Turfing fields – good idea for amount of teams needing fields Turfing another field in the flood zone-Bad idea

In Uncategorized on December 18, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Maple Park has suffered some real damage over the past 2yrs. from the flooding Ho-Ho-Kus Brook. Not to mention, some of the bacteria from the flood waters. The Turf has some has wrinkles and is raised in certain areas.

If you are going to turf fields, please use fields that are not subject to brook flooding.

B.F. Middle School has a large parking area, rest rooms could be used, two fields could be in use at once. Lights could be placed facing back to school off hill area, not to bother Westfield residents.

How about turfing Citizens, GW, Sommerville fields? Parking is greatly available at all these locations.

Turf fields reduce cost in watering and maintenance. Many teams can play as often without damaging turf.
Good idea.

But to spend 11.5 Million to put turf fields in such a vulnerable area that floods often, has no parking facilities, BAD IDEA !!

These are tough times, please use your heads.

Apple iTunes

  1. This post shows a lack of understanding of the facts.

    1) Concern over bacteria has nothing to do with synthetic turf. If bacteria is released into the brook, it could potentially affect the field surface, whether natural or synthetic. In the last instance about a year ago, there turned out to be “no issue” with bacteria on Maple field, even though authorities closed the field as a precaution.

    2) Flooding of a turf field is not a problem. In fact, a turf field is more suitable than grass in such conditions, due to its ability to drain more quickly.

    3) The wrinkle at Maple during the last flood was created when a soccer goal was left on the field, creating a “dam” where debris collected and the water churned. If obstacles are not left on the field, this cannot occur.

    4) The key to avoiding damage to the fields is not their location. It is basic preventive measures and proper maintenance.

    5) A great deal of thought has gone into the optimum facilities for turf vs grass, based on size requirements and utilization. All of the fields suggested were considered and ruled out. The RHS location is based on increasing utilization to a reasonable level.

  2. I think the part about 11.5 million is wrong, I believe it was 11,500 dollars for filing permits with the DEP (why is it called a permit when you have to bribe environmental Nazis that work for the State?)

    I think the cost that was rejected to install a turf field at RHS was more in the 900k to 1.5 million range. Also I believe that it was originally proposed to be donated to the town from various private funding sources. I don’t have any idea what the new proposal will be but I am very sure we (Ridgewood taxpayers) would have been better off taking the private money and a beautiful new field for free.

  3. Wasn’t the turfing of B.F. part of a proposed Valley Hospital land grab a few years ago?? They wanted some of B.F.’s space in return for turfing the field.

  4. Yes, and as much as I do NOT support Valley… it was a good offer at the time.. In return for underground parking, they’d turf the field at BF. Instead of an ugly above-ground parking garage thats sure to come, we’d have parking below grade and a beautiful turf field. Tie that into Valley’s current land grab? They could expand if they didnt have the existing parking lot, right?

    Valley, if you want us to back down on the expansion plans, how about paying for some upgrades at BF? How about paying for the new track and outdoor parking and basketball courts? Throw in a turf field, while you’re at it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: