Walpole High field [Archive]

Unregistered

02-14-2007, 07:47 AM

I sense some desperation in the "voices of the faithful” Walpole Athletic Complex supporters.

It seems that their original estimates for the overall costs of creating this new sports “complex” were off a bit, and now they need almost $500,000 more to do the job. In fact, due to the nature of their organization, it seems that they must get all (or most of all) of the money in hand before starting this project. Their website asks their original donors to give again…and a plea has been sent out for new ideas to help them raise money for the project.

One thing I have noticed about their website is that, in spite all of the endorsements by local sports celebrities, they leave out the actual break down of cost savings in having an artificial turf field as opposed to a natural turf field. If indeed the athletic complex is going to save Walpole money in the long run, how about a bit-by-bit breakdown of this cost advantage?

Another thing left out: the engineering positives of the artificial turf field. How much safer is it for students to play on? Are injuries reduced? Their website claims that it will last over 10 years. What happens at year 12? Do we need to raise another million dollars to maintain this field? Though the initial project will be funded by donations…who is going to fund the maintenance of this complex? Or the update of the field in the coming years? (take a look in your bathroom mirror to find the answer)

What about claims I have read that during the warmer months, on-field temperatures are significantly higher during mid-day hours than with natural turf, and that artificial turf fields lack the natural “ingredients” (so to speak) of regular turf fields.....and infections of certain injuries are higher on artificial turf?

The last thing, of course, is that they claim to be making the field for all residents, but their graphic clearly points out one thing: This is obviously a football field, and barely anything else.

Did they ever think that they may be coming across to many of their fellow citizens as over-zealous football fans, eager to have their own “mini-stadium” in the midst of suburban Walpole? I have heard that from more than a few fellow citizens.

The most they can say is who is "IN"....did they ever figure out that a lot of Walpole residents are definitely on the "OUT" with this project? It was a good thing the Board of Selectmen didn't sign up the taxpayers to pay for this project...but in essence, in the future, we will pay for it anyway...right?

Unregistered

03-03-2007, 04:42 PM

As a neighboring community, Bob Kraft should be anxious to assist Walpole. We are inconvenienced by the stadium events.

Perhaps if he does not want to help, Walole should erect sobriety check points on Washington ans Summer streets to get his attention.

Also, Gov Deval is talking about local option taxes. Can we enact a parking tax for spaces in our boundries?

Unregistered

03-07-2007, 04:40 PM

You can show your support for and perhaps help earn some grant $$ for the field project from an on-line grant that is now posted by Hamburger Helper.

Go to www.myhometownhelper.com

Click on the link at the top of the page that says "Find a Project".

Enter Massachusetts and Walpole

Then find the project that says Upgrade Town Fields and add a comment in support of the town field project!

The more support this project is shown, the better chance we have to earn some grant $$.

Unregistered

03-07-2007, 07:06 PM

The towns on that hamburger helper website are not affluent towns....like Walpole!

Walpole was NOT affected by Hurricane Katrina, nor is it located in Appalachia or the middle of Michigan farm country. Come on! Can't you figure out that website is for POOR towns?

Has jock-itch gone to your heads?

signed,
In Total Disbelief

Unregistered

03-09-2007, 08:07 AM

we would curious to know what positive ideas and methods could be employed to raise money for this needed complex. negative comments don't help get something completed. unless of course you are not in favor of the new field. these funds are being raised by a group of volunteers for the betterment of our entire community. we ask for your ideas and help.

Unregistered

03-09-2007, 10:31 AM

Some good points have been raised.

How about a response on the cost benefits?

The FWAC projected the cost to be 1.5 million, and now they need nearly 0.4 million more. That is quite a mis-calculation I would say.

What do they project the cost to be when it needs to be replaced in ten years? I'd really like to know that. (I'll bet it is a heck of a lot more than re-turfing a field with grass).

What happens with the old materials when the field is renovated? I understand that they can contain lead, as part of the material is made of ground up tires. Will we have an environmental issue in 10 years?

How about responding to the issue of higher temperatures on artificial turf over natural grass?

The comment about doing something for the betterment of the whole community is noble, but adding extra cost burdens (in the maintenance or possible future replacement) doesn't seem to be a benefit.

Furthermore: Walpole High athletes have been playing football for years on good old grass.

What is different about todays generation of kids that they need something softer?

The FWAC is stuck at this point quite possibly because they didn't research the project enough, and couldn't convince everybody that it was worth investing in!

long time resident

Unregistered

03-10-2007, 06:25 AM

Set up a demonstration of an artificial turf field, and publicize it in the local media.

Find the nearest one (Westwood?), arrange for permission to visit, invite Walpole residents to show up and see, touch, walk on, etc. this field themselves.

Get testimonials from local school officials in Eastern Massachusetts, especially maintenance crews, school superintendents. Even from Boards of Selectmen. Put those testimonials on the FWAC website.

Don't imply this is good because the pros use it. After all, the pros have bigger budgets, and High School sports are not meant to be held to the same standard.

Is the track astroturf? If not....build a track only as stage one. Then track meets can be held in Walpole. This would greatly enhance the athletic field, and our athletic programs.

Answer questions raised about replacement costs in the future.

You may get more people on board.

The Raven

Unregistered

03-13-2007, 02:14 PM

To Total Disbelief:
From the HomeTownHelper website

Initiatives Supported by MYHOMETOWNHELPER.COM:
When evaluating requests, MYHOMETOWNHELPER.COM review committee will favor organizations meeting the following criteria:
Demonstrate a need in a community
Illustrate a helpful, creative or innovative concept that meets this need
Clearly identify change/s that can be made as a result of receiving the Award

Says nothing about the financial status of your town...

This effort costs nothing and (if you read the posts from Walpoleans) promotes community spirit and involvement - something this town is in desparate need of!

SO again go to: www.myhometownhelper.com

click on "find a project" at the top of the page

Enter Massachusetts and Walpole and click search

find the project titled "Upgrade town fields" and post a comment in support!

Thanks

Unregistered

03-15-2007, 03:02 PM

To Grumpy #10, The old school WHS teams played on grass..correct. They didn't play on mud. The field was not used for lacrosse all spring. There is a crisis level need for more athletic field space in Walpole. The selectmen sat back and okayed permission for Toll subdivisions, with no new plans for open space for youth sports. The facilities are atrocious compared to neighboring towns. The Fieldturf can be used from dawn to dusk for many levels of youth sports, without fear of wearing out. I want my kids to have access to this facility. You can walk on the track, what's your problem? I contributed, you obviously won't. Your perogative, but you still have questions about if I am spending my money wisely? Get over yourself!

Unregistered

03-16-2007, 06:45 AM

Though the pro-athletics crowd in Walpole has always been an overt and boisterous entity they certainly are not a majority, as evidenced in this athletic fields project.

I'm sorry to say that they have alienated a lot of people over the years with their narrow view of the world and how they are perceived.

This group says that their project is fully funded by donations from only certain individuals. What is a federal grant in their opinion, may I ask? Isn't it really some of my money too?

That is what has turned me completely off to this project. It has been marketed to locals as if we aren't IN with this micro-view of athletics, then we are anti-community spirit. That is preposterous.

That grant money was originally meant for all of Walpole's athletic fields, not this athletic complex.

I'm OUT (and obviously most of us are OUT)

Unregistered

03-16-2007, 10:29 AM

So #14, we won't expect to see you walking the new track then I guess. What irks me is when people turn on folks who are trying to do a good thing for the community. This group is not out to deceive the people of Walpole or trying to exclude people. They are trying to build something that pretty much the entire community can use and benefit from. Didn't Mom always say, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything!"

