Below is a segment of the November 8, 2014 rally that took place at Clearview Common in Uptown Mt. Lebanon.
Kelly speaks at the end of the rally and asks residents to contact State Representative Dan Miller, Senator Matt Smith, Congressman Tim Murphy, and City Council Sue Means. As soon as I get that snippet, I will add it to this post.
Unfortunately, Mt. Lebanon residents were unable to get an attorney to file an appeal with the Environmental Hearing Board. The Environmental Hearing Board has jurisdiction over appeals of DEP permits. Here is a link to their website: http://ehb.courtapps.com/public/rulesDecisionsAndResources.php.
The permit was issued October 16. I imagine tomorrow would be the last day to file.That website has information regarding the process, however to file an appeal you must register on this website, if you plan to file electronically. You can also download paper forms and mail them: ehb.courtapps.comAn aggrieved party typically has 30 days to appeal the issuance or denial of a permit.
Update November 14, 2014 12:53 PM Letter sent to commissioners.
| From: | egillen476 <egillen476@aol.com> |
| To: | commission <commission@mtlebanon.org> |
| Cc: | sfeller <sfeller@mtlebanon.org>; philip.weis <philip.weis@bipc.com> |
| Subject: | Another group of local pediatricians speak out against toxic turf |
| Date: | Fri, Nov 14, 2014 12:52 pm |
Commissioners,
A second pediatric group is now warning their parents about toxic turf. Pediatrics South just added a post on the dangers of artificial turf on their Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Pediatrics-South/115097255209738 This is in addition to the pediatric group, Pediatric Alliance, I mentioned during Citizen Comments at the November 11, 2014 commission meeting.
In case you missed it, Kelly Fraasch was on NPR in Philadelphia last evening. Here is a link to it and a portion of the rally from November 8.
http://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/2014/11/kelly-fraasch-on-npr-in-philadelphia.html
Any update on the new costs? Considering you started the project almost four weeks ago, I would think you would know something by now. Personally, you should have known the new cost PRIOR to the start of construction. From your website, we were told that the total cost of the project would be $888,000. See below.
What a sham!
Elaine Gillen
A second pediatric group is now warning their parents about toxic turf. Pediatrics South just added a post on the dangers of artificial turf on their Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Pediatrics-South/115097255209738 This is in addition to the pediatric group, Pediatric Alliance, I mentioned during Citizen Comments at the November 11, 2014 commission meeting.
In case you missed it, Kelly Fraasch was on NPR in Philadelphia last evening. Here is a link to it and a portion of the rally from November 8.
http://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/2014/11/kelly-fraasch-on-npr-in-philadelphia.html
Any update on the new costs? Considering you started the project almost four weeks ago, I would think you would know something by now. Personally, you should have known the new cost PRIOR to the start of construction. From your website, we were told that the total cost of the project would be $888,000. See below.
On July 8, 2014, the Mt. Lebanon Commissioners awarded the contract to Vasco Sports Contractors for Base Bid 1 - Blended Turf with Thatch Zone with Sand and Rubber Infill ($859,000)
Add Alternate 6 - Storm Filtration System ($21,000) and
Add Alternate 9 - Water Fountain ($8,000)
for a total price of $888,000, subject to:
a) Receipt of the NPDES permit,
b) Receipt of $250,000 of non-municipal funds, and
c) Review and approval of all contract language by the Solicitor and Municipal Manager.
Elaine Gillen
-----Original Message-----
From: Kristen Linfante <klinfante@mtlebanon.org>
To: egillen476 <egillen476@aol.com>
Cc: sfeller <sfeller@mtlebanon.org>; philip.weis <philip.weis@bipc.com>; <commission@mtlebanon.org> <commission@mtlebanon.org>
Sent: Fri, Nov 14, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: Another group of local pediatricians speak out against toxic turf
Ms Gillen,
I'm so glad you brought this to our attention. Pediatrics South is the practice I use. Of course, I immediately called them to find out where they stand on the issue. This is what I was told. I was told that an "irate" woman has been repeatedly calling their office and demanding that they address the issue because other pediatricians have. They told me that after so many repeated calls by you - I mean by "the woman " - that Dr Tyson said he was NOT willing to make a statement or take a stand on turf, but that to appease the irate caller and to get her to stop calling, he agreed to allow the article to be posted on their Facebook page. That is all. Pediatrics South has not taken a stand against turf. I know Dr Tyson personally, and I feel more confident than ever about my vote.
