SUCH QUICK ACTION! NOW EXTEND THE SAME EFFORT AND RESPONSE TO THE SOON TO BE DEAD POPULATION OF 2,700 SHADE TREES. THEY WILL BE COMING DOWN WHETHER WE SAFELY TAKE THEM DOWN OR THEY FALL DOWN ON CARS AND PEOPLE. WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR??

I like many, am offended that "open space" funds are being used for this purpose. This is not what people have in mind when speaking of open space funds or open space in general...

what a waste our roads are terrible maybe new commissioners can solve this problem.open space funds for this use is not why the fund was created . remove the open space tax

With a combined debt of $41 million, our Commissioners just voted to borrow $397,000 to install plastic grass on Anniversary Field. Just think about what else we could do with those funds. At $300 per tree, we could replace more than half of the diseased trees in town. Or we could fill a lot of the potholes or resurface one of the worst roads. Or do some badly needed work on the sewer or water systems.
But somehow the main priority in this town has been plastic grass. There were many questions raised at their last meeting, about the wisdom of turfing Anniversary Field. Questions about the impact of drainage pipes on the trees, questions about the nature of the fill, questions about the cost of yearly maintenance and replacement in 8 to 10 years. None of these questions were answered to the public.
And they did it late at night, with only 4 to 5 citizens left, under cover of darkness.
So much for open and transparent government. We need a new direction and new leadership.

Wow. Well, we have an election coming up. Borough residents will get the opportunity to change the guard, if the majority so decrees.

Actually we found out two days later (that was Tuesday night and today is Thursday). In addition, Bill Duhart had left before the vote was taken. I emailed him yesterday to tell him what happened.

Response to Joe T who isn't brave enough to post using his own name.
Perhaps it was hyperbole. It certainly sounded good. But the reality is that the Commissioners waited until the bitter end of the meeting when most people had left before taking this vote. It was, at the very least, a cowardly act and did not represent open or transparent government. They showed that they do not care about the opinions of the majority of the citizens of this borough.

Last comment for the day to Joe T. Actually I am offended that you post anonymously. I am very familiar with the open space law. The law encourages tohe purchase of land for active recreation but says nothing about adding plastic grass and rubber infill. I tend to believe those who wrote the law saw fields of well maintained natural grass which is both used for sport fields and poses no environmental hazard. I do not believe those who wrote the open space laws considered that putting drainage pipes close to trees and killing them and replacing grass with plastic that in the spring and summer reaches temperatures of up to 135 degrees at the surface and leaches lead and zinc into the environment was a positive idea. I'm all for the Field of Dreams and I note that many professional sports teams have abandoned plastic grass for the real thing. Its the right thing to do for the environment as well.

Sue, I don't do shame. I provide facts. When all of the others use their full names I will too so probably not anytime soon.

You are not familiar with the law then - 4. The development of active and passive recreation Borough-owned land, whether newly purchased or previously owned

Building a turf field, concessions, parking or even a grass field is considered "development" under the statute. Statutes don't define eligible materials. For someone so against "turf" you sure seem to favor paved roads.

I am willing to bet I know more about the open space laws than anyone in town. Any takers and what's the bet? I do need a new car

Campaign update:
Things are going well. To date, I have raised $63,000 for my write in campaign. My parents gave me a check for $20.00 and after I articulated my vision to acquire Bancroft and turn it into an Adult Entertainment Complex, Bancroft wrote me a check for $62,980. You should see the ad proofs they look AWESOME! I can assure you that Bancroft will have no undue influence during my administration.

In other news, Pennsauken has agreed to accept our kids in time for the 2013-2014 school year. Kindergarten registration, however, is already closed and parents should be advised that home schooling is probably the best option at this point.

Additionally, some of you have asked me who I would like work with as the Mayor of the next Borough Commission and so I'm ready to make my endorsements right now!
#1 Susan Hoch MD (also a write in)
Susan is uber qualified! As I'm sure you are aware if you have read ANY published or digital forum having anything to do with Haddonfield, Susan is an expert on EVERY topic. The sheer volume of her posts and her extraordinary commitment to self righteous indignation makes her the perfect candidate for Vice - Mayor #1.

#2 Vice Mayor - Jeff Kasko, (already on the ballot) Jeff's doing a great job!