Unregistered

03-18-2007, 07:06 PM

FWAC: will you tell the citizens of Walpole how much money you have raised in cash?

Unregistered

03-21-2007, 04:08 PM

What a crank!

Unregistered

03-22-2007, 08:21 AM

Grass is easier to play on but the turf makes it easier to maintain but you got to be able to use the field for more than Football and Lacrosse (2 sports in which I played). Girls lacrosse,field hockey and soccer has to have a chance to play there too otherwise it's not that much of an investment.

Unregistered

03-24-2007, 06:27 AM

You know what I don't get? Why this town (and this board) seems to attract conspiracy nuts. The field is a mud hole from over use because we have a lot of sports and not a lot of fields. The track is unusable. A bunch of people try to solve the problem, and the raise the money themselves. They managed to raise over a million and a half bucks, and are over three quarters of the way there. How many of you nay-sayers out there have done that kind of thing for the town? The price goes up because changes to the plan get made, and because two years have gone by (gee, my bills didn't go up in two years! - Puleeze.) and the rotten fruit start flying from the cheap seats.

I'll never use (or probably ever even see) that field or track, and I don't know any of the people who are doing it. By I say more power to 'em! Good going, and thanks for getting off your butts and doing something for the town besides complaining.

Unregistered

03-26-2007, 06:42 AM

"they managed to raise over a million and a half bucks...".

I just went to the Friends Athletic Complex website, and tallied up the donations. It seems that they have taken in a lot less than $1.5 million dollars.

More like somewhere between $500k and $600K. I could be wrong. I think that question raised is a good one: How much cash does this group have in the bank, earning interest?

What is the breakdown of cash in hand vs. pledge money, and what are the contingencies placed on that "promised" money? I think that is a very fair question to ask all of us, if you are indeed asking everyone to double their donations. I know one couple who are thinking of asking for their money BACK!

Its a question of viability. Is this indeed a viable project to raise funds for under the current economic circumstances in many households? (home values falling, potential tax increases, inflation, etc.).

If the price for the work is going to go up every year, and the fundraising can't keep up with it, how long will the Board of Selectmen let this group be promised the $400,000 federal grant money before they distribute that money to upgrade the other athletic fields in town?

fair questions if you are asking us to double our first donation.

how about some answers on the groups website?

I do not think there is a conspiracy. I think that there is an impossible goal considering the economic times.

Unregistered

04-07-2007, 06:46 AM

If anything deep-sixes this field, it will be this plea to Hamburger Helper to bail out this project.

By the way...please read the terms and conditions (that you said you read) before making any comments on that website.

One whole family (and apparently a locally well known individual) has not followed the rules.

Item B states that when you comment you will agree....

"b. to not use last names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, or any other information that would individually identify you or anyone else."

To the writer of the article in the Times this week: Good thing you didn't mention this Hamburger Helper stuff on the paper. You would have been laughed out of town!

Take the $400,000 grant and the money you have raised, and fix the fields now. Stop begging large corporations with comments that make it appear we are a poor little community! When in fact, you claim you have $1.5 million dollars!

Fix the fields (natural turf), fix the track...and stop holding our grant money hostage in the hopes that you will raise money for your field of dreams!

I want the track at Walpole High fixed...and there is money to do it. Do It!

Unregistered

04-18-2007, 03:33 PM

Sadly, the track is unreparable due to tree root damage and neglect. I applaud anyone who does anything positive to help this "friendly" town. When this project is finished I hope every able-bodied citizen can enjoy walking around the track or play a game of frisbee on the infield and realize that it is for all of us to enjoy, not just the athletes!

Unregistered

05-07-2007, 06:22 PM

I took a drive over to Westwood, and took a look at their artificial turf field and new track. I assume it is practically exactly what the FWCAC wants installed in Walpole. I also spoke with a lacrosse "mom", and got some good information. I'd like to share it here..

-the pro's: more field usage, and more durability.

-the cons:
on-field temperatures are noticeably higher on artificial turf than on natural turf. She says she noticed it last fall...I wonder what the summer is like? I did find a paper written on artificial turf that said on-field temps can be up to 125 degrees.

As measured during a sunny day, with ambient temp at 78F, and compared to bluegrass at the same area
:
bluegrass surface temp: 83F
artificial turf surface temp: 125F

That seems pretty bad in my estimation. Perhaps artificial turf is better in indoor airconditioned stadiums.

-players can get rug-burn if they fall with unprotected knees and elbows.
the westwood mother said, "after all, its plastic".

A certain bacterial infection can arise from these rug-burn injuries, as the artificial turf does not contain the natural microbes of natural turf, and bacteria can survive on the warm plastic surfaces.

-vandalism susceptibility: artificial turf can be easily vandalized, and the repair costs can be significant.

athletes whose uniforms provide elbow and knee protection will fare better on an artificial surface than those who don't have such protection, ie: soccer, field hockey, etc.

Westwood track: noticebly better than the walpole track, with a "grippier" surface. it appears they use a rougher type of asphalt application, with bigger stones (?). Makes sense. Their broad jump pits were very good.

Walpole track: Not the dangerous surface the FWCAC says it is. I witnessed a woman jogging on it. there were two holes (they looked man-made for some reason) about 8 inches in diameter, in front of the stands..the DPW could patch them. the uneven-root-damage surface I did not really see. I walked the whole track myself. there was an area where there was a bit of waviness, but new paving surely would do the trick. I see no reason to dig up the old track...only a need for resurfacing.

Biggest possible and noticeable reason for not having track meets: our long-jumping pits seem totally neglected.

go to westwood, and see for yourself. try a warm day. you may get a good feel for this temperature thing.

my thinking is that even though some local towns have these fields, perhaps they will live to regret them!

signed...

"the natural man"

Unregistered

05-09-2007, 07:14 PM

Being a former member of the track team I know how dangerous the track actually is. I agree with you that the root problem is very little to non-existent but the holes and cracks are a much bigger problem. Filling in the potholes with asphalt is not the best option. Also, I do believe the track is safe for casual joggers because running on the track at its current condition is like running on any of the roads in Walpole. However, anyone who has ever been on the track team or has done workouts know that running on this track can lead to serious damage to your legs. The only way teams from the Bay State Conference will ever agree to run at meets in Walpole is if the whole track is given the surface it needs and deserves.
As for the on-field heat comment, that is true. This is why on fields like this there would be many more night games or late in the afternoon.
Just to add for the rug burn comment, this is true as well. But I would much rather get a rug burn the have cuts and bruises from sharp rocks and glass that you may encounter on some of the towns fields.

I'm not sure if it has been addressed in their plans for the complex, but are they planning to cut down any of the trees in the town forest that are on the edge of the track? During the winter and early spring snow and ice accummulate on the track near the town forest and tree cover does not allow any sunlight to melt the ice.

Unregistered

05-10-2007, 05:18 AM

I also visited the town center field, probably the worst example of an athletic field that can be found anywhere.

Yes, it is over used. I can clearly remember walking that field in the early 1990's, and though it wasn't as lush as it was in the 1960's, it wasn't the rock-hard surface, bald of grass that it is today.

One obvious culprit: The annual spring carnival, with all of its heavy equipment and foot traffic. Take crowds of people walking at times on a muddy surface, and they will churn up any remnants of grass in no time. All of this is happening annually, when the grass is trying to start growing after a long winter. We need to give that field a rest, and find another venue for the annual carnival.

Second obvious culprit: The annual 4th of July fireworks crowd. I'm not advocating an end to that, but perhaps we need to limit the access to the field for a year or two to let it rejuvenate.

