Do not allow Party Politics to hold Springfield back again...

http://www.zashehady.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The-Case-for-the-Springfield-Athletic-Turf-Field-Project.pdf

Party politics should not hold Springfield back any moreso then it should move this issue forward. Neither side has provided the public with a complete explanation of what approval of a bond ordinance means. I am a supporter of a turf field and have had discussions with some members of the Enviromental Committee briefly debating their concerns. However, in my opinion the financial aspects of the field are the single most important issue and the public has not been given those facts.
If Mr. Fernandez wants to be the mayors point man, then I suggest he do more then just direct us to the mayor's personal website. How about some factual information instead of looking for an emotional response from the public.

Bart maybe you should click the link and read all your facts are in that report.

Educate yourself before voting for the synthetic turf field. This is NOT a political issue, just an issue of safety for our children & increased flooding risks to our homes. Please do your own research and decide for yourself.
A few quick references:
http://www.njwec.org/images/pdf's/fact-artificialterf.pdf
http://www.state.nj.us/health/artificialturf/documents/other_concerns.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcdiUBYpRY4

Let me add im neither a democrat or a republican. I am for a new turf field as its good for the students but im not for this field UNTIL a study is done and also I hear a lot of opposition frmo ordinary citizens like myself. If this is a slam dunk simply prove it by allowing the democratic process to work by putting this highly sensitive issue to a reforandum vote. If i can be convinced this is safe and also wont raise our already overtaxed county, state and township citizens then id say go to for it and build an environmentally safe turf field.

i also want to add I am worried about the flooding problems in town plus what would happen if this field got flooded during a hurricaine and the impact it would have to the environment. the flooding problem has been promised to be fixed since floyd 1999 and due to the county and state fighting each other we still get flooded NOTHING has been done. i almost lost my home back in august. our issues of flooding in town deserve to be addressed as well. since they havent fixed the problems which are complicated in this town regarding flooding i just want a complete study done by a totally independent firm on the impact a turf field would bring to town. I am sorry i cant attend the feb 14 township commitee meeting as I am out of town and wont be back until a day later. I hope its a peaceful meeting.

Once again with all due respect that link goes directly to a case study that will answer all your questions on the finance of it, the flood issues and shows a full report of the turf field cost. If anyone has any questions after reading this report please call me at 908 868 0898. It seems obvious you have not clicked on the link Bart but I suggest you do

I clicked on the link and read it in its entirety. I am still not convinced. im not poltical in any way. i just want a safe field for the kids. and if we get another 500 year storm what happens to those pellets when the water forces the field to potentially fall apart. I just want further proof to get my vote.

ADDITIONAL suggestion to BOTH parties. stop playing politics and if u can convince the township citizens its safe and wont be a burden on the taxpayer base of springfield then build the field. if there are environmental impacts from a future hurricaine or storm of irenes magnitude then put off the field until we know more. whats the rush? if this town really was in a rush why didnt it force the state and county to fix the morris ave bridge which has been not worked on since floyd of 1999? everything seems to be politics in this town. make the citizens proud. stop acting like party politics is all that matters.

Can we get the basketball hoops back up? This winter has been very mild and I would have loved to shoot around some days or get a pick up game together. Spring is right around the corner, the nets need to go back up as soon as possible. I am not sure how much moeny was spent fixing up the courts but whatever it was is being wasted.

If this field ever gets completed don't be surprised if the goal posts are taken down for no apparent reason.

Once again the anonymous Anthony D has graced us with his wisdom. Yes, I do know what a bond ordinance is but neither I nor anyone in the public know the details of the proposed bond ordinance. What financial obligation will it place on the township and residents (i.e., taxpayers).
Unlike the majority of legitmate posters on here, Anthony D continues to make ignorant statements without disclosing who he (she) is. Can we assume the D stands for duh?

As a student at Jonathan Dayton, I feel as though I am well aware of what my town and my peers need. Let me tell you, it's not a turf field.
We want our classes back, we want more opportunities and a better education, not some fake grass on the field. The springfield board has no idea how to use our money and this has been ongoing for many years. Please stop waisting my parents' money on things nobody needs. Focus funding elsewhere.

Nathaniel, but don't the Springfield Children 'DESERVE' a turf field?