Please remember to stop by the victory party at Two ZZ's on the pike Tuesday night!
Also, the campaign will be hosting a Beer & Beer fundraiser at the Quaker meetinghouse Friday 3/29.
God Bless Haddonfield

When you have nothing to say, always launch a personal attack.

Final addendum to Joe T. The grants are State Green Acres grants. I don't believe the intent was for them to be Green Plastic grants.

Sue quote "I note that many professional sports teams have abandoned plastic grass for the real thing. Its the right thing to do for the environment as well."

Prove it when 21 NFL teams use FieldTurf alone.

http://www.easyturf.com/artificial-grass-industry-news/21-nfl-teams-use-fieldturf-synthetic-grass/

And how is a field that is pervious bad for the environment exactly? Aren't pesticides for natural grass worse?

Are you against the State Green Acres program that pays for turf fields so I guess no more money for it?

Princeton - turf
Harvard - turf
21 NFL teams use turf incl Giants & Ravens last 2 Super Bowl winners
Rutgers turf
Evesham, mt laurel, cherokee, Paul VI, Moorestown, CamdenCath, Shawnee turf

Be against turf but stop with the made up stuff

http://www.easyturf.com/artificial-grass-industry-news/21-nfl-teams-use-fieldturf-synthetic-grass/

Reading your post, I realized that you and I do not share values. I am not personally interested in professional sports and could care less about the NFL except I am bothered by the high level of dementia and Alzheimers in former football players as well as the early joint replacements. I also don't care what other towns do either. I am concerned about two issues - one is the environment and I take a global, not a parochial look. Everytime grass field is paved over or eliminated or trees are taken down, there is less ability to sequestrate carbon and remove it from the atmosphere. I believe in global warming. Everyone of us needs to do his or her part in increasing uptake of carbon from the atmosphere through plant life and in decreasing emissions. The plastic grass is made from oil and we certainly need to move away as fast as possible from our reliance on oil. So, for that reason, I oppose the use of plastic turf. Second, I favor controls on luxury spending at a time when the town is in deficit and doesn't have the money to take care of more pressing business. Just as I have a budget in my own household and can't just buy any luxury item I want, so I think our town should operate. I recognize that some citizens of this town have money to pay for a luxury item but I think they do not represent the majority of voters. If you want to learn something about natural grass fields, go to either the Michigan State or UArk websites and read about sand capped grass fields.

Gosh, I'm sorry to see such juvenile posts from Borough residents. Very discouraging in light of the tough decisions that lie ahead.

Animal House humor. Arrested development.

Dr Hoch should be able to express her opinions on anything she wishes without being ridiculed by you guys. "In Disputes, be not So Desirous to Overcome as not to give Liberty to each one to deliver his Opinion..."

I understand that you are unhappy with the tenor of Dr Hoch's comments. She is apparently unhappy, as am I, with those posted by you fellows, too. Seriously, my experience with the Artificial Turf discussion has not been positive. People in favor of its installation can be very passionate to the extent of appearing uncivil. And ditto otherwise. My bottom line is no matter what you think, you have a right to an opinion and it is every adults responsibility to keep the discussion on a high level.

Sue, your problem is you post things that are inaccurate and not based on fact. Yes, you and everyone else is entitled to their opinions but facts rule the day.

Another example of your misinformation posting "Everytime grass field is paved over or eliminated or trees are taken down, there is less ability to sequestrate carbon and remove it from the atmosphere."

Artificial turf is PERVIOUS.

Tires are made of oil and their wear and tear produces crumb rubber which is on the roads that are paved and IMPERVIOUS leaking into the storm drains every time it rains. Last time I checked, oil is also part of road resurfacing.

You wrote Pro teams are moving away from turf. I proved you wrong and your comeback is to move the goal posts. Another example "the town is in a deficit" That's not true, municipalities don't run deficits. They have to balance their budgets.

Why don't you start attacking teacher or police pay if you want to go after the big money. Afraid?

Do you really think the NJ State DEP would pay for turf fields if they are not environmentally safe? Maybe call up them and complain.

Debating you is like debating my 5 year old. They are just not informed enough.

Ooooo, Quotes...I love Quotes!!

The duty of comedy is to correct men by amusing them. - Moliere

Susan Hoch MD
10:37 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013

Final addendum to Joe T. The grants are State Green Acres grants. I don't believe the intent was for them to be Green Plastic grants.

You don't believe?? Green Acres and open space funds have been paying for artificial turf fields all across the state. Now do you believe?