Yes, I have seen the evening football practices at that field...and the FWCAC's comment about kids playing on a rock-hard surface bring to mind one comment: What caring parent will let their child be tackled on a rock hard surface?

The idea of paying large amounts of money for a field surface that is easily vandalized, that may make young athletes uncomfortable, and that, as the previous poster implies, will require more evening use because it is too hot during the day to use, makes me think that the artificial turf plan is not the way to go.

suggestions:

-update the track to standards that will draw other towns for track meets

-resod the football field....and take care of it

-re-seed and process the town field, and limit access to it for several years

-use the federal grant money already allocated to the town of walpole to do all of the above.

-put the plan for artificial turf on hold. keep an eye on these other towns, and see what happens with these surfaces in the future

-get politically active, and find a way that goose droppings can be eliminated....(think: Shot guns. Its time we had a huge goose-shoot. I know, they are beautiful, but....! )

the natural man....

Unregistered

05-11-2007, 09:45 AM

Finish the Fieldturf and track at the high school! There is enough empirical evidence nationwide that Fieldturf is safe and economical. Heat will not be a factor..high school athletics end in late May and start in September. Summer use will be in evenings. Walpole is in MA, not the sun belt! Stop the lowlife carnival on the Town Field. It needs to be aerated, resodded, and watered. In the alternative, carve out a 150 yard by 100 yard plot just inside the fence of Adams Farm for a natural grass facility. Even the ornithologists and flower lovers cannot deny that that small amount of space will interrupt the enjoyment of the rest of the facility. The Lion's Club uses more space to park cars there annually. All for the goose shoot and roast! Give the kids a chance to play on clean, safe surfaces. All kids, not just specific sports, under the auspices of the Rec Dept.

youth coach

05-11-2007, 06:44 PM

I've coached many games, both football and lacrosse, on these artificial surfaces and I've never witnessed, nor heard of, any players coming up with rug burn injuries as a result of the surface material.

The artificial turn is very forgiving and will in fact decrease injuries because it allows a softening of the blow due to a fall. The "blades" of grass themselves feature "split ends" for every blade, and each blade is supported by the foundation of rubber pellets.

The surface is warmer than natural turf, this is a result of the rubber pellets acting like a heat sink. We've played games on this type of surface into early June with no complaints from the players.

Vandalization would seem to be a lesser concern than is player injuries and natural turf maintenance. At least in my opinion. I would hope that the consensus would not shift to the negative because someone MIGHT vandalize the surface.

Unregistered

05-12-2007, 06:08 AM

since a coach seems to want to chime-in on this issue, I am wondering what coaches think about letting small kids play football on rock-hard surfaces...or for that matter: how about the parents?

Do you really think that is a good thing to do? (the recent boston globe mag. article on sports injuries in pro and high school levels comes to mind). Is there a parent out there who has pulled their child from the football program due to lack of concern about injuries?

regarding the on-field heat issue: plastic absorbs and retains heat. We all know this. There is no way that the heat issue should be disregarded.

vandalism should be considered, since the field will not be secure like a professional domed stadium!

the bacteria mentioned is MRSA (it is methicillin resistant staph aureolus...i think). The increase in these rug-burn injuries provides openings for the MRSA (which apparently breeds in locker rooms, etc.)

other towns that have a lack of acreage for playing fields need to turn to artificial turf...what is the total acreage of playing fields in walpole?

The comment about Adams Farm is fair: It seems to me that the field near the street could be developed for athletics use (why not? it is town property). I do enjoy Adams Farm...but I also would not be against developing a playing field near the street.

Unregistered

05-12-2007, 11:44 PM

Use Adams Farms for playing fields. We all paid for it so we should all get to use it. What is so bad about letting kids play sports at Adams Farm?

youth coach

05-13-2007, 01:24 PM

It's never a good situation when we play or practice on hard ground; of course, a proper playing surface would be a better alternative. I would prefer that our football players did not practice on Stone field because it's awful. That being said, we're doing the best we can to minimize the risk of injury on these playing surfaces.

I have no comment to add in judgment of player's parents decision.

I am personally not aware of a parent pulling their son from the football program due to fear of injury.

The heat issue does not concern me. I've been on a synthetic turf playing surface on a sunny day in June. It's warmer than a regular field. I think the positives outweigh the negatives here; players joints are subjected to softer impacts when running, the playing surface is level so we decrease our risk of rolling an ankle, and body impacts on the ground are softer due to the type of surface.

I don't know what you want to do about vandalism. I would hope that it's not enough of a concern to sway Walpole citizens from continuing to support the new Turco field.

Again, I've not seen anything akin to a rug burn injury during any game or practice on a new synthetic playing field.

I do not know how many acres we have available for play. I do know that there are certain fields where we are not allowed to play lacrosse or football, but that's a different conversation.

Unregistered

05-13-2007, 08:07 PM

youth coach: maybe the heat issue does not bother you, because after all, you aren't out there playing, are you?

the FWCAC website has a new video. one teen says he prefers natural turf to artificial turf. What kind of marketing scheme is that?

personally, I think there should be a moratorium on contact sports played at the stone field. It is just way too hard of a surface for the kids.

your comment about night games being better as the temps are lower sure sounds logical....until you factor in an additional cost: $$$ to pay for the lights, and $$$ to power those lights (they aren't 50 watt lightbulbs). One of the greatest increases in costs in the Town of Walpole is: Electricity. We need to find ways to reduce electrical usage, not increase it.

regarding vandalism: a little bit of gasoline and a match can totally ruin that field, and it would take thousands to fix it. this vandalism concern is real and it has happened before. it is not made up nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure out how to do it:

read about this field being vandalized...way back in September, 2006:

http://www.risd.org/SchoolTimesNOW/092006/index.htm

"Recently at Berkner High School's B field, vandals burned the artificial turf, causing about $40,000 in damage. Because the fields are covered in artificial field turf, it is not simply a matter of growing more grass, but of having to replace expensive areas of turf."

youth coach: will you come up with the $40,000 if the new field is torched? Who will? Will the field be out of bounds if it is vandalized...and for how long??

it took me about 2 seconds to find this link. I am sure there are many others....right??

So if the FWCAC is going to go forward with this, they need to plan for night security details, or a special fence with barbed wire. Did they factor that into the cost of the project? Do we need to have police watching this new extremely expensive field, when for the past, what, 100 years, they never had to watch a football field? Ever?

Unregistered

05-14-2007, 08:30 AM

I think many of the naysayers need to realize that Fieldturf is not the same as the Astroturf that they have seen at Vet's Field in Philly or at the Heights. It is a much more forgiving surface, with truer, natural footing. Ask any Walpole kid who has played an away game on it if they like it or not. The private donors are striving to build this precisely because the fields are in such poor shape. To the poster asking about the dangers of Stone Field, I much prefer my grade schooler playing football on it than my toddler "playing baseball" on it w/ all the goose dung. Yes it is an embarrasment that the town doesn't have better facilities, but people are trying to remedy that, and others question their plans, their motives, and their solutions. Why? The town has a great Youth sports program due to dedicated, selfless individuals. How about helping and supporting them? Finish the Turco Field, and work on more fields. Restore Stone St. Field, scrap the Senior Center plans.

Unregistered

05-14-2007, 10:39 AM

Just so typical. Pick on the seniors and scrap the senior center plans. Don't any of you have a mother and father? I contributed to the project but comments like these make me want to ask for my contribution back.

