hang a commissioner, some clown puffing out his chest and accosting women, a wholly dismissive attitude on the part of four of the five commissioners, a shady and secretive "municipal board" that still refuses to disclose its funding sources (and violated the MPC by throwing someone out of their meeting), no real visible support save for two meetings in which a handful of people showed up in support (versus the countless meetings where people have spoken in opposition), empty field space all summer that stands in direct contrast to a narrative about the poor waifs who have to play in grass and have no open times, and in your latest screed, you lament playing when the fields are wet even though there were a dozen daddies out there with signs in their grass pushing to let their children play even when it rains. Did I miss anything?
Clean up my act? I'd say my "act" is pretty much on target. Sign your name or stop posting. Demonstrate you actually stand behind this project. And to your dismay, I'm not going anywhere...
11:08 why don't you move instead of making people buy into your silly artificial turf.
ReplyDeleteYou could move say to Fox Chapel, where an individual donor ponied up $850,000 for an artificially turf ballfied.
No here in Lebo, the vast pro-sport majority that expects their property values to skyrocket due to artificial turf could only find their way to come up with a puny $250,000.
what a joke.
Who cares who is SUPPOSED to USE the fields? I can count on 1 hand the times WC/M was in use from May 2014 through present on my way home between 4:30-5:30 p.m. If it was being used at all, it was by neighborhood kids fooling around, playing frisbee, etc. Stop parroting the de-bunked myth that MTL needs more field slots. Kelly Fraash's Robb Hollow plan would have alleviated the supposed "field slot myth" AND "field recovery hoax" by adding micro soccer fields. ADDING FIELDS!
ReplyDeleteYou haven't done a very good job in masking your premeditated intentions for this project. It's clear that mediocre little Jimmy is coming of age for potential NCAA recruitment and you want to maximize the chances of scouts coming to The Bubble to catch Little Jimmy in action.
What if Little Jimmy could attract scouts on the merits of his talent and not through Big Daddy touting his taxpayer-funded field to anyone with a scholarship to pass out...?
Karma is a bitch.
12:09 once again a pro-turfer shows their ignorance of the facts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, if Cranberry has 40 fields... name them. I believe 8:01 is correct that Cranberry has 29.
Second, according to 2010 census:
MTL population 18 and younger is
8,218 or 24.8%.
Cranberry's population 18 and younger is 8,626 or 30.7%.
Cranberry is one of Western PA's fastest growing areas although I can't immediately get my hands on the 2012 population. Its also skewing younger families.
Mt Lebanon on the other is shrinking, losing people from 2010 to 2012. Its also aging.
I really doubt that turfed "crown jewel" on Cedar and the coming tax increases necessary to support it is going to reverse the above numbers.
11:08 AM, I don't plan on approving any more of your comments. I am aware of who uses them, but wanted to clarify whose fields they are, since you were misleading readers.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I told nobody to move. We have spent millions of dollars for recreation in Mt. Lebanon, obviously not enough for you.
You say you don't accuse people of being liars, but isn't that what you are doing to me? I provided documented proof, most of which came from Right To Knows or Mt. Lebanon videos.
I think we're done, 11:08 AM.
Elaine
I am not understanding anyone's position about the need for turf and when we have residents flooding and the community at large looking, well, hungover or blah. Years ago this town was stunning and our littered streets, lack of maintenance, weed laden plots of land at our entrances, rundown main streets and crappy parks make the township look shabby and undesirable. So we have state of the art recreation facilities but everything else looks terrible and that is ok. I would say we need to check our priorities.
ReplyDeleteAdditional fields should have been Commissioner Brumfield's golden ticket and he should have pushed for the RH plan with Commissioner Frasch. No doubt in my mind that Commissioner Brumfield missed the opportunity of being a hero-star community leader instead he chose to be a slimy politician.
ReplyDeleteJason M you could not have said it better and I have been wondering the same thing.
ReplyDeleteWhat a different community this would be without some of those inmates.
We need to demand our commissioners begin cleaning house if they are seeking votes.
Brumfield is so myopic he couldn't see or understand the potential health hazards of artificial turf when they were laid out right in front of his face.
ReplyDeleteIt is not hard to imagine that possibly the beauty of the Robb Hollow Plan was far to complex for him comprehend.
Here's an idea for the Commissioners.
ReplyDeleteRather than buying a new leaf vacuum truck, lets buy a tire grinder.
That way residents can skip the old tire disposal fee when they buy new tires. Then put their used tires curbside where Public Works will pick them up, grind them and then spread them over Wildcat/Middle and the HS fields.
We save money on tire disposal fees and don't have to buy crumb rubber from FieldTurf.
A win, win!
It would get OSHA off of our backs. OSHA was down at the fields yesterday, because Mt. Lebanon isn't follow the rules again. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Someone is getting cited.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Another muni just like ours with certain commissioners who want their pet project. McNitt was also at the meeting. Anonymous.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-lehighvalley/most-lower-mac-commissioners-favor-synthetic-athletic-fields/29425354
I hope people realize that Brumfield isn't myopic. He may actually believe there is a risk to the fields but he does NOT care. He has an agenda -- his own personal agenda -- and he will do anything to have it succeed. He has stabbed his own "friends" in the back using information he has gained as a public official for his own personal gain.
ReplyDeleteBrumfield and his buddies (Bendel, Feller, Weis, Deiseroth, Donnellan) are beyond "breaking bad". They are BAD. They have learned to lie and get away with it. I highly recommend contacting higher authorities. That's what I am doing...
So what happened to 8:43 , who wrote they'd go along with grass if the muni would commit $75/year towards its maintenance?
ReplyDeletePeople agreed to look into some sort of maintenance commitment to a grass field so where'd they run off too?
Correction@5:15
ReplyDeleteThat should $75k/year.
Good question, 5:15!
ReplyDelete