I would suggest that you stop badgering doctors and allow them to spend their precious time treating patients rather than dealing with calls like the ones you are clearly making.
Kristen Linfante
Wow, Kristen. You've really gone too far. I went to school with Scott. He was also my son's pediatrician. I never called his office or any pediatrician's office.
I wish I had the money to sue you. You are as toxic as the turf.
Elaine Gillen
From: Kristen Linfante <klinfante@mtlebanon.org>
To: egillen476 <egillen476@aol.com>
Cc: sfeller <sfeller@mtlebanon.org>; philip.weis <philip.weis@bipc.com>; <commission@mtlebanon.org> <commission@mtlebanon.org>
Sent: Fri, Nov 14, 2014 1:23 pm
Subject: Re: Another group of local pediatricians speak out against toxic turf
Ms Gillen,
I'm so glad you brought this to our attention. Pediatrics South is the practice I use. Of course, I immediately called them to find out where they stand on the issue. This is what I was told. I was told that an "irate" woman has been repeatedly calling their office and demanding that they address the issue because other pediatricians have. They told me that after so many repeated calls by you - I mean by "the woman " - that Dr Tyson said he was NOT willing to make a statement or take a stand on turf, but that to appease the irate caller and to get her to stop calling, he agreed to allow the article to be posted on their Facebook page. That is all. Pediatrics South has not taken a stand against turf. I know Dr Tyson personally, and I feel more confident than ever about my vote.
I would suggest that you stop badgering doctors and allow them to spend their precious time treating patients rather than dealing with calls like the ones you are clearly making.
Kristen Linfante
Commissioner, Ward 3
Sent from my iPhone
To which I replied with:
Please forgive any texting typos
From:egillen476 <egillen476@aol.com>
To:klinfante <klinfante@mtlebanon.org>
Cc:sfeller <sfeller@mtlebanon.org>; philip.weis <philip.weis@bipc.com>; commission <commission@mtlebanon.org>
Subject:Re: Another group of local pediatricians speak out against toxic turf
Date:Fri, Nov 14, 2014 1:28 pm
|
Wow, Kristen. You've really gone too far. I went to school with Scott. He was also my son's pediatrician. I never called his office or any pediatrician's office.
I wish I had the money to sue you. You are as toxic as the turf.
Elaine Gillen
67 comments:
Congrats to Lebo Citizens & Kelly & the "small group" of people who are concerned about children playing on crumb tires.
Of note, I think that if a resident wants to submit to the EHB, that the state might just give them an extra week or so to submit... given the history (*&^!) of this particular permit.
#justhoping
Any plans to hand out information to parents when kids signup for the sports that will use these fields?
Come on. A lawyer must be able to do this for the community.
All you lawyers outraged about this what are you waiting for?
8:26AM, I was wondering the same thing about the statement "Mt. Lebanon residents were unable to get an attorney to file an appeal with the Environmental Hearing Board."
Not one attorney in universe of take-a-buck attorneys was not found to file an appeal?
Pediatrics South posted about crumb rubber on their facebook site. Interesting to see local pediatricians getting interested.
Thank you for letting us know that, 11:28 AM. Here is a link to their Facebook page. Pediatrics South
Thanks, Pediatrics South!
Elaine
#justhoping
A lawyer is needed.
The $888,000 is the contract cost of the project, and the major component of what are called the "hard costs". Don't forget to include the "soft costs" for architect & engineering (i.e. Sauer & Gateway) plus permits, insurance and inspection fees which were estimated by Gateway to be $111,000 but will be much higher. Also not included are the supposedly unknown additional costs for the added PA DEP storm water requirements not included in the bids or contract award.
Pediatrics South, the commissioners don't need you opinion.