Unregistered

05-14-2007, 10:42 AM

the town is divided on this project. you admit that you have reached only a small percentage of the families in town, and you wonder why?

citizens are voting with their pocketbooks on this one.

suddenly the sports lobby in town is forced to raise money themselves instead of relying on all of us to fund their projects. this time, reality is coming to the fore.

also: continually claiming that all money that has been raised is through private donations is misleading...considering the $400,000 federal grant money (taxpayers money). the glitzy video was excellent...except it continued to hammer home that theme...all money is private. taxpayer money is not private money!

obviously the people of walpole don't like to be mislead. think back on the override issue: there are real similarities to the marketing styles of both the field issue and the override issue.

we are not blind! many of us obviously do not want to have a plastic sports field and the unknown future costs it may bring shoved onto our plates.

no one is advocating the end of athletics in walpole, right?

Unregistered

05-14-2007, 04:19 PM

#31 Did you proofread your post? You criticize "youth coach" and question his assertation that heat on the turf is tolerable, because he's not the one playing. But then you unilaterally suggest a moratorium on contact sports on Stone Field? When's the last time you were tackled on it? At least be consistent with your points. "All it takes is gas and a match to vandalize a turf field?" Yes, as well as to vandalize Walpole High, Blackburn Hall, your home, the new structure at Adams Farm, and any number of other places. Again, what is your point? Sit back and pontificate to us how wrong we are for pushing forward with this plan? Thanks for the input, now step aside! And by evenings, I believe the author meant from post-school to dusk, electricity-free, unless you object to the kids using the scoreboard. Your grumpy negativism runs rampant in this so-called friendly town, and doesn't add much to the discussion.

Unregistered

05-14-2007, 04:24 PM

#33, Yes, thanks, both my parents are alive and well. I appreciate your inquiry. They don't live in Walpole, therefore they are not asking for the public town to grant them a piece of land for their private entity. That only occurs in this town, where Grandmom and Dad want to take over Stone Field for a Senior Center, to partake in activities that are already available to them elsewhere in town. Let this not detract from this thread, there will be ample time for discussion on another thread, when they ask for money for their exclusive project.

Unregistered

05-14-2007, 06:15 PM

the vandalism issue: it is real, and occurring all over the u.s.

read this comment from Montreal. it declares that artificial turf companies have been actively and agressively marketing their product to high schools all over North America. (they are running out of indoor stadiums).

http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=5706

“Sadly, our situation is taking place all over North America,” said Marilynn Gilles, a member of SWP. “The artificial turf companies have covered most stadiums and now need another market. They are going after cash-strapped schools and municipalities and even – apparently – playgrounds.

Gilles pointed out that, since turf is vulnerable to contamination, fire, and vandalism, the Playing Fields would need to be fenced and marked with warnings, making the park less of a public space. She added an array of further reasons why the development is a bad idea, including the threat of groundwater poisoning from the plastic pellets below the surface of the infill-turf.

Sophie Zhang, coordinator of Greening McGill, said that the directly harmful impacts of the turf are not the only problem, citing the loss of the “inherent qualities of natural grass” – like cooling properties, oxygen production, pollutant absorption, reduction of soil erosion, and groundwater purifying capabilities.

David Bird, professor of Wildlife Biology at McGill University, posted his support on SWP’s website, pointing out that “the city is way below the international norm for hectares of green space per capita.”

City council agreed on October 3 to contract an environmental engineer to assess the environmental impact of the proposed project. So far, no assessment report has been produced.

Gilles also claimed that the turf was not even as useful as is widely claimed, pointing out that, in one test, samples of grass and turf under the same conditions displayed a temperature difference of 50-degree celcius, and that turf could pose a danger of overheating to athletes.

“Athletes are hot enough when they’re playing, [but] they’ll have to wait until later in the day to play on turf,” she said.

She added that artificial playing surfaces must be vigorously cleaned in order to avoid contamination, defeating the turf’s original purpose by amassing extra maintenance costs.

Both SWP and Greening McGill also object on aesthetic grounds to developments that place nature second to technology. "

....................................

In my opinion, the vandalism problem will certainly require a locked field when not being used by school athletes.

Locked, as in "not open to the everyday citizens of Walpole".

No more jogging the track whenever you want to.

No more kids allowed to just walk onto turco field and throw a frisbee.

Instead of seeing a green football field in front of the town forest, we will see a caged-in space...of plastic.

Apparently a small group of sports fans think they know what is best for the town of Walpole, and the rest of us seemingly cannot question anything they do. If we do, we are labelled anti-community spirit (even if we are active in other endeavors with the town!). There have been suggestions made to better existing fields, and to find more space...all of the suggestions involve natural turf.

pull up a chair, do a google search of "vandalism of artificial turf", and be prepared for an education.

Unregistered

05-14-2007, 07:23 PM

try:

vandalism: artificial turf

no quotes....sorry!

Unregistered

05-14-2007, 07:54 PM

Has it occured to the poster cowering over the spectre of vandalism that the powers that be in town may actually buy some insurance that would cover the act? Doesn't Turco Field have a fence around it now? Aren't there limitations on when folks can use other "public" lands? Can I go camping on Adams Farm w/o securing permission? Your arguments are just noise! How does Franklin prevent unapproved use of their field on Beaver St.? I suspect circling the High School parking lot is part of the police beat on a nightly basis. How would this add a burden?

youth coach

05-14-2007, 09:16 PM

No, sir, I am not a player on the field, I tend to remain on the sidelines. I am, however, privy to the comments and opinions of our players during and after the games played on the artificial surface; my recollection is that the players unanimously enjoy playing on the new surface.

The vandalism aspect remains, in my mind, a minor concern. With the thousands of existing new turf fields across the country, a small percentage appear to have been vandalized. Of course, by searching on the terms "vandalism of artificial turf" you will only come up with stories of vandalism. To balance out that information, how would one search for stories on fields that have not been vandalized? In the end, we have to rely on our trust of fellow Walpole citizens. This is a great town, full of great people who love their children, their homes, and their town. I'm certain that the majority of the people in town would enjoy the new field and I'm sure that the athletes will appreciate the new surface as well.

Unregistered

05-15-2007, 09:02 AM

#40 BRAVO Thanks to the time and effort you donate. If a benevolent philanthropist donated another turf field and a domed indoor facility, some would still object and question his motives. That's just the nature of some. I personally can't wait for the facility, and look forward to my kids playing on it. Who knows, maybe I'll even do a few laps on the track. FYI Google "corruption in town government Massachusetts" and you will find 915,000 entries, which signifies exactly nothing. Google is not the new research standard, don't let posters represent it as such!

Unregistered

05-15-2007, 03:42 PM

if a benevolent philanthropist donated an artificial turf field like the one some people want, and promised to take perpetual care of it, and to cover the costs of any vandalism that may occur, and to cover its replacement cost in 10 years, I'd say: Do It.

But with public money? (the $400,000 federal grant money....that everyone keeps including as private money) Don't Do It

public money means the public has a say as to what happens with it....correct? or are we all supposed to be like little sheep and not say a word?

preposterous, I say! Given a public forum like this, I will speak my mind...(as long as the operators of the website say so, anyway).

The federal grant money should be used for its original intended purpose: to be applied for the maintenance of ALL our athletic fields.

Unregistered

05-15-2007, 10:44 PM

The inclusion of a synthetic turf field into the rotation of available Walpole fields will benefit all the natural turf fields in Walpole by taking some of the stress off of the natural turf fields.

All natural turf fields need to rest to remain healthy. By increasing the usage rate of Turco field and by scheduling night games at the new Turco field, the remaining natural turf fields will have more time to rest.

The synthetic turf field's maintenance rate is much lower when compared to a natural turf field allowing it to become the "circuit breaker" for the fields throughout the town.