I believe that many children in this town deserve everything we can provide for them, but a turf field should not be on the agenda. This town's money needs to be prioritized better, it's easy for them to spend other peoples' money on (excuse me) crap that we don't need.

6 mths ago the Dems had no problems with this field. Why the change all of a sudden?

doug its called politics unfortunately. I am for whats good for the citizens of this great town but i am totally against politics to build a field or not build a field for political reasons either way. why rush this? its been forever promised since 1999 the bridge which floods out springfield and thats still not started. why rush this when kids are involved? never mind the taxes we all have to eventually pay on the field. the kids should have a place to play but pardon me for saying this they arent entitled to a turf field. lets make sure its econmically feasible and also safe for the environment. what if we get a flood there? what happens to the plastic pellots? my dad who was on the town planning board is no longer with us but he was a plastics engineer. id love to hear what he would have said about this. Ill never know unfortunately i never heard him talk about this issue.

This is rediculous. This has been going on for years. Studies have been done..and redone. Enough already. The Dems own webpage has an article about our former Mayor receiving grant money, and taking steps toward making the turf field a reality. Now everything changes? Please. They obviously think that residents are idiots who can not see through their stalling and playing of petty political games.

I think we have to hear all the arguments in favor/against. We should try to put our political affiliations aside and hear the facts. We don't know whether or not this is environmentally safe -- so let's hear from the expert(s). We don't know how we will pay for it -- again, let's hear the explanation of the proposal for payment of the turf. One thing is clear -- we need to have answers for all the questions: how much it will cost, environmental impact, flooding issues, taxes issues, who will be in charge of maintenance, what will be the cost to maintain, etc. And, I am curious... in the past couple of years, several fundraising events were organized... how much was it raised from these events?

I see a lot of good points being made here. LET THE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME. I never had any kids but there a lot of kids on my block so i do care about them. I also care about their safety on a block which floods so badly some homeowners still arent back in their homes since irene. I was lucky i only lost my basement. if money is to be spent stop waiting for the county and state and work on the flooding problem which was promised many administrations ago. the buck is always passed to the next commitee and they they say they werent in charge when 1999 happened. guess what its 2012 and NOTHING IS BEING DONE! i pay a lot in taxes and feel adding to my tax base for a field which is a luxury item just isnt sense from an economical point of view. there is no reason why a regular field cant be built but the reason it wont be is the BOE and the powers that be want a turf field no matter what the cost. i was trying to stay low key here but the more i read into this the more im against it. THE STATE OF NJ IS ALMOST BROKE and all of the towns are feeling this from the state cutbacks so why are we spending more money on a luxury item? i will change my mind if they do a reforendum and the majority wants the field. i believe in the democratic process. I always have and always will! if there is a majority that want it according to the articles i have read then there is nothing to hide.

Don't they HAVE A FIELD at Meisel Park???? What do they need a new one for? I go walking at Meisel, always seems to be kids there playing football. Plenty of room. As a resident who lives down the street from the HS, would someone please explain to me what is the reason for another field? And why artificial turf? What's wrong with grass? I don't have children in the schools anymore. I'm afraid this is going to make traffic and noise even worse than it is now. I say GO PLAY AT MEISEL! IT'S BEAUTIFUL THERE!

unfortunately meisel is run and owned by the county they found the field had corrosion and isnt usable. people play at their own risk. id love to see a regular field there. its where i went to see games in high school. ive been told that will never be used again.

The argument that turf fields are unsafe is questionable at best. What is unsafe are the conditions of the geese feces infested fields we currently have, with much more chance of any real injury occurring because of their poor condition. FMG was closed for most of an entire season a few years ago because the insurance company deemed it unsafe. Is this how we want to continue? If children are our most precious resource we are doing that resource a great disservice by continuing to provide them with inferior playing fields. Regarding safety, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission declared turf fields safe over 3 years ago. You can review their reports from Wikipedia, an open access website that anyone can edit without having to cite any source. Interesting that no one is showing a concern about our football team having to play on turf in Union. I wonder if that’s unsafe. I wonder if Summit, New Providence, Union, Westfield, Scotch Plains, Berkeley Heights, Millburn, Elizabeth, Cranford, Linden have provided “unsafe” turf fields for their teams to play on. I wonder if there is a concern when our teams play away on turf that those fields are unsafe. If the feeling is that turf fields are unsafe then Springfield kids, town and HS programs (soccer, football, baseball, etc...etc...) should not play any away games or tournaments on turf. I do understand that we need to ensure the safety of all of our players, the current field conditions make that harder to accomplish.

