[Vision2020] proposed ball fields/sports-complex
pkraut at moscow.com
Tue Oct 18 12:44:36 PDT 2005
But, the ballfields won't be running 24 hours a day all year long will they?
----- Original Message -----
From: <berven at moscow.com>
To: "Mark and Julie Miller" <mjmiller at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 11:03 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] proposed ball fields/sports-complex
The website http://www.savethearboretum.org/ lists many of the
concerns people have concerning the impact a sports-complex
would have on the arboretum.
The concerns are based on the content of the proposed plan that
includes night lighting for the ball-fields, a PA system and crowd
noise. (the current plan calls for accommodating up to 1000
spectators (I think) at a time).
Because of the geography of the location, any noise and light from
the sports-complex will have a direct shot up the little valley that the
arboretum is in, very much reducing the peaceful environment
people who use the arboretum have come to love and expect.
(There's a picture on the savethearboretum website showing the
line of sight of the valley to the sports-comlex proposed location.)
I have also heard other issues concerning the project, i.e. where we
would find the water for the fields, costs of upgrading Palouse River
drive, inaccessibility to kids on bikes or on foot (it is not very central
and is over the hill from the University).
>From what I have gathered, there is not necessarily a dislike for ball
parks. The conflict is over the scale of the complex. A park that was
a combination community park/play fields park that had only a
couple/few ball-fields/soccer fields and no lights or PA system
instead of what is currently proposed (4 ball-fields plus 3 soccer
fields, with the PA system and lights and concession stands) would
almost certainly be welcomed.
The issue as I see it is a matter of scale. We don't want to put in
sports-complex in at the expense of loosing the character of the
> Can someone tell me exactly how this proposed community recreation
> complex is going to be detrimental to the Arboretum? I'm jumping into
> this thread a little late and I must have missed this explanation.
> Mark Miller
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <berven at moscow.com>
> To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 11:31 PM
> Subject: [Vision2020] proposed ball fields/sports-complex across
> > Hi all,
> > I'm glad to see people have been discussing the ball-park issue and
> > sharing their points of view on this. When we understand each
> > other's concerns, we can begin to find a solution that all can agree
> > on.
> > As a point of discussion I would suggest we consider the following:
> > Let's not gain new ball-parks for the kids at the expense of loosing
> > the very unique qualities of the Arboretum, a resource very few
> > communities possess.
> > I can only speak for myself but I'm sure many of those who are
> > concerned with the possible detrimental effects the sports-complex
> > would have on the arboretum would be very happy to help work towards
> > finding a _timely_ solution to the lack of ball-parks problem that
> > does not negatively impact the Arboretum
> > Cheers,
> > Chris Berven
> > _____________________________________________________
> > 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
> > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
More information about the Vision2020