Unregistered

05-16-2007, 08:41 AM

#42 Nobody is contesting your right to speak your mind on the issue. Nor my right to tell you that you are completely off base! The last poster accurately explained how a Fieldturf field at Turco will help all the town fields. Your unnaturally acute fear of vandalism suggests a possible solution. Maybe those who do not have the wherewithal or the inclination to donate to this project financially can lend their time instead. Perhaps we could set up some community watch at the field, and monitor the use of the facility. What say you? Would you volunteer to serve a few hours a week with a clipboard and a cellphone?

Unregistered

05-16-2007, 12:20 PM

Evaluation of Playing Surface Characteristics of Various In-Filled Systems
Temperature and Color

http://cropsoil.psu.edu/mcnitt/infill7a.cfm

Unregistered

05-16-2007, 04:34 PM

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/03/25/turf_wars_heat_up_grass_vs_synthetic/

Unregistered

05-16-2007, 05:27 PM

#45 What is your point? Citing a study originally done in 1971, then updated 35 years later. The study doesn't discuss the ambient temperature 3 feet above the turf surface, only on the surface. That fact is about as relevant as being concerned that all youth hockey participants face an immediate risk of frostbite because they skate on a surface that is below the freezing point. You cannot tell me with straight face and clear conscience that you oppose the Turco Fieldturf because the surface on a bright sunny day may be warmer than natural grass. Wouldn't this be a good thing in late fall and early spring? Just resign yourself to the fact you are an obstructionist critic, then step aside and let those who actually donate their time and money do so.

Unregistered

06-15-2007, 10:31 AM

any updates?

Unregistered

07-26-2007, 11:16 AM

"The Patriots spray their practice and game fields with a disinfectant once a month."

http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_206215230.html

Unregistered

07-26-2007, 01:22 PM

Even though there is much debate over whether athletes can pick up the bacteria from the turf.

http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_206215230.html

Can you at least attempt to be academically objective in your loaded questions? Anyone can cut and paste inflammatory comments from anywhere. Walpole kids face bigger risks in the team locker rooms, or at Iorio Rink than they do on an open air turf field.

But doctors believe the best thing athletes can do is take individual precautions.

"Hand washing is a way to decrease it. Hand washing of special soap that kills staph," said Dr. Feder

Maybe the MIAA can hire a bathroom administrator for each high school to teach and enforce personal hygiene?

Unregistered

07-26-2007, 02:03 PM

since we are now the owners of a state of the art fieldturf playing surface, I surely hope we give it the same treatment and care as the pros do. they disinfect their field for a reason, regardless of the possible controversy about the need to do so or not.

in other words: disinfecting the field is probably a good thing to do. right?

what experience does walpole have in taking care of this type of playing surface anyway?

Unregistered

07-26-2007, 03:35 PM

The "pros" also have heated benches, misting fans, IV hookups, hydrotherapy pools, on call physical therapists and year-round off-field training oversight and facilities. Do you think we should have these as well, because the "pros" do? If you are worried about disinfecting a field, grab a spade and go down to Stone Field or Morgan Field, where generations of kids too young to wash their own hands are rolling in goose dung. I must have missed your thread about the horrors that these fields pose to our townfolk. Not to mention whatever fluids or germs the carnies leave on the field.

Unregistered

07-27-2007, 09:27 AM

an interesting article from the metrowest news this week on waylands artificial turf field, and concerns by local citizens.

it seems Wellesley and Concord put off creating artificial turf fields due to concerns. (I think that was very smart of them)

there are many unknowns about artificial turf, and walpole residents may just learn what they are the hard way

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x1396328823

regarding disinfecting fields: Sounds like a good idea to me. We don't need some soccer mom suing the town of walpole because her kid got an MRSA infection from the new turf.......right?

Unregistered

07-28-2007, 09:34 AM

Between the reporter's inaccuracies and your slanted views, this reader cannot get a clear picture of what exactly is the point you are trying to make? Does every new endeavor done privately or publicly in Walpole rise to this level of scrutiny? Can every imagined problem halt progress? Surely, the Toll Bros. development not to mention the planned 40B's will have a far greater negative environmental impact than a turf field at the high school. Aren't there Superfund sites in town? Do the custodians at WHS "disinfect" the basketball court? There isn't a shred of evidence that suggests the turf field will raise the risk of catching strains of bacteria. Please read your slanted, biased newspapers with a more discerning eye!

Unregistered

07-28-2007, 03:52 PM

you have got to be kidding me..that article is slanted and biased?...by the way, how about pointing out the inaccuracies if you think there are any.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x1396328823

what is the difference between Wellesley/Concord and Walpole? I have a good idea that some very smart people live in those towns...some of the smartest in America. Surely it wasn't the money that turned them off from going for a turf field. It was the possible negative consequences of dealing with these unknowns as related to fieldturf.

By the way, I am quite sure that indoor basketball courts around the world are routinely cleaned.....with a mop. Try that on a furry fake plastic turf field.

the concerns of the Wayland group about run-off of toxic materials from the backfill for the field are also based on good sound caution.

we should do the same...after all, we get all of our water from wells in the town. We don't need to possibly pollute our aquifer.

though the field was bought and (almost) fully paid for by a minority of town citizens, it is now the property of the Town of Walpole. Every citizen has a right to help determine its future, and how it is taken care of.

Unregistered

07-28-2007, 09:16 PM

Your post begins with the supposition that there is evidence that the ground rubber tire pellets create some environmental hazard when water runoff sifts through them. You cite not one bit of that evidence. The fact that someone in Wayland wants the state to disprove this supposition is ludicrous. Approximately 5200 square yards of turf field in a town the size of Walpole is not anymore threatening to the aquifer than the Taj Mahal Lexus dealership on Route One. Perhaps you should defer to the state DEP spokesman who opined that turf field pose no threat to the watershed. And if dragging a mop rinsed with sudsy water across the gym floor is enough to alleviate your fears of bacterial infections, then it won't take much to "disinfect" the turf field to your specifications.

Unregistered

07-29-2007, 02:17 PM

"Wayland struck a deal with residents to monitor drainage from the artificial playing field at the high school to guard against pollution of drinking water wells. The deal also speeds up construction of the turf.

Tramposch said tests on other artificial-turf fields have found a long list of chemicals in rainwater runoff including arsenic, lead, thallium, nickel and zinc, and the fields have been banned in some European countries.

“There’s a fair amount of work being done in Europe,” he said. “No one has really done the background testing here.”

He said Wellesley recently rejected a turf field plan because of environmental concerns."

tests of rainwater runoff have found chemicals like arsenic, lead, etc., and you think we have no reason to question this project?

Why have some european countries banned these fields?

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=1013252

super-aggressive marketing of these fields has been taking place all over the country.

question:
-is walpole going to check the run-off of water from this field? or are we to just trust our water supply to this field group?

Unregistered

07-29-2007, 05:05 PM

The Herald article is a cut-and-paste job from the earlier cited article! It quotes the same individual from Wayland.

Unregistered

07-30-2007, 08:30 AM

http://synturf.org/

other viewpoint...

"This site is dedicated to the leveling of the playing field of information in favor of the public’s right to an honest and transparent disclosure of the facts."

of course, I am awaiting the term "crackpot" to be slung...

Unregistered

07-30-2007, 01:17 PM

Again, what is your point? That it is too early to label synturf as inherently bad or dangerous to our youth? Perhaps if Walpole had the luxury of acres of lush athletic fields made of natural grass, one would consider your arguments. But the town is strapped for cash and open spaces for kids to participate in athletics. I'm sorry that spare tires may contribute to loss of microscopic marine life, but that "fact" doesn't seem particularly relevant to this thread. Maybe we can organize Wii videogame tournaments in sterile conditions so our children will not be exposed to any dangerous outdoor elements? In the meantime, when my kid is going to play an outdoor sport, I'd rather it be on Fieldturf than the bare clay and goose dung of Stone Field.

Unregistered

07-31-2007, 05:25 AM

http://www.njherald.com/296124821667499.php

a lot of good "pro" points made in this article...but negatives too. The most interesting piece of info for me: the first field turf field was constructed way way way back....in 1999.

No One really knows how long these fields will last, how much they will cost to replace, and whether or not they will adversely affect the environment.

The ONLY way to assertain all of that is for time to pass...and to monitor what is going on. Walpole, you are now part of the "great experiment". Wellesley and Concord folks will be watching....smartly, as they decided to take the "wait and see" approach and held off constructing what may turn out to be "White Elephant Field".

Of course, who will foot the bill if things go awry? Look in the mirror folks.
from the article:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As much as FieldTurf tries to duplicate natural grass, it's not possible to be a complete replica. The soil in natural grass contains bacteria that can decompose bodily fluids and other harmful substances. That kind of bacteria isn't present in any artificial surface.

So when there are certain types of bacteria present on an artificial surface, there can be problems.

The Centers for Disease Control conducted a study in 2003 and found that artificial surface was the cause of cases of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or MRSA in athletes. MRSA is antibiotic resistant and players who sustain turf burns are seven times more likely to contract a potentially fatal MRSA infection because the uncovered wounds easily allow the bacteria to spread from one player to another.

MRSA cannot be spread when playing on grass.

"The biggest difference is skin abrasions," said Dr. Brad Fresenburg, a turfgrass specialist for the state of Missouri. "There's a significantly higher amount of skin abrasions on an artificial surface. When the players do get skin abrasions they should have it taken care of by the trainer right away."

Five players on the St. Louis Rams were infected with MRSA during the 2003 season and it was discovered the bacteria entered the body through skin abrasions. Cases like this have been found at the college level and at high schools.

But Fresenburg said there are ways the spread of bacteria can be avoided.

"For players that are utilizing towels, there should be a one-use policy," he said.

Fresenburg also said schools should use antibiotics and disinfectants whenever there is an obvious incident of blood, spit, urine, vomit, animal droppings or anything else on the field that can potentially be harmful.

Another problem with synthetic fields is the amount of heat produced. Fresenburg conducted a study on a 98-degree day and found the temperature on a grass field to be 105 degrees and the temperature was 173 degrees at field level on a synthetic field.

Fresenburg said it would be best for teams using artificial surfaces to adjust their summer practice schedules.

"In the summer, there are obvious heat problems," Fresenburg said. "Maybe coaches can avoid this by having early-morning practices."

Fresenburg said he does not recommend hosing down a hot field. The water drains after about 20 minutes and the result is added humidity.

There are several other negative possibilities from FieldTurf according to the Turfgrass Resource Center.

There also may be toxins present from the rubber, but FieldTurf has not been around long enough to have a definitive answer. The toxins come from the metal substances present in rubber. There is also the possibility of producing cancer when people are subjected to used rubber particles, but there isn't any scientific proof yet that FieldTurf can cause cancer.

Still, it's difficult to quantify what will happen when the materials in FieldTurf break down into smaller substances.

There also is the possibility of overexposure to sand, which can result in a disease called silicosis. The disease causes lung inflammation and was first seen in stonecutters and miners. But like the possible effects of overexposure to rubber, there is no proof that this disease can develop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Unregistered

07-31-2007, 01:11 PM

it seems that a lot of pros don't like artificial infilled turf.....

http://www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=406515

"In fact, nearly two-thirds (65%) of the 1498 players responding to the survey indicated that they “think” that synthetic surfaces are “more likely to contribute to injury,” compared to 7% for grass"

nice website to follow field turf issues...

hey, what do the pros know?

Unregistered

07-31-2007, 01:20 PM

Again, Wellesley, Concord, and Wayland are in a different situation than Walpole. The Turco Field complex was atrocious. The town is in dire straits when it comes to providing playing fields for its growing youth population. The FieldTurf decision makes the most sense for the town. It provides a venue where use can be scheduled from dawn til dusk. If you need to see how these fields hold up, look to Sudbury, Franklin, Medfield or Milton. Sure, there are pros and cons for every surface. Any runner who has stumbled on Walpole's asphalt track riddled with potholes can certainly tell Dr. Fresenburg a thing or two about "abrasions". Does the good doctor not also suggest the town use disinfectant when animal droppings are on a natural grass field? Perhaps the town should explain how proper hygiene can prevent infections from any surface?

Unregistered

07-31-2007, 04:33 PM

The pros "article" is essentially nothing more than opinion from a website with a very clear agenda and with no real stats to back up with the pros "think" or which surface the pros feel is "kinder".

In the end, the new field surface is going in and it will be a benefit to the town. If you feel as though the surface is sub-par, then I would fully suggest that you become involved (earlier would have been better than after the fact) with the program and lead from the front. Be proactive; purchase testing equipment to watch over the field's bacterial content, buy a laser thermometer to gauge the additional heat created by the field, and also perhaps it would be a good idea to begin to track injuries attributed to the field surface.

Of course, anything less than being personally involved would just be a travesty.

Unregistered

07-31-2007, 04:38 PM

"The Turco Field complex was atrocious" the field wasn't properly maintained.

"The FieldTurf decision makes the most sense for the town" in your opinion...and the group that put this all together is a minority...btw: putting our aquifer at potential risk (I highlight potential) is not a sensible thing to do for a town of 24,000 people who rely on local well water. Wellesley folk figured that one out....of course we know Wellesley folk are only a bunch of hillbillies...

"It provides a venue where use can be scheduled from dawn til dusk"- not in the summertime...way too hot

"Any runner who has stumbled on Walpole's asphalt track riddled with potholes can certainly tell Dr. Fresenburg a thing or two about "abrasions"." I agree the track needs upgrading...its not field turf, though, is it? and by the way, I walked that track. It is/was absolutely NOT riddled with potholes..that is a false statement. Others have used that line constantly...it just isn't true. Also not true was the constant claim that all funds were privately raised. False...a $400,000 federal grant is not private money. Watch the FWCAC video, and that claim is made (at least the last time I viewed it some weeks ago).

regarding injuries: Ask the NFL players...they are the "experts".....right?? (see previous post)

note: the one kid that "appeared" on the FWCAC video claimed he would rather play on grass....Sorry kid, but a minority of adults in town think otherwise. (most of them couldn't run 20 yards).

Unregistered

08-01-2007, 07:09 AM

Bad news about Volatile Organic Compounds being generated from a similar field down in far far far away....Connecticut, way way back in....lets see, a few hours ago, August 1, 2007:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Volatile organic compounds are being released into the air from material used in a type of artificial turf found on two athletic fields in southeastern Connecticut and becoming popular across the country."

"The independent group, which commissioned and paid for the tests, is recommending that towns and schools in Connecticut delay installing artificial turf that uses ground-up tires until it can be studied further for possible health hazards.

The work done by scientists at the state lab included a review of scientific literature on synthetic turf and the materials it is made of, and led to the conclusion that more testing is needed to protect the health of youngsters, Brown said."

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=49a76430-5978-469d-a68d-f1f68d8ce2d7

Is the Board of Selectmen of Walpole only going to turn their heads away, and shout "Forge Ahead"? Or are they going to look into this, and put a stop-work order on the project?

This project is not in the best interests of the health of our children, nor the health of our environment.

Unregistered

08-01-2007, 10:56 AM

You must scour the internet to try and find any quotes that you think may support your contention. These same inert compounds are found in floor wax and furniture polish that are found in Town Hall and WHS. Perhaps we should suspend classes and BOS meetings until we can fully appreciate the risks? You rely on indroductory examinations that draw no conclusions, but suggest some connection, and run with that like truth! While I appreciate your Al Gore-like efforts to scare up a furor, I'll stick by my decison that the new Fieldturf will be a hugely positive influence on the Youth sports programs in town. By the way, the permanent scar on my child's knee was caused by a spill on the track stepping into one of those imaginary potholes while sprinting. Most modern tracks are made of a rubberized surface..any long term problems with that application? I don't think the town envisions using the field during the high heat of the summer..where did you get a hold of the master schedule? Most NFL players are not "experts" on establishing proximal causation for their injuries. If so, why do they insist on playing after getting their "bells rung" repeatedly? To respond that they "like" one surface more than another can be as much a preference than an indictment on the other surface. For instance, recall when TB#12 performed dismally at Rich Stadium a few years back and complained of the "crown" on the field being higher than at Gillette? As for your other petty comments about the relative physical skills of the donors of FWCAC, well, they don't add much to your diatribe other than to reveal your true obstructionist agenda.

Unregistered

08-15-2007, 11:55 AM

I really wish we knew about some of the negatives mentioned here before the bos signed on for this project.

The Raven

10-10-2007, 09:21 PM

I flew over the new turf field. The "Big W" looks excellent. Note to Town of Walpole: We better get a copyright on "The Big W" before the other "W" towns do!

:D

Unregistered

10-11-2007, 08:48 AM

Raven: Do you suppose Ethel Merman, Phil Silvers, Spencer Tracy et al will be looking for treasure under the "Big W"??

Unregistered

10-12-2007, 10:50 AM

a cult classic! Just reminded me of it, and I'm gonna order it on netflix :)

The Raven

10-18-2007, 01:28 PM

:D
Raven: Do you suppose Ethel Merman, Phil Silvers, Spencer Tracy et al will be looking for treasure under the "Big W"??

Don't forget Jimmy Durante, Buddy Hackett, Keenan Wynn, and the rest of them! (Too bad the Cinerama on Washington St. Boston is long gone)

The Raven

10-21-2007, 11:04 AM

There has been an issue raised about the ground up tires being used for these types of artificial fields.

I checked out the tire material myself (pecked around a bit at Turco Field).

The size of the granules are much larger than whatever particle size tires lose when they wear out on our roads and highways. (They appear about 3-4 times the size of average coffee grounds).

I would say that if tire particles are a threat, then the tiniest sized particles are the real threat, for they can be moved around by the wind, they can migrate to aquifers via our drain systems, etc. Worn car tire particles are extremely tiny.

If tire particles are a threat, then we have been under a huge threat since the tire was invented. Did anyone ever question where all those worn tire particles go? Probably right up our noses (I mean beaks :D)

Other towns are watching this material closely: we would do well to pay attention to any adverse news. In the meantime, I think the new field is going to be a plus for local athletics.

Gotta run...I'm flyin' over Fenway today (May take the T...I ride on top)

my two cents (ah, pecks, rather)

The Raven

Unregistered

12-06-2007, 12:59 PM

I have not seen this new field yet, but I am going to assume they left the concrete track that was around it there. If this is the case, why do they make the students from the high school jog on Washington St.,Common St., and Stone St., from three to four in the afternoon?
Not only is this dangerous, as it gets darker sooner, with inclimate weather coming a driver has enough concerns. They do not also need to try and avoid the groups of children jogging in the streets and intersections. I have brought this to the attention of the atheletic director, yet the kids continue to jog.
Maybe someone getting hit by a nice big 18 wheeler would bring a halt to this foolish practice.
I'm all for the kids excerising (sp?), but how about doing is safely like on the track or even the trails in the Town Forest?

Unregistered

12-06-2007, 03:20 PM

A few reasons for where the kids run

1) The are about 200 (at least) kids involved in sports at the High School in the winter (All sports, all levels) No matter how large the track is, that is not enought room for them all to run.

2) There are no lights at the field, (Which hopefully will be fixed when Walpole gets lucky in the WEEI drawing) where it is on campus makes it very difficult to see in the dark.

3) The hills around the school are fabulous for training

I agree that the students need to be careful when they are running. Buy I drive by the school everyday in my commute around 4:00, while I always see the students running, I have never seen one of them impead traffic or cross traffic in an unsafe way. I am far more worried about someone yapping on cell phone and drinking a cup of coffee hitting me than the High School students who I have always noticed to be very careful when running.

As far as your comment about the truck, maybe we should set up traffic patterns in town that limit the trucks to State Highways only (27, 1, 1A) except deliveries. That would limit the truck traffic where the kids run for school, and where other residents run for their fitness.

Unregistered

12-12-2007, 12:50 PM

I drive home to Stone St. between 3 and 4 and witness the children jogging in the streets too. This is so dangerous as the average speed limit driven (though it shouldn't be) on Stone St. is 40 mph and Washington St. 50 to 60. Why can't the coach of whatever teams these children are on use some common sense and tell them to jog on Common Street?
There is sidewalk on both sides of the street to the center of town and a sidewalk up to the Bickford Grill. A truck probably won't hit one of these children, but yeah, the person on the cell phone in the van will.

Unregistered

12-12-2007, 04:39 PM

why aren't they running on the new track?? Or the new field. Its supposed to take a beating.

Unregistered

05-19-2008, 11:05 AM

New field has been up and running for the spring sports season. Any reviews from the participants? Certainly looks nice, and must be safer than the Stone St. dungpit the little kids play on??

Unregistered

05-21-2008, 11:45 AM

The new turf field has been a blessing to Spring sports... not a single cancelled game due to field conditions and while playing on the turf field is a little warmer than natural grass, the real heat issue is up in the shiny, metal bleachers on a sunny day.

As for the new track, it is constantly being used by walkers or runners, even during the sporting events.

The field complex as a whole is a huge plus in providing our kids a dependable and safe field on which to play.

And gosh, it really does look nice!

Unregistered

05-21-2008, 08:05 PM

I think as with most things some time is needed to see if it works.
The last poster said the field looks good. Great.
How does it wear?
Hot does it work on a hot summer day?
Do we end up with a bacteria problem like so many places using these fields.
After we started down this path i started to read more about these fields, there are a ton of questions that will only be anwered with time.
Many organizations have put these types of fields on hold due to all the problems. I hope we didn't jump in to early and find we wish we hadn't done this.

Unregistered

05-24-2008, 08:18 PM

I took a walk around the track and on the field today. Very impressed with the track....it has a bounce to it due to what I think is ground up rubber particles mixed into some kind of paint or rubber coating. Noticebly good on the feet.

If you are a jogger or runner, I would think this track would save your joints from banging on hard pavement. I rate the track AAA Plus

The field is a bit strange....the multi-colored lines so that it can be used for different sports seems a bit confusing. The feel underfoot was earthy, but for some reason it felt a bit odd...my foot could twist very easily on the surface. I'd rate it a B plus, but for consistency of surface (no potholes, bumps or stones), AAA plus.

I am impressed. Its a pretty nice field!

Unregistered

07-09-2008, 09:34 AM

On a recent visit to the new track, I saw 9 people running, kids playing soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and football on the turf, all at the same time, all having fun. Yup, my donation was worth it. How about scrapping the lights and putting turf on the upper Porker field?