They don't need to listen to citizens, doctors, advisory boards, newspapers or anyone else... they have the three votes.
They know better than everybody.
I can't take any more of Kristen Linfante. I am looking for an ethical attorney to represent me. Please email me at EGillen476@aol.com.
Thanks.
Elaine
3:08: Wow! I believe we live in a democracy and there is nothing wrong in regards to "civil discourse!" Who are You to try and dominate ANY conversations at any time in regards to how our taxes are spent. We taxpayers have every right to ask questions at any time! You must have too much time on your hands to sit around, target scapegoats, then bully them! You. Need. Help!
Wait a minute, 5:51 PM. My 4:04 PM comment had nothing to do with 3:08 PM. Please read my 3:42 PM update.
Elaine
Fieldturf customer 100 miles up the road just launched a lawsuit against the company!
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/pawdce/1:2014cv00265/219520
Allegheny College had their field installed in June 2006.
Scott Livingston, are you out there somewhere? He did a great job representing (at no cost) The Newcomers.
- Jason M.
7:07, do you know what the circumstances are? Why the lawsuit? I don't have a Pacer account otherwise I would check myself.
Nick M
3:08, I was mocking a comment made by one of the commissioners who said they didn't need to heed anyone's advice because they had the three votes needed.
Nick M - There was another lawsuit from an Allegheny County school system not too long ago re: field failure. I am not sure if it was against Fieldturf or not. I read about it a few months ago.
I keep seeing ads on TV from mesothelioma attorneys and transvaginal mesh implant attorneys. Pretty soon, we will be seeing ads for toxic turf. Attorneys at classaction.org are now talking about synthetic turf lawsuits.
Still feeling more confident than ever about your vote, Kristen? I think a couple of your peers - not so much.
Elaine
This attorney should be well schooled and qualified to help defend Pennsylvania's Environmental Rights Amendment since he drafted it in 1967 and introduced it as legislation. If not him, then perhaps he could refer to someone else locally.
Franklin L. Kury. (Harrisburg, PA). 717.257.3045 fkury@reedsmith.com
The DEP expected an appeal. In fact, one significant DEP official even went so far as describe the work of the Environmental Hearing Board to a resident.
Just because the DEP issued the permit does not mean they support or would defend the this project in reference to the Pennsylvania Env Rights Amendment.
This week's report from Steve Feller had a couple of paragraphs which were rather pathetic. AR 111414
First, Feller gives an update on the swimming pool which was a rush job. Then he goes into the turf project, another rush job, which he has no idea of the cost.
Elaine
Snow on Monday. #karma
I agree Elaine, with broken return lines already in need of repair on a brand new filtration system and the entire pool needing re-painting in addition to many other repairs, the pool renovation was rushed. I guess this is what $5.3 million gets you.
Nick M.
Correction @8:49.
5:51, 3:08 comment was sarcasm!
Like Dr. Sheldon Cooper, the fictional character on "The Big Bang Theory," it is difficult for some to recognize sarcasm, especially when it is posted here anonymously. To avoid confusion, I'm asking for one of two things when using sarcasm to make a point. Please identify yourself to readers so that we may have a better understanding of your comment OR indicate somehow that your comment is sarcastic.
I lied. One more thing. Try to avoid using the word "You" when expressing disapproval. It is much less confusing to readers when the criticism is directed to a specific comment or person.
Thanks.
Elaine
Elaine:
Along with your post of 8:12 AM I suggest that anyone posting comments take a moment or two to proofread them before hitting the "Publish Your Comment" button. I've been reading material on this Blog since it was established, and much of the animosity generated from time to time is due to the - how should I put it? - "slaughtering" of the English language. The occasional "typo" or misuse of a word (for example, using "their" when the writer is thinking of the contraction for "they are," which is "they're") is understandable, and we all do it from time to time. But some posts are so poorly written that it's embarrassing to read them. The writer may know what he or she intends to say, but the reader may get an entirely different message.
RG
A simple request, RG, but now we're getting sidetracked with all the snarky comments I am receiving. For the most part, if a reader sees that a mistake was made, a correction will be submitted.