hey phil not to make a mess of this touchy subject but so u know wikipedia has a lot of bugs in it and tons of errors. ANYONE can edit a listing in it so its not reliable. i have found so many errors in there its a joke. safety is important but money is also a huge issue here. 1 student wrote on this issue in the blog and said he doesnt think they need this field. its a luxury item not a necessity. my house is a necessity and i live in an area where some people got forced out of their homes and still cant move back in because of irene. let the town fix the flooding issues 1st before spending money on an item while important is still a luxury item. id love to get a lexus but i live within my means so i dont go spending money i dont have. thats whats wrong with this economy we spendmoney we dont have. its why nj and the federal government is going broke. stop spending money we dont have.

I believe that Phil's comment contains a type regarding Wikipedia. Recently an email was circulated citing Wikipedia as a source regarding the dangers of turf. You correctly note it is an open site that is loaded with errors. The report that Phil mentions is from the US Product Safety Commission which found turf to be safe in 2008 and can be viewed here - www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08348.html

I stand corrected on the article about the turf safety but i stand by the fact that wikepedia is a joke. i also have a belief in the democratic way. let them put this to a vote so all citizens have a choice not just a select few who choose to go to town hall meetings. its an expensive project which to me is money not well spent. i have said this since august... they need to fix the flooding problem which was promised many adminstrations ago as far back as the 1960's and more recently 1999. its only going to get worse not better. i have friends and neighbors who cant move back into their homes yet on alvin terrace because of irene. anyway i will wait for them to talk about it at a town hall meeting when i can attend and ill speak my peace then.

Bob, I appreciate your response. Clearly our town has many issues to deal with and they should be handled on a individual basis or figure out how they can compliment each other. Taking away from one to fix or accommodate another should not be the route. Nothing gets done this way. If money is the issue, not sure if you are aware, but having a turf field can generate so much income for the town. It provides options for revenue that could assist other issues providing everyone is on the same page and share the same interest. I understand what you are saying as well as what the JDHS student is saying however there are hundreds of children in this town that participate in athletics and they reserve the right to play on adequate fields. If anyone who has questions and/or concerns regarding the field they should attend tomorrow nights TC meeting. I believe there is going to be an engineer on site that has installed turf fields in much higher flood zone areas than Springfield.

MY late father was joe groder and was a plastics engineer by trade. i wish he was still with us as i am sure he owuld have had an opinion about this 1 way or the other. my dad joe groder was on the planning board and very active in this towns growth. he never brought this up in the past so its all new to me. Phil you make good points as do i. I see lots of differing opinions on this highly sensitive issue. Therefore I stand by my 1st statement i made on this which is to let the democratic process decide issues where there are differing opinions. money is a huge issue and while revenue might come in the cost to maintain this field wont go away. plus noone has proven if we got another irene what would happen to this field? i just dont see the long term benefit financially. I do see the benefit to the kids however. id love to hear what the students have to say as a majority and not just 1 or 2 students.

there are environmentalists who have spoken both for and against the turf. unfortunately im out of town or id be at the TH meeting tomorrow night. I dont miss many. i just hope they come to a proper decision thats good for everyone not just for some people. no matter what gets done not everyone will be happy. I still want to know what will be done about the flooding which is a much older issue and does effect this whole town and not just a few people. thousands of people were effected. as u know u couldnt get around town for a few weeks.

I agree that $3.2M is a luxury to spend in these tough economic times and although I do not live in the flooding areas, I am embarrassed that we even have one! TC want to prioritize? Put that on the next agenda, discuss, plan course of action, find the funds and fix it, and I also agree that waiting for the State or County to do anything is simply unfair to Springfield citizens. BTW, the bridge in which the TC called the County to come look/discuss after Irene, is not County's responsibility, so Springfield should really get going and fix the problem. If we can find $3.2M to build a field we do not need, we can find other monies to make 'real' improvements.

