Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Bartolotta And Nocera: Vote YES On Parks Bond

Submitted by Mary Bartolotta and Gene Nocera. Bartolotta is an incumbent member of the Common Council, Nocera is Chair of the Board of Education. Each is running for a Council seat in tomorrow's election.
Please vote YES on Question #2 related to the parks bond:

There have been many questions on the parks bond and we would like to address those questions and concerns. Has the bonding for the parks been thought out or have thoroughly planned?

The parks bond plan submitted to council on August 24, 2015 has not changed aside from the replacement of artificial turf fields with natural grass fields. Artificial turf fields were taken out of the bond since there has been concerns about safety. Scientific studies are not conclusive, but are trending in the direction of being UNSAFE for our children to be playing on. The federal government, which once approved of artificial turf, is no longer endorsing such use.

Some have recommend (what they refer to as organic artificial fields) as alternative to crumb rubber fields. The so-called organic fields are still covered with plastic artificial grass, which is one of the concerns of playing on crumb rubber (http://www.grassrootsirvington.org/turf-with-organic-infill.htm).

Both crumb and organic fields come with higher cost than green fields. Mainly due to the new installation and the removal of the old turf. Artificial fields have a life span of approximately 8-10 years. Once turf fields hit the their life expectancy, they need to be removed at a cost of approximately $250,000 today. With having grass fields in the bond, $3.5 million will be saved up front.

Some had stated that grass fields are more costly then artificial turf to maintain. This is simply not true, especially when you take into consideration all the costs as stated above, along with  maintenance of artificial turf. This maintenance should include one hour of maintenance for every 10 hours of use, snow removal, testing of soil around fields, disinfecting and other maintenance upkeep, this is simply not the case.

Grass fields are safe for our children/athletes, the best choice for our environment and for the taxpayers of Middletown.  Keep in mind artificial fields would be gated and not open to the community as a whole.  Also, by letting our children play on grass fields, they can play the game the way it’s supposed to be played. The injuries that have been reported on turf fields includes burn related injuries (http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Stratford-High-School-Football-Artifical-Turf-Burns-Blisters-Team-Coach-326143921.html).

Even the women’s  soccer league is suing over being made to play on artificial turf because of injury and the game cannot be played in its true form (http://www.wfsb.com/story/29659701/soccer-star-abby-wambach-is-tough-on-turf#.VfClxdMBmWV.gmail)

Let not forget that this is not the only part of the parks bond. There are trails, parks, the replacement of our Vets pool and so much more.

The parks bond  by ordinance will be overseen by a building committee for each part of the project and then will go to Common Council for final approval.

Please vote YES to improving our quality of life for everyone in the City of Middletown this Tuesday, November 3.


Mary Bartolotta and Gene Nocera


Anonymous said...

I'm voting no because it's wrong to make people pay for a dog park. If people want to own a dog, they should pay for it.

Anonymous said...

Taxpayers want schools, parks, roads, etc. they pay for it with taxes. Therefore a dog park is no different, if taxpayers want it then the municipality should provide it.

Anonymous said...

The state the fields are currently in are a hazard. There are holes, some being 4-5 inches below the surface in many places among numerous fields across middletown. I encourage the author to step out onto the soccer fields. When i say step out, i dont mean look from the sideline. Please walk out onto the fields and actually walk them. Take a ball run around and dribble. Im positive you may turn an ankle at least. These conditions could and will cause serious injury to our young children. If the parks can not keep up with maintaining what we have, how are they planning on adding 6 fields and maintaining them? I along with many, are voting no. It is not, because of the turf. It's because of the poor and hazardous conditions of our current fields. There is no clear outline where the money is going, and that I can not vote for.

Anonymous said...

I will be voting no. I consider myself a reasonable and informed person. But on this one I am voting no. No clear plan, no vote.

Anonymous said...

I voted no!
I urge everyone else to as well.
No matter how many times Mary cries in council chambers.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon at 10:52 AM,

Just wanted to let you know that your comment about Mary crying in council chambers was the tipping point that helped me decide to vote yes on the parks bond! And, by the way, for Mary Bartolotta for council (I was undecided till now). Because although I do think the parks bond could be better thought out, I think that your comment that she cries in council chambers is just code for "women shouldn't be in government". And that kind of thinking is much more dangerous to Middletown than a sloppy parks bond - one can be fixed with responsible oversight, while your misogyny is likely incurable.

Thanks for your help.

Anonymous said...

If that was your tipping point, then you were destined to make the wrong decision anyway. As I'm sure you have so many times before.
Ps. I voted for Sandra. She doesn't cry.