When I omitted the word "the" from "Brilliant MTL Commissioners and [the] Voters Violate State Law, I was severely chastised for it. I don't have a degree in English, Journalism, Law, Political Science, etc., so I would hope that people would be more tolerant of me and anyone else who submits comments.
Before we get back on topic, thank you for the personal emails concerning attorneys.
One more thing, I'm noticing a trend with Manager Steve Feller. He is more likely to take the 30 day legal review route, rather than grant straightforward RTK requests in the five day window. I have had some personal conversations with readers about this issue, but I would like to hear from others who have run into the same thing. Either post on the blog or email me privately. Thanks.
Elaine
A question never asked.
If artificial turf is the superior sport playing surface why is Penn State's Beaver Stadium covered in natural grass?
With the apparent 'ultimate' authority a professor in residence (McNitt) one would think the university would be using artificial turf.
Our MTL pro-turfers make claims that artificial turf reduces concussions and injuries and is easier, less expensive to maintain.
If that is true why isn't PSU using it in the interest of protecting their players health and saving money at their "crown jewel."
After all, the university clamors for more money from Harrisburg.
"Less for the state pen, more for Penn State"
Baltimore Sun Tuesday 11th November, 2014
"A few years ago, I asked the president of Pennsylvania State University what he saw as his number one leadership challenge. He replied, "It's like Groundhog Day: every year I go to the state capital and ask them to stop sending so much money to the state pen, and starting sending a little more money to Penn State."..."
http://www.chicagochronicle.com/index.php/sid/227487455
Hey PSU president, perhaps you should be as smart as our MTL commissioners and save some money at your "crown jewel" football stadium and surface it with artificial turf!
Sarcasm for those still half-asleep this Sunday morning.
To 9:17AM: I asked the same question of Penn State this summer when visiting the athletic complex area for Penn State.
One reason I was told was that the use of natural grass on fields that can support grass use is that Penn State has a Center for Turfgrass Science. PSU leverages their use of grass fields with the in-house specialization they have to study and maintain the fields for their students. A symbiotic relationship.
Having walked the GRASS practice fields this summer, they are in prime condition. Well watered, well fertilized, well maintained. They were near perfect in condition.
There is a price for that. Again, if we as a community are willing to pay that price than lets go with grass.
It should be noted that not all game day or practice fields are grass at Penn State. In fact, Bigler Field used for D1 and club sports is heavily traffic and therefore covered in artificial turf. Here is a link to a letter from PSU in 2008 stating how happy the athletes, coaches and students are with the new artificial surface. http://www.astroturf.com/wp-content/uploads/reference-letters/PennState.pdf
One of the primary considerations for for the turf vs. synthetic decision is the ability to maintain a field in optimal conditions based on the level of usage.
11:18, good points and yes there is a price to be paid to maintain grass and artificial turfed ones.
I have also seen the grass fields at PSU and they are used quite heavily for youth tournaments, sport training camps and intramurals. They are indeed kept in pristine condition.
But, so are the natural grass fields at Canberry's Dicks Sportsplex.
Are you suggesting that PSU and Cranberry know something about field maintenance and management that our municipal administrators and Public Works don't?
Did we ever bring in a natural grass turf company to evaluate the condition and care of our fields.? Did we ever have them bid on caring for our fields?
I think not, but if we did get an evaluation and proposal, I am sure you.ll be glad to share it with us since your post infers that you have a good idea of how much proper maintenance of our grass fields would cost.
Also, had we not tied millions of dollars up in unused Twin Hills and McNeilly and kept them on the tax rolls, we'd have plenty of money to care for existing fields and new ones at Robb Hollow.
But of course, you prefer tying up millions in artificial turf for just one field.
11:18 you wrote- "One of the primary considerations for for the turf vs. synthetic decision is the ability to maintain a field in optimal conditions based on the level of usage."
Using rough numbers, $1,200,000 for initial turf installation and $600,000 for replacement in 8 years, we'll be spending $112,500 annually for 16 years (excluding required annual turf maimtenance and care) for just one Mt. Lebanon field.
I highly doubt we spend anywhere near that now on any grass field.
Please show us how the primary considerations showed artificial turf to be the answer to our field problems. The documents surely exist?!
11:18, so what is the price differential between maintaining Wildcat in pristine condition like the PSU fields with grass vs maintaining pristine artificial turf?
If it was a consideration those numbers must be available, otherwise one must suspect you're just blowing smoke.
There is a new well paid position in the budget for parks care. I suggest hiring someone like a graduate from PSU's turf grass management program. It just takes an approach grounded in science and attention to fix these fields and keep them natural.
Nearly 24 hours since you commented @11:18: "One of the primary considerations for for the turf vs. synthetic decision is the ability to maintain a field in optimal conditions based on the level of usage."
Yet you have not provided one iota of evidence as to how the commissioners arrived at their decision to go with artificial turf vs natural grass.
No Return on Investment studies, no evaluations or estimates from natural grass field companies... nothing but your empty assertion.
And please, don't give us the observations/analysts from our engineer. He hasn't been right with his numbers yet.
To 9:30AM - You don't see my responses? Interesting. I swear I hit "Publish Your Comment" on two different responses. I'm not going to respond for a third time when previous posts do not appear.
What I do think is that Google is having a problem with visibility of approved comments on the blogger.com site. It must be that because I can't understand why they are not appearing.
If you see this one it might be because the issue of comments visibility has been resolved.
If you do see this and not my previous responses please respond to the blog moderator so an inquiry can be made to Google about getting them posted.
If you do see my previous responses, can you please ask the blog moderator if they were not posted earlier because of some technical issue?
It certainly takes a long time for some comments to appear if they appear at all. Google has some serious issues with blogger.com.
No need to respond to "the blog moderator." I have approved all comments received lately.
So how about humoring us 11:59 and respond one more time?
Elaine
Elaine any luck finding an attorney? Can other people that have been attacked by the commissioners join?
No luck for an environmental attorney. Too early to say about a municipal law attorney. Of course, others can join. You can also pursue on your end and let me know of your successes. I think with more people joining, the stronger the case. But what do I know?
Elaine
Sorry, but I'm not going to rewrite yet again to 9:30AM. My comments were reasonable and responded to his also reasonable request for additional clarification. If they are getting lost, so be it.
Since I believe you have approved all comments then I suggest you speak with Google as they are getting lost on their way to the site or the site acknowledging your approval.
I seem to recall in some post on the site that this issue of lost comments does occur from time-to-time.
A possible way around this is to disable comment moderation. Sure you'll get trash postings for earning a lot of money working from home, name calling and political flame throwing but at least the comments will flow straight through.
In your dreams, 1:38 PM.
Elaine
1:06 PM, I heard back from yet another attorney, with the same response. "not within my area of expertise."
A bunch of wimps. No wonder Kristen can joke about igniting me, lie about doctors' claims, lie about the ESB's position on turf, and all the other crap, because SHE CAN. Nobody challenges her or any of the others here. Disgusting.
Elaine
1:38, a convenient 'the dog ate my homework response."
There seems to be no problem with your "I'm not going to respond again" comments so I guess we can reasonably assume there are documents on the cost comparisons between turf vs grass or any expert opinions other those from the people we already know.
I thought as much, otherwise they would have available long ago.
I know this... MTL been dumping $112,500/year on any field in the system. If you know different 1:38 direct to where the line item is and we'll view it for ourselves.
Corrections for 2:57 comment.
There seems to be no problem with your "I'm not going to respond again" comments so I guess we can reasonably assume there are [NO] documents [AVAILABLE] on the cost comparisons [MADE] between turf vs grass or any expert opinions other those from the [PRO-TURF] people we already know.
I thought as much, otherwise they would have [BEEN] available long ago.
I know this... MTL [HAS NOT] been dumping $112,500/annually [IN MAINTENANCE] on any field in the [MUNICPAL] system.
If you know different 1:38, [please] direct [us] to where the line item is [available] and we'll view it for ourselves.
(Note: trying to do better, Mr. Gideon.)
