Swampscott Field Committee to Study Improvements Including Artificial Turf
Selectman Glenn Kessler wants the committee to consider Upper Jackson Park as an alternative to Phillips Park, which is prone to flooding.
Selectmen agreed on Wednesday to have the new Athletic Field Study Committee look at the existing football field or alternative locations for a synthetic surface.
The field would be paid for by public and private funds; and the committee's field recommendation, including a cost estimate, will be presented to selectmen by Feb. 14.
Board members held off appointing the committee's seven members for at least another week. They want to see if additional people volunteer and give the committee a make-up more representative of the town as a whole.
Selectman Jill Sullivan said the new committee should include Linso van der Burg, who would bring to the table his experience as a member of the group that proposed the previous field improvement plan.
The board agreed to broaden the scope of the new committee's study to include alternative field sites after Selectman Glenn Kessler suggested Upper Jackson Park at the high school as a field location.
That site is less prone to flooding, he said.
Prospective Committee member Linso van der Burg cautioned against giving the volunteer committee too broad a scope.
Selectman David Van Dam said he hopes the committee comes back with new plans that resolve concerns raised at Town Meeting about the previous artifical surface proposal.
That proposal failed to gain the necessary two-thirds majority vote in May.
Some of the concerns raised about the proposal included the health implications of an artifical surface, the explanation of the project's funding and that the field was supported by too small a group that did not represent the views of the town at large.
The new committee will study the field's practice and playing space, including an artifical surface to meet those needs.
Town Administrator Tom Younger developed the draft of the committee's scope of responsibilities.
The committee's goals also include looking at options to repair or replace stands; recommendations for improvements that benefit sports including football, field hockey, lacrosse and soccer; and investigating grants and private donations.
In This article
-
-
Phillips Park
Humphrey St & Pleasant St, Swampscott, MA -
Upper Jackson Sport Complex
1 the Greenway, Swampscott, MA
Mick
2:23 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
If the "Plan" failed to meet the two third's majority vote, that generally means the Majority of the people don't want it! Why do we keep studying an item no one wants over and over again?
Dones1968
2:34 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
2/3 means 66%. Majority means 50.1%
Alex
2:47 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
It seems that in all cases when there is not enough votes for some questionable spending the activists just keep pushing until this spending is being sneaked through the back door.
Why would not put all initiatives like this one to town voting and if they are voted down, then they should not be brought again for <whatever number of years>? This will be democratic.
Elmwood Road
8:25 pm on Thursday, July 12, 2012
It is true that the proponents of the artificial turf/new bleachers at Blocksidge Field did not get the 2/3 majority they needed to win approval of the plan, but they did win a simple majority each time Town Meeting members voted. Objectively, then, the proposal has merit. But these "activists" are no longer in the driver's seat "pushing until this spending is [] sneaked through the back door." Since the vote, proponents and opponents alike have met in good faith to come up with a compromise. The Selectmen are holding open, planned, and noticed meetings respecting this issue. The Selectmen have called out to the public seeking members of a committee who will thoroughly evaluate (at no cost, of course) the plan, alternatives, and hopefully an affordable compromise. Thus, there is no "back door" dealing going on. In fact, if there was before, our Town Meeting put a stop to it with its votes. I believe what is going on now is the way our town's democracy is supposed to function. Nonetheless, Alex, I agree that at the end of the day, after the committee makes its proposal in February 2013 and the Selectmen consider it, the issue should go to a town-wide vote (or at least Town Meeting vote again). I don't believe there should be a limit or required number of years before an issue may be raised again. Just look at the Republicans in the House, who have now attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act for at least the 13th time since its passage. C.J. Urbano
Archie Bunker
9:13 am on Sunday, July 15, 2012
Any plan that involves putting night lights at Blocksidge field should be off the table! This intrusion on the surrounding residents is too much to ask, they deserve peace and quiet after dark, not traffic and noise late into the evening! Further, the artificial turf is far too costly and far too toxic to be used as originally proposed. The more expensive field would be less toxic but also far less practical in terms of cost. We will still be paying for the field when it is well beyond its useful lifespan! Lets spend our tax dollars more wisely. We have the highest taxes in the North Shore and now we are down to two trash barrels per household per week without any increase in recyclable collections. Really? Absurd Nonsense!
Citizen Swamp
10:59 am on Sunday, July 15, 2012
AB,
We'd be interested in your suggestions on the subject of Blocksidge Field.
CS
Archie Bunker
1:31 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
The town meeting did exactly what it was supposed to do, stop these ridiculous outlays of taxpayer monies for pet projects and Real Estate speculation that would hurt the surrounding home owners by reducing the value of their properties! The field should be properly maintained and new stands built to protect public safety. That is the extent of the town's responsibility! How about doing what government is tasked to do like collecting trash without placing unwarranted limitations!
Citizen Swamp
1:47 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
AB,
You're wrong on your temple projects. That land was purchased under the guise of building a police station, all to prevent lower income apartments from being built there. Which a developer could do "by right" skipping the zoning review process. There is no way the proposed project at either the Temple or Middle School site is going to reduce property values. Both projects are attractive and well thought out.
Lets move forward on both. We will rid the town of dilapidated buildings and add to the tax rolls.
CS
Citizen Swamp
1:52 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
AB
As for Blocksidge Field, yes the bleachers and press box are in horrible shape.
You are taking the easy way out by saying the grass field is a victim of poor maintenance. In fact it is a victim of gross overuse. If we want to continue to schedule play on that field at it's current rate the only solution is an artificial surface. Mr. Kessler's proposal to turf the Upper Jackson field would in fact permit less use at Blocksidge if most events except for football games were scheduled up there.
CS
Citizen Swamp
5:08 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
PM,
Lights would be easy with turf, I'm sure a whole new batch of neighbors would complain. Wouldn't need many bleachers since lax, field hockey and soccer don't draw large crowds.
If your talking about a stadium suitable for football up on the hilltop, that's a different story.
Would need bleachers to seat at least 2500. Press box, a building or tents for half times, restroom facilities, scoreboard, parking isn't the greatest for large crowds, concession stand,, etc. I can hear the Greenway and Burpee Road crowd already talking about the impact to their neighborhood.
CS