Unregistered

07-16-2008, 07:06 AM

MAybe someone should tell whoever's making the high school children jog in the middle of Stone Street and Washington Street between six and six thirty about this wonderful field/track. People driving to work should not have to deal with this stupidty.
It's bad enough to have children jogging the streets during the school year between three and four. Reporting this "safety concern" to the police and school officials did not help.

Unregistered

07-16-2008, 12:07 PM

it must be the "unofficial practices" of sports team led by student captains...call the principal or the the head coach at the high school...I agree, it is very dangerous

Unregistered

07-18-2008, 01:40 PM

....just practice some common courtesy and safe driving habits. Here are kids up early, working out, being constructive....and you are complaining.

This is a small, supposedly friendly town, and we all have to deal with each other. If it means slowing down for some kids in the morning (who I will admit are not always the most careful) then do it, but don't let it ruin your day.

Unregistered

07-21-2008, 07:06 AM

Why don't those children practice common sense and use the sidewalks? There are actually some on BOTH sides of Common Street. It will probably take one of them getting killed by a driver on a cell phone or one that is speeding because they are going to be late for work to stop this practice and use the new field at the high school.
Walpole is not Mayberry. Average speed driven on every road is 40 mph.

Unregistered

07-21-2008, 02:50 PM

OR.....you could stop speeding or driving while using your cellphone? Call the AD and tell him to stop the jayrunning by the teams, if you are so concerned!

Unregistered

07-21-2008, 04:45 PM

Not too sure why it occurs, not a runner, but most people use the road to run rather than sidewalks. On West Street, there are no sidewalks, so I am constantly on the look out for bikers and runners. Runners are out there and people need to be cautious. If you are on the phone wear a head piece and if you are speeding, slow down. Runners and bikers have the right of way, not the person driving. However, I would think the highschool track would be a better place to run on since it is probably made of some rubberized material that is good for the knees.

Unregistered

07-23-2008, 08:33 PM

Coming from someone who has been on both sides of this situation I can say there needs to be common sense used on both ends. The kids running in the roads during the summer are most likely the cross country team or the soccer teams who usually put in more then a couple miles a day. Running around the track for 7-10 miles is not really a good option for these kids. Yes the track is good to run on but not running the mileage any of these kids would do everyday. As an adult I know it can be frustrating to have to deal with kids running in the streets when they should be using the sidewalks but when it comes down to it all that really means is that you pay attention when you drive. Kids should use the sidewalks when they are there and drivers should be cautious when they are not.

Unregistered

08-08-2010, 07:33 AM

I just wanted to thank Greg Salvatore, Paul Falvey, The Walpole Coop and the many many others who helped to make this field possible. It is truly a gem to the town.

Unregistered

08-16-2010, 08:28 PM

Sports teams have been running on the streets FOREVER , this is one of the most absurd complaints I have seen on here.

Unregistered

08-19-2010, 08:33 AM

who pays for the electricity for the spotlights at the new athletic complex? Boosters? Or the town?

and how much will it cost to run those lights...anyone have a handle on that??

I am not against having the lights there (I would be if I was an abutter), but I don't think the tax payers should pay for the electricity to run them.

I think it is the football obsessed groups that want the friday night lights...but I think they should pay for the juice to run them. Sorry!

FG

Unregistered

08-19-2010, 12:45 PM

Wow #91, it took you two years to respond to the issue of the high school kids jogging in the streets. (2008)
I think the "FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHT" issue should be resolved this year. 2010

Unregistered

08-20-2010, 10:11 AM

Unregistered

08-20-2010, 01:44 PM

And it is the tennis-obsessed groups, and the safety-obsessed groups that exclusively benefit from the lights that shine on the tennis court and parking lots, but all of us must pay for it!

Unregistered

08-21-2010, 02:29 AM

Unregistered

08-21-2010, 09:48 AM

I drove by the HS the other night and saw the tennis court lights blazing away. I couldn't believe how bright they were, and I could see that the homes on Common St. facing the lights were all illuminated. I think its a case of light pollution, clear and simple.

I hope the taxpayer is not paying for the electricity on either of these lighted venues.

I don't have kids at the high school, but i FULL WELL expect to be paying the electric bill. The town should be certain the lights are only on during reasonable times, and Friday Night Football will be great for the high school and much of the community. Just because these venues do not interest you, is not a reason to hope the tax payer does not pay for them. I never use the municiple lot, but we all pay for it. I do not use Adam's Farm, but we all pay for that in a big way. I don't use the senior center, but I pay for that to.

Funny thing about being a part of a community, you pay for things you do not use, and other people pay for your things that they do not use.

Unregistered

08-21-2010, 11:28 AM

I don't have kids at the high school, but i FULL WELL expect to be paying the electric bill. The town should be certain the lights are only on during reasonable times, and Friday Night Football will be great for the high school and much of the community. Just because these venues do not interest you, is not a reason to hope the tax payer does not pay for them. I never use the municiple lot, but we all pay for it. I do not use Adam's Farm, but we all pay for that in a big way. I don't use the senior center, but I pay for that to.

Funny thing about being a part of a community, you pay for things you do not use, and other people pay for your things that they do not use.

How does Adams Farm cost you anything? I'd really like to know. I do know that they may light the flag up with one lightbulb. Is that the problem?

Typical of the athletics crowd: Do something offensive and expect the whole town to think its ok. I think the lights at the tennis courts are light pollution, and cost the taxpayers $$ so some tennis fans can play at night. Here is a solution: Join a tennis club (indoors).

Ask anyone who lives near car dealerships, etc. on Rt. 1. They HATE the lights.

Unregistered

08-21-2010, 11:32 AM

Take the money that we would have spent on maintainence ie. mowing, fertilizing, lining and watering and put it towards the lights. It's amazing how some people can look at a $2,000,000 gift and find a "What about me?" problem.

PS. Save the negative comments on how the field wasn't maintained. How much is it costing to do over Porkerhill becaus of lack of water? Apply that cost to the light bill as well. The football field was in more need of a remake than the hill.

Unregistered

08-21-2010, 09:28 PM

How does Adams Farm cost you anything? I'd really like to know. I do know that they may light the flag up with one lightbulb. Is that the problem?

Typical of the athletics crowd: Do something offensive and expect the whole town to think its ok. I think the lights at the tennis courts are light pollution, and cost the taxpayers $$ so some tennis fans can play at night. Here is a solution: Join a tennis club (indoors).

Ask anyone who lives near car dealerships, etc. on Rt. 1. They HATE the lights.

Are you serious?! How does Adam's Farm cost me anything?! You'ld "really like to know"? Can you say "Tax Over-ride"? We all pay for it every single month. And we have another 10 or 20 years to go.

And bu the way, I am hardly part of the "athletics crowd". Your foolish response shows just how un-informed you are.

Unregistered

08-21-2010, 09:35 PM

How does Adams Farm cost you anything? I'd really like to know. I do know that they may light the flag up with one lightbulb. Is that the problem?

Typical of the athletics crowd: Do something offensive and expect the whole town to think its ok. I think the lights at the tennis courts are light pollution, and cost the taxpayers $$ so some tennis fans can play at night. Here is a solution: Join a tennis club (indoors).

Ask anyone who lives near car dealerships, etc. on Rt. 1. They HATE the lights.

Huh? Offensive??? Lighted playing fields are offensive? That is a bizarre statement. You may not want to partake, but it is hardly "offensive".

Now your post.... the condescending tone, the erroneous understanding of how Adam's Farm is financed, and the name calling ("athletics crowd"),.... now those are offensive.

People enjoying public services, exercise, and children's sports : Not Offensive
Rude, disrespectful, and ill informed communication : Offensive

Get it now???