To 3:52 - I was polite in my original responses but you appear to have your head is so far up your ass you can't even figure out what was written.
I never claimed to have the analysis. I SAID "There is a price for that. Again, if we as a community are willing to pay that price than lets go with grass." Isn't that what you folks want it grass? Fine! Just make it nice.
Are you implying there is NO PRICE to maintain a grass field in the same conditions are PSU/Beaver Stadium? Please. Get some f'ing glasses to correct your myopia.
I could fucking care less whether we use grass or turf. I'm just looking for a playable field that can support the level of traffic. My kids have played on Wildcat, Dixon, Middle, Bird, Brafferton, Mellon, Jefferson, Foster, Lincoln. The field conditions suck! I've tried to repair them as an adult volunteer to get them in playing condition.
If it costs $10K, $25K, $75K or $120K per annum to the town in costs over the course of 10 or 16 years for whatever base period you to use, I could care less whether the fields are synthetic or grass.
If you want grass fine, just have it smooth, without mud holes and without bald areas. That's what I'm looking for. For people to make comparisons to fields like Beaver Stadium that are used, I'm guessing, a dozen times a year to support a "Penn State uses grass" argument. Then ask PSU what the surface of Beaver Stadium would be if they hosted six football games over three days on grass.
Oh, we saw that a few years back. It was called, the WPIAL football championships, followed by a Pitt game. The Steelers had to re-sod the field and the ball still stuck in the mud.
Given me a fucking break!
Post that Elaine!
I apologize for posting the previous message. This is where our tax dollars are going.
Unappreciative piece of crap.
Elaine
And this is where we have come, from talking about Kelly Fraasch speaking on NPR to hearing from an ungrateful sports dad dropping f-bombs and has no concern for his children's exposure to toxic chemicals, while we get stuck paying for toxic turf fields. Why isn't anyone complaining about the holes in the high school turf? You are getting your toxic turf, so why do you insist on rubbing our noses in it? You have four commissioners lying for you, a municipal engineer who won't tell us how much the project will cost us, a manager who not only doesn't know the cost of the project, but also doesn't know how it is going to be paid, a solicitor who is concealing the identity of donors and denies that the project needs to be rebid. And YOU are dropping f-bombs?
Elaine
5:14, before you blow a gasket-- @11:18 you wrote- "One of the primary considerations for for the turf vs. synthetic decision is the ability to maintain a field in optimal conditions based on the level of usage."
Now since the commissioners have obviously chosen to artificially turf ONE (2 if used for lower age group baseball) field, you were being asked for evidence of the documents, numbers, expert advice that lead to them to make the "primary consideration" to go with turf.
Without talking to any experts we can reasonably assume the installation and replacement of artificial turf at WC/M will cost the community approximately $112,500/year over 16 years and that doesn't include the annual maintenance that the turf requires.
Also, no one suggested that there isn't a cost consideration for grass, so don't make the acquisation that natural grass proponents think it is free. No one ever claimed it was!
As for the question of whether grass can be maintained under heavy use, I've read and talked to companies claiming it can be done for a reasonable amount.
Apparently Cranberry can do it! Other communities do too. Our Wildcat/Middle field wasn't all that bad that some proper care couldn't fix.
Plus, with less expensive practice fields created at Robb Hollow our "crown jewel" could be given time to rest. Why would you use your "crown jewel" for young players practice?
You mentione Heinz Field. Do the Steelers, Pitt and high school teams practice there? No they don't.
Speaking of being myopic, you also wrote: "I could fucking care less whether we use grass or turf. I'm just looking for a playable field that can support the level of traffic. My kids have played on Wildcat, Dixon, Middle, Bird, Brafferton, Mellon, Jefferson, Foster, Lincoln. The field conditions suck!" Yes, they do suck (excluding Dixon) and after we blow through $112,500+ annually at just Wildcat, conditions at Bird, Brafferton, Mellon, Jefferson, Foster, Lincoln, and Howe will still suck.
One other question 5:14... did you kiss your mother with that mouth?
5:14, I will agree with you on one of your points.
By all means, lets make it nice. With grass... and lets maintain it properly.