Some examples. Search for "turf" in these official documents.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/2012/12_0106.htm

http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/pdf/lnp.press.package.4_1_11.pdf

http://www.nj.gov/dep/greenacres/pdf/full_press_pkg_2009.pdf

Sue, nice to blog with you. Did you want to provide some factual references to support your position or engage in more emotional banter?

Happy to oblige either.

Sue M, don't you want to stay and debate the legality of using open space funds, whether or not Green Acres funds turf or the so called concerns from the DEP that don't exist? Maybe we can discuss how much it costs to irrigate, maintain and use pesticides to have quality grass fields or what the options are for play/practice when the grass field is under water or destroyed from play unlike an artificial field? Maybe we can work together to invent a car tire that doesn't also use rubber that wears off and empties into the storm drains to make the environmentalists happy

Wow! I don't like plastic grass either. It's not clear to me why we want it. Will it save the town money? It doesn't seem like it will. Will we win more games with it? We've done darn well with grass. It does seem to be antithetical to the town's character.

Joe T. is quite correct when he talks about the November 8 2011 vote to use open space funding for the sports fields. The problem was many people who voted yes had no idea it would be used for turf.
They're fine with the vote, just not the direction it took.

The problems facing turf in Haddonfield are many. Haddonfield used the woods and fields as a burial ground for road and building projects for decades. Some uses were ingenious, like using the stones from Old Kings Highway to build a dam controlling water flow for Mountwell Pool.

Anniversary field was elevated with decades of road projects covered with soil. The concrete and stone, along with the huge trees and their roots support the stability of the field. Stadium field has a huge buttress built around it for support, which you see walking in Hopkin's. Anniversary field does not. To build according to specs would destroy the trees and degrade the field. It's not just a tree hugger issue, it's an issue of stabilization for the turf field itself.

You can read the specs at the borough or purchase a copy at Remmington&Vernick. I chose the latter. The specs are stamped and approved and any alteration at this point costs starts costing the town more money.

Underwood Engineering had areas at Anniversary that wouldn't take the auger drills more than a few feet because of fill.
Walk through Hopkins Pond and you'll notice huge chunks cement and stone everywhere. You can see it on Anniversary field.

Brian, I am not sure if you are insulting people who voted yes for not paying attention, not being able to read and understand the law or both. Are we at the point now where the excuse is "when people voted" Maybe we can get the rest of the good people of Haddonfield to recall Obama since they clearly didn't know what they were voting on back in November was a man who no longer cares about the debt or the financial future of America.

By extenstion, I guess everyone that supported the 2009 State Open Space/Green Acres referendum which pays for artificial turf fields as I have proven many times also had no idea that is what it was used for.

Let's not support Green Acres any longer. Are you OK with that?

I guess those who voted yes on the Open Space fund also didn't believe it could go towards historic preservation of a physical asset such as ashalt roof shingles or simple maintenance which is expressly permitted in the law. Are these things unacceptable too or just artifical grass?

As I have posted before, fortunately for everyone, the law is written by design to provide maximum flexibility to solve taxpayer issues otherwise no one would ever vote YES for it. Why would I support only buying land if we cannot fix, develop or maintain it? Why would you vote YES if buying land to preserve it wasn't one of the options. See we both get to use our taxes to do both.

@Mike Davis, are we proposing to turf baseball fields or anything single use? If we only used our fields for 81 home 2 hour baseball games a season and had millions to spend for maintenance like MLB teams do, maybe it wouldn't be a problem but since the stadium is used by football, field hockey, soccer, lacrosse etc and we have proven we cannot maintain it, why is artifical turf not the answer?

For all those opposed to turf, how would you solve our field issues such field rotation, closure due to weather, irrigation, pesticides, grass cutting, overuse, sport scheduling due to rainouts and the primary use during the fall and spring non growing seasons?

Do you realize 1 turf field is the same as 3 grass fields in terms of useage? How much would it cost to build 3 grass fields with lights, irrigation and maintenance? Maybe that is why nearly every high school in the state is making the transition.

As far as pesticides, at least they're spread over the fields and disperse into the soil. With the chemicals, they aren't built to absorb into the turf and travel down drains into central drains that meet up with Anniversary field drains. The chemicals from both drains combine and go into one drain which empties into Hopkin's.

Contrary to popular belief, Hopkin's Pond is not bath water. It is fed from Cooper river, which runs under Chestnut St. and eventually empties into Hoppy's off Grover st. This is a lot of chemical with a direct route into Hoppy's.