ATTN: NATE G.

I,too, am in Jonathan Dayton High School. You posting on here is ridiculous since you don't participate in any of the sports at our high school or anywhere else for that matter. As for you saying that we are wasting "your" money, that's untrue as well. If your parents, feel that way, they should post not you. If they can't afford the taxes, they should move.

If you truly feel that this is unwanted, you should come to tomorrow's meeting and see how many people have a different view than you.

Mr. Shehady says: "Additionally, the Board of Education has committed the proceeds to be generated from the sale of land reasonably expected to be between half a million to a million dollars." Is this the land the board of education owns? Does it seem reasonable to sell an educational asset to pay for athletics? That's like using grandma's college money to pay for a swimming pool. And the land will be developed into more housing, with more children to educate!

BROKEN RECORD? are you kidding? its about time concerned citizens speak out about this issue which has gone on since i lived here in the 60's and was supposed to be fixed after 1999. i didnt lose my home but people i never met did and quite a few people in town got hit hard. i think this is as big of an issue as the turf field but for different reasons. I am going to abstain from talking about this issue in this column for the time being. i see too much politics as usual going on. it does appear Bart is right this is party politics as usual.

I might comment later on this week after i hear more about the subject when i read about the meeting that takes place on tuesday. i would be there but i am out of town unfortunately and cant attend. good luck to all parties involved.

Apparently they're proposing to put the "turf field" in that lovely rolling meadow in front of Dayton, where we have our Revolutionary War re-enactments every few years. It will have permanent seating and concession stands and bunkers with bathrooms. It will be much uglier than what we have now.

One of the things I love about Springfield is its cutesy colonial charm. There's an old story about how, when the WPA was building Dayton, we were given the choice between a clock tower and a pool, and we chose the clock tower. We ended up with a remarkably pretty high school, facing our adorable Town Hall across the meadow. Let's not ruin the look with an ugly fenced-in neon-green fake field. Why can't kids play sports there on real grass, with seasonal bleachers, and walk a couple hundred feet to the school when they need to use the toilet?

Ah, but grass requires maintenance, the mayor says. Sure it does. We could turf over all of our lawns and parks, while we're at it, and save a bundle! Or not. Some of us think that maintaining green space is worth our tax dollars.

And then there's the $3 million debt, which we will be passing on to our children. Do they deserve that?

If we want better schools, let's spend more money on state-of-the-art science labs, languages, electives, APs. Not turf.

Can't wait to see what the tax situation and what real estate prices will look like in this town when families start moving. There will be soon be nothing here to attract new young families - No Downtown area, No Fields, No Home Games, No businesses, a Below Par Community Pool, and Flooding neighborhoods......hey but at least this Drive Through Town will still have the clock tower !

But we do have a fire house that cost over 3 million dollars. No referendum there.... and that is used by only a few. Imagine if we had that money for the schools!!

Why did your family move here? For the football field? Or for the great schools, the easy commute, the peace and prettiness, the synagogues you can walk to? (And, yes, the community pool, but I thought we were already working on renovations there.) Those are our strengths.

The downtown can be improved, but not by a turf field. We desperately need better parking, we need to modernize those dinky buildings, and we need to attract businesses that will draw people in and improve our quality of life. A Montessori nursery school, maybe, or a Kumon learning center, a great restaurant that happens to be Kosher, a baby/kids chain retailer ...

And we need to work on the flooding. In the 70's, through ceaseless lobbying, we got the Army Corp of Engineers to deepen and improve some of our brooks, and we got the state to pay for that drainage basin on Laurel Avenue. It can be done - it's just grim, gloomy, hard work, not nearly as much fun as athletic fields but much more important for the town.

this issue is a joke. we simply cant afford a turf field because some powers that be made a promise to deliver a turf field to the boe. this is typical back door politics at its worst.

So many questions, where do I start? Why is this a $3.2 million project when other turf fields are $1 million projects? Why was Meisel Field everything we needed for so many decades -- with bleachers, a field house, etc. -- but we cannot work out something with the County now? Berkeley Heights has a new county park on Snyder Avenue, with a turf field, Summit has that field next to the Sheriff's K-9 unit on Glenside Avenue, etc.

If recreation is such a big problem for Springfield, why are we not doing something about the existing facilities at Chisholm or the pool? What about the many other non-sports programs that could use some funding? How much are we spending on sports when compared to other activities that build mind & body, foster teamwork, etc.? Where's the funding for drama or to have the kids & adults put together a real town TV station or a robotics club or ...?

Wasn't there a private effort to fund this field that failed? Seems like a referendum that, as important as this must be (at least to some), there wasn't general support for this project ahead of plenty of other priorities.

Are we really using tax money to build a field because private groups don't have a place to play? Wasn't that TriBoro sports complex in Mountainside approved? If there really is that great a need, wouldn't someone build another one just like there are multiple batting cages or golf courses or a Walgreens coming across the street from a CVS?

I could go on but you get the point.

Define importance. What is important to one person may not be important to another. My kids are already grown and out of the school system so I have no skin in that game. But what is important to me is my property value. Most young people look for a town with a great school system and this drives property value. For all the knocking that is done Springfield does have an excellent school system. Can it get better. Sure it can. Are there things that the BoE does that drive me crazy? You bet. I think the laptops were a waste of money. My kids would have been fine without them and still gone to excellent universities. From my view point the one thing that is lacking are home fields for sports. Though not the most important thing it does bring a sense of comradery and pride to the town. Drive through most of the surrounding towns and look at their fields. Go to their home games. I think it is important to have a balance at school and sports is one of the balances. This issue has been discussed and studied long enough. Let's get on with it already. It's a shame so much studying and concern didn't go into the fire house. Oh I forgot the Democrats were in power then and could do what they wanted. Over $3 million dollars and an environmentally questionable site was never an issue.....

LETS LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. SO WHAT IF THEY HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR? there are more pressing issues which people have waited on for 25 years or more. this is a luxury item like a cadillac when all that is needed is a toyota.

Wanting and needing. That's what people are arguing about. I don't live in a flood area but I remember Mr. Shehady using the flood to meet residents who lost things from Hurricane Irene. He said he'd help them when he was mayor. Is this how he's helping them, by spending money that we don't have. The election is over and he doesn't need their vote anymore.

I agree that there are more pressing issues that need our attention now. A field will not bring up the property value, someone wrote, and I agree. I would like to know, and no one has posted it here, where the money that was collected thru private fundraisers is, and where are we going to get the rest of the money (BOE selling land for $1 - 1.5M is great but still need $2M) to pay for the field? Another great point is why is it costing the town so much money? $3.2M seems like an awful lot of money for a field!

I cannot escape the feeling that we are putting the cart before the horse. Why is the TC voting on a bond ordinance that may well amount to a blank check? I would be far more comfortable with this issue if approval of funds that will increase our taxes followed, not preceded, proposed plans and a real budget - not an imaginary one on which the TC is proposing a >$3 million bond ordinance. I am in favor of a turf field. I am confident that safety and flooding issues can be addressed. But, I fail to see why there should be consideration of a bond before actual plans have even been proposed. Let the public see a rendering of the proposed field so we can determine how it will impact the area. Present a budget. Identify how a single turf field will be used and shared among all of the competing interests. Explain the impact of a $3 million turf field on the other fields in the town - which will still have to be used for the numerous athletics that will not be able to use the turf field. With all of the rhetoric being thrown around, it is clear that this issue is controversial. I believe the TC should appoint a bi-partisan subcommittee consisting of concerned citizens, TC members and appropriate professionals so that when a field is finally built, it does not become a point of regret in the town. Certainly, this issue needs to be expedited -- but there should not be a rush to judgment and to spend money without proper consideration, instead of politics.

I am sure you're working toward the betterment of Springfield, and I do appreciate your efforts. The issue of raising taxes, even if it is a small amount, is not acceptable. I, along with many other Springfield residents, are already burden with the high tax increases, and when another project needs to be funded, who is to say we won't have another 'small' increase? Small increases add up to a bundle of money in the end, and when we talk about re-sale value of our homes, we have to be mindful that prospective buyers look at the tax rates just as much as they look at good schools. No one wants to move in to a neighborhood that has consistently raised taxes on their residents.

We will end up raising taxes. Look at the national trend: the federal government is giving less support to the states, the states are passing less money down to municipalities .. and less fortunate towns than ours are already facing budget and debt crises. Is this the time for Springfield to be taking on unnecessary long-term debt to pay for a luxury sports field? The mayor notes that we have a terrific credit rating. Great. Let's keep it that way. We may need to draw on that credit - and on our tax base - soon enough, for necessities down the road.

Committeeman Fernandez, while I am familiar with and typically respect the work of Pennoni, a one page "estimate" of expenses is hardly a sufficient basis for passing a $3 million bond ordinance. In the absence of real plans or an estimate presented with real back-up in support, this ordinance is a blank check. If I give my daughter $20 and send her to the mall with instructions that she should only spend what she needs to spend, I am a fool if I expect change. Why should I trust politicians - from either party - more than I trust my own daughter. If the town approves $3 million - then $3 million will be spent. It is thus incumbent on the TC, as our representatives to have a real plan in place first and not as an afterthought. Again, I support installing a turf field. But, it is time for both sides to put politics aside and do this properly so that it is not a long-standing regret in this town. Get real plans and a real budget ... then come to the people and tell us how much it is going to cost us. Moreover, proceeding in this manner actually presents an opportunity for this to be a bi-partisan effort - not the party presently in power ramming through a bond ordinance (or the other side rejecting it simply because it is the minority and will not receive "credit" for the field). All five of you on the TC need to work together on this to justify the trust that has been placed in each one of you.

These number were not picked out of hat, there is a real plan I am not sure what else you would like done at this stage. We will not have "real plans" until this is sent out to bid and the people bidding on it come up with the drawings. I tried moving this issue last year with a Democrat majority and got no where. I do not care who helps make this move, I truly believe that this would be an asset for our town in many ways. I have not played party politics. What amazes me that every candidate every year goes to Union to take photos in the stands and promises to bring a field in all their mailings, but for the last 10 years nothing has happened. Everyone promises to work on the field, then why has it not been done? Since I been on the committee we have moved to make this happen. Now we have a chance to do something that will benefit our town and people think its party politics. This is the reason good people get frustrated and do not want to run for Committee seats.

Mr. Schwartz - then attend the meeting tonight. I am not sure what else you want to see but I'm sure it can be given to you. I have seen enough to justify my opinion in that the plan makes absolute sense. I think any more detailed plans prior to a go- ahead would be a waste of more money that has already been spent with the initial plans we already have. Many thousands have already been spent on engineering and other up front costs. It has to stop somewhere and I believe we are at the cross-roads.

Mr schwartz makes the most sense. i would love to see this field if the costs can be proven 1st not after the bond is issued. I love the fact that the Tc wants to complete this but lets do it the right way. why put up money when we dont have an exact figure. why cant it go to bid 1st with the stipulation the project wont go thru unless the bond is floated AFTERWARDS. then we have exact costs up front and not in reverse.

How many RFPs have been sent out? What companies will you request bids from? Like anything else, there needs to be several companies who are reputable.

I agree with Mr. Schwartz, and add that we need to see all the plans, proposals from several companies before anything is approved.

Leila this is the method to reach that goal, you must prepare the bond you must have hearings on the bond then you go out and put it to bid

In my opinion, Springfield doesn't need a turf field. Even when I attended Jonathan Dayton, I didn't believe the town needed another field. That money should be used for something else. Call me a jerk or an idiot, but I feel the money should be used to doing something about the YMCA that I think closed not too long ago. That's useful for more people than a turf field.

I just read the turf ordinance passed. congrats to the TC. I hope you get the right deal for the citizens of springfield who will now pay a small increase in taxes im sure.

It's funny how the people that are so concerned about the turf causing health issues don't even have children who will be using it, hmmmm. I have seen a player BREAK his leg playing on the back field at a JV football game, and so MANY concussions it is ridiculous! A turf field is actually a SAFER place to play AND allows for better drainage - the flooding problems in Springfield have NOTHING TO DO with the turf field. Finally, as was brought out in the meeting - the kids are ALREADY playing on turf fields in other towns - like when they have their "NOT AT HOME" - HOME games in UNION for football! Spending money on the turf field will actually RAISE property values, bond our community, and I think we will get a good deal, and it will end up costing taxpapers nothing, and it will actually GENERATE revenue through entry fees and concession sales and a savings in not RENTING out "home" fields! I applaud and thank all the committee members who voted YES on 2/14, and I hope they do the right thing on February 28th!!!!!!! Mr. Amlen, I hope you are reconsidering your NO vote.

to anyone who thinks a turf field will raise property values hasnt done their homework. it will raise property taxes by a figure of aprox. 50.00 so i have been told. the town is in a flood zone and hence property values already have gone down plus we are in a bad economy. in bad times the last thing this town needs is a turf field.