Do we need a dedicated rectangular soccer field... probably.
Once again, the Steelers don't play at the Pirates PNC Park like they did at Forbes Field. Which incidently, was natural grass and heavily used.
I WANT... I WANT... I WANT! Grow up 5:14. You want your brats playing their stupid little sports then build yourself a field and then you can have it anyway YOU want. Spending 2-3 MILLION more for these fields to be turfed is misuse of taxpayer's money. Not a single person will die if these fields remained grass. There are needed repairs to our streets, sidewalks and infrastructure. Taxpayers have paid enough for kids sports!
6:49, I can see improving all our fields, but I suspect that PUblic Works isn't up to the job and unknowing volunteer coaches have actually made the fields worse by their attempts to get them dried for games.
I can also see creating a dedicated youth soccer field.
6:49 does have a point 5:14!
The $262,000 in private donations for our artifical turf is laughable for such a hoity-toity community.
Here's how they do turf in Fox Chapel.
"The cost of the work was paid by an anonymous donor, who shelled out $800,000 this spring to see that artificial turf was installed at the high school baseball field."
"There was about $35,000 additional funds donated by Frank Fuhrer Sr., the FCA Schools Sports Hall of Fame, the Baseball Boosters, Quarterback Club and a second anonymous donor."
http://triblive.com/mobile/2426777-81/field-practice-baseball-turf-berzonski-chapel-donor-fields-fox-added
Dear 5:14 PM - The correct expression is "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less" or "I could f***ing care less". If you're going to drop the f- bomb in a post, at least try to be precise in your use of language. Jeez, what kind of low class riff-raff are we letting into Lebo these days?
The problem is 10:21, that 5:14 has an FU attitude.
They don't care if its grass or turf, $10K, $25K, $75K or $120K annually to maintain the field surface.
We can assume from their post, that 5:14 probably couldn't care less about the health of our kids as well.
They just want smooth turf.
I guess they'll get their rocks off looking at it.
The sports has-beens continually prove that they have anger management issues and resort to threatening women when all else fails.
Hey Potty Mouth, Is that your best argument. You must be a friend of Brumfield using that language. If you want a better field, raise the money yourself. Better yet, move out! We don't need your kind polluting ML.
You know, I've got to side with President Linfante on this one.
If I were about to lock the municipality into a $112,500+ annualized field spending commitment at Wildcat, 5:14 would be the brainiac I'd turn to for advice.
He doesn't give a f--- what it cost, probably doesn't care about the health of the kids and environmental issues.
His sole goal is that the field looks nice.
Yep, wise choice Kristen, keep up the good work!
Plus, if I were looking for a sports mentor to develop my child's interest in sports, social skills, teamwork, etc., 5:14 would certainly be my pick.*
*sarcasm alert
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE84002Q20120501?irpc=932
"Football knee injuries more likely on artificial turf: study
Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:24pm EDT
Email
Facebook
Twitter
(Reuters) - College football players suffer knee injuries about 40 percent more often when playing on an artificial turf versus grass, according to a U.S. study.
The findings, published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, were part of research that looked back on knee injuries among college football players to see when they might be most vulnerable to getting hurt."
"Athletes were also 1.39 times as likely to be injured when playing on modern artificial turf as when playing on grass.
The newer types of artificial playing fields are called "infill surfaces." They have a layer of synthetic grass over a field of rubberized pellets called fill.
There were close to 18 injuries for every 100,000 exposures among athletes playing on infill surfaces, compared to 14 injuries for every 100,000 practices or games that took place on artificial turf without fill, or on natural grass.
James Bradley, the chief orthopedic surgeon for the Pittsburgh Steelers and a clinical professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said the findings support what's also been observed in the National Football League."
So what do you think 5:14? Should we install your "nice" turf and increase the odds that a sports participant sits out a season with a knee injury?
That means they won't playing on sunny days as well as the rainy ones.
I sent the Commission a 2014 Lancet article that emphasized the need to avoid exposing children to materials made from industrial chemicals that have not been proven safe due to epidemic levels of neurodevelopment problems in children that have been tied to environmental chemical exposures.
I recently checked to see if the article has been recognized or accepted via peer review. It has been, as indicated by 47 citations in related science articles over the course of just a few months. These citations also reflect growing concern within medicine and academia about the risks associated with exposure to industrial chemicals to child health & development.
Any response from the commissioners, 10:31 PM?
Elaine
@10:40 They did not respond to the email.
10:31 PM Evermore evidence to support eventual indictment of the mindless elected and appointed officials behind this turf fiasco when the injuries and illnesses materialize ! Thank you.
5:14
I assume that since your children played on all the fields and the conditions "sucked", at some point, you approached the commission during a public meeting and requested some kind of upgrade on maintenance? Right? If so, please let us know when that occurred. Or better yet, please let Elaine post the letter/email in which you spelled out to the commissioners the poor conditions and your concerns. I'm serious. Let's face it, if you were lobbying for better field conditions a while back, then the commission has been tone deaf for some time. Let's prove it together.
It seems to be your contention that as long as the fields are in top-notch condition (insomuch as your opinion is an expert one), Mt. Lebanon should spend as much as it takes. Is that correct?
The problem with your stance is (beside your childish and useless application of the F word) you are purporting to speak on behalf of the majority of the community. Got news for ya--the majority of residents in Lebo don't use the fields. So you speak for nobody but yourself. And when it comes to use of public dollars, you certainly are one, and only one, voice.
The priorities in this town are skewed. Deer culls and artificial turf? If it weren't so fiscally irresponsible, it would be hilarious. But in reality, it's infuriating.
I couldn't care less if kids don't have "enough" playing slots on the local fields. As I've always said, if that's the case, that there isn't enough field space to accommodate every kid playing every sport, stop signing up your kids for every sport. Say no. It works.
Want the fields to recover? Then let them. Quit abusing them. In fact, for taxpayers, aren't those fields as much ours as yours? Then please get off my grass.
Mr. Cannon I agree with a lot of your points except one. By the way, I am not 5:14.
I do think Mt. Lebanon has always tried to provide all young athletes in as many sports as possible with quality venues. I always thought that was one of the things that made it a desirable community.
So today in 2014 soccer and lacrosse are popular sports and I have no problem building or rehabbing and existing field specifically to accomodate those sports.
But, unlike 5:14, I do care how much it cost.
There isn't an infinite amount of money to dump into making one field "nice."
At a minimum turf looks to be a $112,500/year investment. We just don't have that kind of money as a community to dump it into one field.
I would have no issue rehabbing an existing field, either. But we aren't talking about a rehab. The commissioners forced a totally new and unnecessary expenditure on the community. And it was predicated on "additional playing slots", a complete fallacy.
Until those acting as financial administators of public money start acting in the best interest of the community and do so transparently, we all have a responsibility to stand our ground. I am not, as some might label me "anti-sports". I am, however, pro fiscal prudence.
Then we agree! 5:14 seems- though he certainly doesn't act like he can get along with anyone- to agree to the idea of nice field(s).
The sticking point seems to be price.
5:14 thinks the sky is the limit and there is the rub.
I'm pretty confident we could provide several nice natural field surfaces for the money we're spending at WC/M.
Another sticking point though nobody will admit it... Brumfield, Franklin and others want their "crown jewel." not for the benefit of the community at large, but for their chosen sports venue. Otherwise they fix Bird, Brafferton or Jefferson for soccer and lacrosse. IMO
I think we've stumbled upon the big problem with our municipal goverment.
We have 5:14 and all that they want is a nice field. Doesn't give a f--- what it cost or what it is made of or how healthy it is.
Then we have a group that is concerned about the health and environmental concerns. Many are concerned about the cost. Some worry aboutall three!
Then we have the manager, engineer, rec director and 4 of the commissioners.
They can't answer Fraasch's questions about the chemicals. Gillen ask about how much theprice tag has risen too and both get "I don't know answers."
Shouldn't we know thatstuff before hand?
No, we'll put the turf in and figure out if 'we done good later.'
Helluva way to run a railroad.
Post a Comment