[Vision2020] proposed ball fields/sports-complex across from arboretum

[Michael Curley]

Ben:
I greatly respect you, your family, and your opinion on this matter. 
And, I have no dog in this fight.  I agree we need fields and we need 
them soon, and the proposed location might be the best available.  i 
do respectfully disagree in a couple of regards with what you say, 
and because your opinion carries weight, would ask you to consider 
the following.

You said:  "if we don't move ahead with the
current playfields proposal, it will be years before we reach this
point again."  There are, however, no facts given, nor any that are 
obvious to me, that makes the statement true.  What I do remember 
from working on the Joseph Street playfields committee and others 
around town is that by this time of year, there will be no work done 
on playfields until spring.  That gives the community several months 
to discuss not only the details of the Palouse River Drive proposed 
project, but whether there are viable alternative locations.

Many people are not opposed to locating ball fields at the proposed 
site, but are opposed to the lights,  the size of the parking 
facility, water usage, the plans for what they consider to be a 
megaplex that operates nights and weekends to the significant 
detriment of area neighborhoods as well as to the arboretum, and 
other potentially detrimental aspects of the plan.  I don't know much 
about those complaints, but I think the community has time to listen 
to them, consider whether they are significant, and if so, determine 
ways to mitigate their impact or, if appropriate, find an 
alternative.  it is also appropriate to consider your opinion that 
the safety of the children is at stake if we don't move quickly.  It 
is certainly possible to begin constuction of fields on P R Drive 
while still discussing the ultimate scope of the project or 
alternative locations for additional fields.

In short, it seems to me there is time to come together, listen, and 
reason our way toward a solution that helps our childre--at less, or 
even no expense to our neighbors.  While some may choose to line up 
and say "hell no" while others should back "hell yes," there is room 
for others to reason together.  I hope that you will participate in 
the latter process.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mike Curley




On 13 Oct 2005 at 15:05, Ben Twigg wrote:

Visionaries,

Chris Berven wrote: 

"The key issue is not whether or not ball-fields are needed for the
kids but rather the potential detrimental effect the present form of
the proposed plan for the sports-complex would have on the arboretum
and city resources."

Although I believe legitimate concerns have been raised regarding
details of the proposed plan for new playfields, I would maintain 
that
the key issue IS the need for fields. There is an immediate,
significant need for additional playfields here, to the extent that I
honestly cannot understand how anyone who knows and values local 
youth
sports could ultimately oppose moving ahead with the current project
proposal. 

A letter to the editor that I wrote on this subject appeared in the
Daily News yesterday. In that letter I presented some facts regarding
local youth soccer and offered some observations regarding current
facilities. My letter did not explicitly state what I consider the 
two
most compelling reasons to support the proposed new playfields 
project
(both apply directly to Oylear Field, which is the primary facility
for high school and competitive youth soccer events in Moscow): 

1. Player safety. The playing surface at Oylear has become
increasingly bumpy (actually, I think clumpy would be a better
description), which I believe increases the risk of injuries such as
ankle sprains. Continued overuse of Oylear will cause it to become a
dangerous playing surface. 

2. Playing conditions. I coach the Moscow High School varsity girls'
soccer team. The surface of Oylear is worse than any other high 
school
field in the Inland Empire League. After the Coeur d'Alene girls
played in Moscow a few weeks ago, the Coeur d'Alene Press quoted one
of the Coeur d'Alene coaches as saying, "Their field...was just
horrible." I suggest that Moscow's young athletes deserve better than
this. 

I attribute the problems with Oylear to overuse, not to lack of
maintenance. The addition of even one soccer field in Moscow would
considerably reduce the amount of traffic on Oylear, allowing it to
"heal" and become a quality facility for soccer and other youth
sports. 

More generally, the reality is that if we don't move ahead with the
current playfields proposal, it will be years before we reach this
point again. If, as a community, we value youth sports, we cannot
afford to do this.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions related to youth
soccer in Moscow.

Respectfully,

Ben Twigg


_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