The wooded high school area is just not made for turf fields. It presents many fiscal, environmental and structural problems to the turf itself. It has an expensive track built around the football field that will need special equipment to protect it from the bulldozers. The argument is that sports teams need a field from overuse.
An extremely fair compromise would be to turf Stadium Field and leave it at that.

Anniversary field is a practice field. The fiscal and environmental problems, along with the structural dilemmas are not worth it.
Haddonfield United will have a photo album showing the problems of the land fill, trees, and how the field can be severely compromised if not properly dealt with.

The real problem with Anniversary field is that no one knows what anniversary it commemorates.
As the future Mayor I promise to sell the naming rights to this and all other fields. This will reduce the tax burden for local residents and can become a model for future corporate sponsorships.

Also, addressing the issue of the greedy teachers who work in this town - I am proposing that rather than money we begin to pay them with cookies and Trader Joe's coupons. Surely that is fair. Besides we have plenty of applicants to replace anyone who decides to leave.

Focus Joe. I'm saying there are people are voted to use open space money for active use without knowing it was going to be used for turf. Simple enough.

The real problem with Anniversary is that there are many implications that could cause concerns across the board. It's not a matter of taxes. It's a matter of smart responsible decisions.

If you think the fields don't pose the problems I do then fine. If you want to imply I'm insulting voters or like saying things like the real problem with anniversary is no one knows what anniversary it commemorates that is absolutely your right.

There are problems concerning the fields and we'll keep reading the specifications, collecting the data, questioning the commissioners and BOE at the meetings and getting what we feel are vital facts out to the public.
I hope you guys are alright with that.

If Haddonfield residents weren't so over taxed and the town was not carrying a load of debt, this string would have ended shortly after Dr, Hoch,s first environmental rant. There would be no question that Haddonfield would provide every luxury for its youth and today a turf field fulfills that definition. But the town has problems and priority issues, pothole streets or turf fields, higher taxes or foreclosed homes? So what to do? For a reasonable investment in a sustainable asset that will be paid, in part by contributions and by grants from all on NJ's taxpayers, build the turf fields and let the kids enjoy the toy. Over time the maintenance ls less than maintenance of a well kept natural grass field; however, remember to set-up an athletic association to accrue for the turf replacement, and install security cameras to capture the youth of Haddonfield who might think that it is "cute" to tag the turf with the name of their latest young love.

Some sensible thoughts from DR Marks. Questions remain:
1. Who will pay the $55,000 per year combined maintenance and replacement costs (pro-rated over 8 to 10 years) for two fields?
2. Brian Kelly and others have raised significant issues about Anniversary Field which will likely make this more expensive, both to put plastic grass on and to maintain. They have not been answered.
3. The fields will require fencing to protect them from the beer cans and cigarettes of our young people as well as vandalism and deer and other animals. Bird droppings will continue to be a problem requiring washing of the plastic as well as leaves and tree debris on Anniversary Field.
4. I agree with the security cameras given the problems we have had at times with vandalism.
Frankly I am tired of the verbal bullying of anyone who doesn't agree with the turf folks. They are like kids who were always given what they wanted and want what the other kids have. In this case, the town can't afford this. We have the highest property taxes in South Jersey and unlike other towns, do not have very many businesses to offset the property taxes. Foreclosures are up, property values are down, tax revenues are down due to reassessment. And this trend seems like it will continue.
I also resent being told I don't care about kids. I would like to see us spend money on good teachers, smaller class size, improved technology, better science and language education to prepare our kids for a global world.

Definitely a stretch - no - scratch that - definitely a farce - that "open space" funds are being utilized to finance the installation of plastic - sorry - "turf" fields. What a laugh.

But then again our government overlords are informing us the 295/42/676 project is supposed to take 8+ years so nothing surprises me anymore.

Hoover Dam took 5 years. Golden Gate Bridge took 4 years. EIGHTY. YEARS. AGO.

Commissioners should have appointed a Committee to oversee and recommend Open Space Funds disbursement. Out Open Space master plan should serve to guide out investments.

I sponsored the original petition that put the law on the ballot. The intent was to raise funds to buy Bancroft and to leverage grants that required local contributions.

Why the Commissioners would ever spend tax dollars on a project outside the mission of Boro administration is beyond me. Let the BOE and private donors fund this project.

Post to Sue should end with "throw" not "through" before any of the blog typo police fine me.

I think it's important to note that we annually provide about 80% of our tax dollars to the school system... somehow there has not been enough money in those budgets to maintain a proper playing field... Generally speaking I believe most folks in town take for granted the big bucks spent in our schools should have included proper maintenance of sports fields year in and year out... I'll say it again, regardless what the open space fund states, most folks don't envision open space funds to be used for this purpose. I'd agree with them.

School taxes are 55 percent.

Regardless of what the law states is not important only your personal non legal opinion?

Scary

Maybe read up before making erroneous comments

The reason for a committe as posted above is to comply with the spirit of the original petition and to offer some dedicated thought to the use of these funds. The Commissioners would still decide on the use of funds.

There is a lack of focus within our current leadership. Witness the nearly $300,000 spent on a property near the Library in 2008. This was to be used for permit parking releasing more spaces in the lot behind thhr dinosaur for parki g for downtown visitors. The permits would help fund the purchase.

5 years later the lot is empty or used by the Library staff. This wasteful purchase draws no criticism yet it reflects the lack of will to execute on a comprehensive plan to bolster downtown businesses. 3 elected officials can not do it all. The assistance of committees dedicated to specific tasks could allow for focus and transparency.

Herb Hess,
You sound like a good candidate for Commissioner. Shame it's too late for you to run.

Please see my post on Haddonfield Talks on Yahoo
Feel free to write me in

Does anyone know what happened to the Pat Walsh for Mayor post? It was the best thing on here. Patch deleted it?

Do not vote for Jeff Kasko, Ed Borden, Neal Rochford. Going into further debt is dumb, then again we are in debt because of our current commissioners. Haddonfield simply cannot sustain itself. The roads, schools, trees, and yes, fields are all in deplorable condition, and this group of misfits demonstrated where their priorities are. Putting down turf and going further into debt is dumb. It's not the responsible thing to do. If people like Kasko and Borden did their jobs correctly, the fields would have been well maintained, thus no need for turf. Kasko and Borden voted to cover up their failure as leaders, period.

I wonder what can be done to sort out the turf field issue. It has caused a lot of dissension. Is it possible to revisit this matter?

Seems the letter-of-the-law and the "intent"-of-the-law do not mesh well with the people. Every time I saw a commercial to vote for this law they NEVER mentioned plastic grass replacing REAL grass. I have no problem declaring Shenanigans on this one. I think it's time to take Joe and Scott's words to heart and thank them for making it clear. This might be a loss on this particular plastic grass installation but it doesn't mean it ever has to happen again in NJ. It's time to re-write this law, or nix it, so the true intent and every word is very clear to all, especially to the voter/taxpayer.

Reply to Scott. Robin Potter has been out of the country for a couple of weeks. I doubt if you have any knowledge or information that Robin "appears to be satisfied and sees no issues" unless you meant that she is having a satisfying vacation without any issues. I certainly hope so. I doubt if she is focusing on the trees on Anniversary Field at this time. I'm sure we will hear her report on the trees when she returns. Robin also requested that the town hire a certified arborist since it was obvious to all who attended the Commissioners' meeting that neither Todd Day, the borough engineer as well as the other R and V guy knew nothing about trees. Do you know if a certified arborist was hired and have you seen his report? I, or one, do not know whether the Commissioners carried through on this suggestion or not.

With regard to the ivy covering trees on Anniversary Field as well as elsewhere in town, the Branch Managers did discuss forming a group to address the ivy problem. I suggested we call ourselves the "Ivy Leage". You would be welcome to join us and I hope when Robin returns, we can set up a time to prune ivy from the trees.

Correction it should be "neither Todd Day, the borough engineer from R and V as well as the other R and V guy knew ANYTHING about trees."

How many more gallons will this add to the flood-prone Cooper River?

All stormwater infiltrates directly into the ground under the field. The one pipe that drains into the Hopkins Lane inlet is an 8” PVC overflow pipe (8” is extremely small for stormwater) for major storms. Hardly a great deal of water ever making it out of the site.

Scott, The whole area is fill. That's how Haddonfield elevated the field. There are huge amounts of varied concrete up and down the incline. I'll put the pictures up on the HU site tonight and it will show how a degrading tree line would compromise turf placement
The Remmington&Vernick specs are stamped and ready for 6 foot placement from the fence. Now R&V is talking about 10 feet from the fence. That's as far as they can go due to room limitations. 10 feet is still not far enough away from the root system.

Just walking around Hopkin's Pond you'll see tree roots extending far beyond that limit all over the area.
Underwood Engineering hit fill at 3 feet. The R&V specs show the field at 14 inches while the drainage system which surrounds the whole 60 yard field is 3 to 4 feet deep. Stadium field (which should be safe and free of the problems facing Anniversary field) feeds into the Anniversary field system.

There's no room for a retention pond, which is advised because if you have heavy rains the excess water transfers to the retention pond so it doesn't flood the area.

There have been instances where flooding lifted whole turf fields up and collected them at one end of the field. Why take a chance at ruining Stadium Field by putting in a 60 yard practice field? It's a practice field.

Install turf at Stadium field and protect it wisely. This is an example of why many residents don't trust the people in charge to make common sense decisions.

The fill is typical when stabilizing slopes and as has been explained to me this should not be an issue. Just because plans are stamped does not mean adjustments cannot be made. In fact after meeting with Robin Potter the field has been moved to 14' from the fence line. Underwood hit resistance in ONE bore at 7' feet not at 3 feet and there was nothing mentioned about fill. There is no plan or need for a retention pond in this case so not having room for one is not an issue. Flows from the property as required by the Dep for Development have been reduced to 50%/75%/80% of the 2/10/100 year storm so less water will run off the site than currently. I trust the professionals our leaders have asked to assist them rather than listening to commentary from unlicensed individuals.

Underwood stopped after the hit and advised more testing during preconstuction. It's fine you trust the professionals our leaders have asked to assist them. If I have questions I'm going to ask them.

That's why I bought the specs and took them to chemical and environmental engineers who gave me a different opinion. So I addressed the issues.

Take a look at the trees surrounding Anniversary field. The specs have been stamped at six feet. Of course more alterations will occur and that's when money starts to get made. It's unbelievably irresponsible to even set the plans 6 feet from the treeline in the first place. Sorry if I don't have much confidence in the professionals hired by our leaders.

If people hadn't stood up, examined the Anniversary field issue and made their views known it would have been implemented at the destructive, irresponsible 6 foot line which you supported. If it gets put in with proper attention and diligence it's because people with common sense took an interest in what goes on in this town instead of letting an irresponsible project go forth.

The people who explained the stabilizing slopes to me gave me a vastly different opinion than the ones who gave you your explanation. If they're the same people who wanted to put the field in 6 feet from the trees you should seek another opinion.

Brian, Who are "your people"? I asked RV since they are the ones handling this. I by no means have I "supported" the 6 foot line. I want what is right for sure and if that means moving it back to the 14 foot line as recommended by Robin then that is what I support. I also trust that no construction project goes without something not seen in advance but yes trust that our experts will take the right precautions and adjust as necessary. Who are your chemical and environmental engineers and the people that explained the slopes to you?

Well, my "Sources" say that roots can be safely cut between 3-5 times the trunk diameter which means that a 6' clearance would be sufficient for a 2' diameter trunk. How many of the existing trees that are on the front of the tree line are really viable due to their current condition and the extensive ivy damage? Where was the tree patrol to save these precious trees before they became political fodder? Just because the field can be easily adjusted to give additional clearance doesn't necessarily mean that the original plan was not viable. Additionally, slope erosion is impacted more by the quality and density of the low-level ground coverage then by tree root systems.

Yeah all of you people (and me) not using your full names are cowards and those using fake full or partial names well you are really cowards. Let's not let facts get in the way of who is providing them

I agree. How do I know that "Brian Kelly" is really "Brian Kelly?"

What is Sources full name? Usually sources are cowards ;)

The people I bought the specs to were John Moscatelli, a chemical engineer who worked for over 20 years in tech and management positions for Shell and Sunoco Oil and has read thousands of hours of specs far more complicated than turf fields.

The Environmental Engineer was Diana Eichfeld who works out of Philadelphia and attended the R&V presentation at the borough meeting with me. Between Diana and Robin Potter they took it to R&V for almost two hours.

After one of R&V's presenters made the inane statement the trees around Anniversary were being strangled by ivy and had to come down anyway.
It was all downhill as they took it on the chin the rest of the night and displayed a slipshod presentation.

The degrading of the slopes was explained in detail by Robin Potter to the R&V presenters. I landscaped for 20 years and can tell you this concept is nothing new, it's a matter of common sense. Ask someone at the historical society to tell you about the fill dumping.

As for R&Vs ridiculous claim about the ivy strangling the trees, you cut the ivy at its base and it dies, which anyone who owns trees with English ivy knows. You can see a tree at Anniversary field with dying ivy. It's the one I walked up to and broke most of the ivy with my hands.

They just throw that stuff out there and expect people will believe it. When I hear nonsense like that I have big trouble trusting the source.

Brian, Thanks for the follow up. To be honest I can't be sure you're not just throwing stuff out there and expecting us to believe it as much as you are saying that RV is. I guess we'll have to see how it goes when the project starts. I'm not sure what Moscatelli's opinion is from a chemical standpoint but I always go back to the fact that turf fields are not hard to find all over SJ or the country for that matter. Why is it an issue here? As far as the trees. I've seen an email from Robin to RV that moving the field to 14' was agreeable and that the ivy would be addressed separately by the tree commission. Not proclaiming myself and expert here...just communicated what I've been told or seen in black and white.

That's okay Scott. I just disagree with the issues at hand. Turfing Stadium field is a good compromise to me as it does not offer the challenges that Anniversary field does.
Turf fields are meant to be installed in open spaces without the kinds of hazards they'll face at Anniversary with the trees, slopes, and wildlife problems.
I'm just putting out the facts as I see them. I don't have any agenda other than wanting what's best for our town.

I worry about the tree and root line as I lost a large maple on my old corner property when my neighbor dropped an addition 15 feet away from my house.
I disagree with Robin about the 14 safety net.

When R&V was asked at the presentation why the original 6 foot line was in the plans they said the athletic department didn't want to move the storage sheds.
Now, according the alterations the sheds will be moved over. It should have been done at the outset. R&V makes money every time new plans are drawn up . That's taxpayer money for what I consider bad planning on their part. They shouldn't be rewarded for that.

If you think think I'm just throwing things out there that's okay. I respect your opinion. I just hope at least everyone considers the stuff I'm throwing out there.

I don't think people are worried about repercussions. We are all civilized on here although some whine about being bullied when their nonsense comments are disagreed with. For the most part we all have solid opinions although we may disagree. What is important is the message not the messenger. Half the names in here mean nothing to me because I don't know them. It's what they say that matters. Additionally everything can be googled and if I'm ever interested in a job or signing a client I don't want my resume diluted by how I feel about turf. One has nothing to do with the other. I've posted in here what my résumé is relevant to this town and it is easy enough to look up iwho I am if it's of interest to you. Posting my name however (Dr Hoch) is just creepy. What was the purpose in that? I stand by my words. Using Scott is sufficient for us all I think. I could have used a name like "Bob Tomlinson" and you wouldn't have questioned it. Why? Because it really doesn't matter does it.

Brian. I'm sure they didn't want to move the sheds. Nobody wants that aggravation. Agreeing to move them shows however how willing they are to listen to the people of this town. Robin suggested a solution that would work for her group and in the spirit of compromise they met halfway. Good for them. Good for us all.

Read my post again. You could not publish a letter to the Editor in the Haddonfield Sun or the Courier Post of the Inquirer or the New York Times under just your first name. I don't think the comments section of a local on-line newspaper should be different. Just my opinion. You either own your opinions or you hide from them, in my opinion.

Susan. Read my post again. I didn't say I was worried my comments would affect a client or job opportunity but rather that they have no bearing on that part if my life therefore posting as Scott is sufficient. I don't want to dilute google results with turf nonsense. Its all about google results and rankings these days. Additionally I am not hiding behind a name or agenda. I was very clear that I supported One Haddonfield and what my affiliations are. I laid that out on the table for you. My last name has no bearing on any of that. Your motivation is suspect. Commentary does not fall under the same criteria as an Op Ed piece in my opinion. Ill agree to disagree with you on that. For now please call me Mr Scott. Not sure who Mr Batson is but he sounds like one heck of a guy.

And Susan. To my point you could have just posted as Susan or "the doc" and reaction to your postings would have been exactly the same. Knowing your last name does not change that. I have no idea who you are except that in most cases I agree to disagree with you.

Well then Mr Patch (if that's his real name) should change the site. But actually if you go to most any Online news source you will find commentary by people using handles. Usually clever ones that relate to the topic they are addressing. Welcome to the web.

And welcome to the Web where your opinions and life can be an open book. Watch out what you put on Facebook.