Sandra in your opinion the right thing is to have a turf field but in a bad economy myself and at least a dozen others think its not a smart move. I SAY TO MR AMLEN AND OTHERS TO SAY NO ON THE 28TH!

I would like to see the money go to the cleaning up and beautifying of the existing fields and parks and cleaning up of all the roads equally. Township trims fat from places that sometimes make no sense. Example, a few years back, we had approx 24K cut because we couldn't afford paying for grass clippings collection. I find that very amusing, since now we are taking over 2M to pay for a field. Yes, I too agree with the person who mentioned the YWCA. What is happening to that building? Are we waiting until it becomes uninhabitable to figure out what to do with it? How about having a 'youth center'? Three million dollars would definitely revamp it and our Springfield youth would not be hanging on corners -- making the town much less attractive -- and kids would be able to work out, do homework, hang out, and play sports, inside and outside. Not a bad investment.

This should not be a poitical issue; all the TC members should vote based on how they feel and not how their party leaders direct them. Both parties have blamed the other but its not the parties its the individuals. Elected officials will always have a certain number of people they represent who agree or disagree with various issues. There's never be a complete unification regarding any issue.
In my opinion the only issue with any validity is the financial one and arguments can be made for and against this expenditure. But in the long run, I feel a turf field will benefit residents and businesses and should be passed. Other towns with turf fields have seen an increase in business revenue when tournaments are held at their fields, so we should too.
The issue of property values is an unknown. Springfield has always been a flood zone area, and nothing that has occurred in the past 10+ years has changed that situation. The retention basin on Meisel Ave. was the single most significant improvement that was made to eleviate flooding problems, but home sales weren't hurt before or after that happened because of flooding problems. The economy was the single factor that has driven down property values, not anything else.
The majority of residents will see a benefit from a turf field, not just football/soccer familes. So the TC should do what is in the best interest of the majority of people and those against a field will have to accept the decision if its approved.

well said Bart. This should be a vite on whats good for the town and not by political party. I HATE POLITICS AND WHAT THEY STAND FOR. I LIKE WHEN THINGS ARE DONE FOR THE PEOPLE and nothing else.

I hear the discussions of Turf bringing business to Springfield. What business? How do we know that other towns have benefited? Where do we get data that points to it? I mean, we can say that, but we don't really know. Which towns have benefited? Who said they benefited? We don't have gourmet restaurants that out-of-towners are going to say: oooohh, aaaahhh, Springfield, there is a town I want to drop my money! Let's get real, besides an 'ok' Chinese restaurant in town, there is nothing else! Oh, sorry, a couple of decent bagel shops, but I doubt if that will drive our economy up! Besides, having huge crowds of people will only add to transit issues on the weekends when citizens want to get to places, will add to pollution, will generate lots of garbage that the town already struggles with... I mean, there is no actual data that could convince anyone, even poor little me, that it would help us. Maybe those towns that generate huge revenues are well planned and have the shops and restaurants people enjoy.

Leila U forgot the gormet campus sub shops which is actually a good place to dine but the gormet part is sarcasm on my part. u r right we dont have a gormet place in town that know of. campus sub is a fixture in town for years and a good place to eat at and run into politicians at times. i kid u not on that issue.

Anonymous, you can go to the bagel shops and run into people who are supposed to be working, but are having breakfast and hanging out in the am. These are the same people, at around the same time, so I am thinking this is a ritual. Rituals are good. I like it too. lol

I do too Leila> i try to joke a bit in hear as it is a touchy subject. i wish i had the proper answer i honestly want whats good for the town. i stay annomymous for a reason. iwant to judge people who 1 day i might reelect or vote out depending on what they do.