Author |
Message |
make no sense |
Posted: Tue, Nov 25 2008, 11:50 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
I don't know how this ball field got started. But based on reading the posts here, building this ball field does not make sense to me, especially considering we still need to pay the maintenance fees.
I think the Rec. Committee shares the same feeling and does not want anything to do with this project. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 25 2008, 11:31 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Guest wrote: | There are zero kids on Babe Ruth. If there were 5 kids even, it is highly doubtful that there would be more than a couple of games played in Cranbury. That would mean the majority of kids on the team would be inconvenienced. |
So?
Isn't the field to big for the majority of kids?
OK, should we start talking about night games and the installation of lights now, or save that for some other time? |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 25 2008, 11:09 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
There are zero kids on Babe Ruth. If there were 5 kids even, it is highly doubtful that there would be more than a couple of games played in Cranbury. That would mean the majority of kids on the team would be inconvenienced. |
|
 |
publius |
Posted: Tue, Nov 25 2008, 10:52 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Who executed the baseball field fiasco?
Come on........was George Bush behind this thing?
He seems to have the Midas touch in reverse!!!!!!!!!!!
He DID make money on that stadium in Texass. At the taxpayer's expense, of course. The only time that buffoon made money was on the taxpayer's dime.
What were you people thinking???(the ballfield AND bush) |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 25 2008, 9:40 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Quote: | I thought the field was needed for the few students that had out-of-town games. It was meant for them, because it was a disgrace that kids had to travel and we didn't have our own field. |
Who are those precious kids who deserve such attention from the TC? |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Tue, Nov 25 2008, 9:25 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
I thought the field was needed for the few students that had out-of-town games. It was meant for them, because it was a disgrace that kids had to travel and we didn't have our own field.
That's how it was sold, that's how it should be!
As for the crappy field.......I thought the contractor had experience building baseball fields. They should fix it, right? |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Mon, Nov 24 2008, 12:47 pm EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
What happens is that the field is town is the owner, but that the league maintains control and decision making control over the use it is a restricted use field and we have no say once it becomes a league field. In essence we are owner in name only (and for expenses). For example, the league rules don't allow the field to be used for pick up games. If we want school use it has to be approved of by the BR league with their permisson granted. Pick up games are not allowed under BR rules on the field due to the expense of maintaining a BR quality standard. With zero kids on the team it is also unlikely that the league would play games here so it is feasible that they'd be thanks, but do whatever you want to do since we won't play here. Which makes it non-sensical to even develop the relationship with BR. We should simple make it a regulation field and be done with it. We shouldn't be developing fields that restrict resident usage. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Mon, Nov 24 2008, 12:20 pm EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Do they literally plan to give the deed to the land to the private company that owns the Babe Ruth League? How does that make sense, anywhere? What's to prevent the Babe Ruth League in the future from changing the use or from using the field for profit-generating activities unrelated to local kids playing games? Why would the Township both the ownership value and control of an asset taxpayers footed the bill for? |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Mon, Nov 24 2008, 12:18 pm EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Guest wrote: | The field in the far back when you enter the park. It's a CPLL little league field. I'm not sure if it's deeded over to the league or restricted to little league use only. In either case I am fine as the field gets use during the season from Cranbury kids. Also, CPLL and the town have practices and kids can and do have pick up games.
BR has different rules and regulations than little league because of the care required on the field. |
I've never seen anyone prevented from using that field when it is not in use for a Little League game, which is what they propose for the Babe Ruth Field. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Mon, Nov 24 2008, 11:18 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
The field in the far back when you enter the park. It's a CPLL little league field. I'm not sure if it's deeded over to the league or restricted to little league use only. In either case I am fine as the field gets use during the season from Cranbury kids. Also, CPLL and the town have practices and kids can and do have pick up games.
BR has different rules and regulations than little league because of the care required on the field. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Mon, Nov 24 2008, 10:48 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Guest wrote: | Yes it's legal. The town has made at least one park in the town a little league field. It's a restricted use. |
Which park is restricted? AND what is the restrictions? |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sun, Nov 23 2008, 5:18 pm EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Yes it's legal. The town has made at least one park in the town a little league field. It's a restricted use. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sun, Nov 23 2008, 10:35 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
I am not sure it's even legal to use town owned land and tax payers funds to build a ball field that cannot be used by the tax payers who are not in the league and is NOT owned by the town after its completion. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sun, Nov 23 2008, 9:14 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Is our whole town in CYA mode? The commisson wants in writing a letter stating their concerns were never addressed and they had nothing to do with this, if I ever saw an admitted failure of a project this is it. The field was managed by David and Pari. This was their project. Couldn't the commisson have gone in front as CHA did a while ago and present their concerns if they weren't being addressed?
Here is what I find really funny given the Rec's comments. August 11, meeting notes:
Ms. Stave stated that she feels that ball field looks fantastic and is proud of the Project.
http://www.cranburytownship.org/TC_minutes081108.pdf
Also from the same meeting our town engineer:
Ms. Marcelli advised that there were some concerns raised regarding the grading of the Babe Ruth Baseball field and the location of the fence along the foul line. She advised the grading and fence are compliant with the contract plans and with Babe Ruth Baseball standards.
So we have TC taking pride and a Rec Commisson fleeing ship.
I do like they the Rec Commisson recognizes it should not be referred to as a Babe Ruth field. However, is that only how it's referred to or will they honestly push for it not to be a Babe Ruth field at all. That is what I'd like to see. A regulation field for school and public use makes me a lot more comfortable. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sun, Nov 23 2008, 8:51 am EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Quote: | The commission also recognized that the field will need to be added to our field policy and fee structure schedule. The commission also wants in writing that they had absolutely nothing to do with the design or the construction of the ball field and that our previous liaison had never addressed the Township Committee with the commissions concerns. The Recreation Commission also would like the Township Committee to call the ball field a "Regulation Ball Field" not a Babe Ruth Field. |
It seems the Recreation Committee has a better idea of what's good for the town, and the Babe Ruth Field is a TC pet project. |
|
 |
Guest |
Posted: Sat, Nov 22 2008, 6:02 pm EST Post subject: Re: baseball field again |
|
Excerpts from the the October 16, 2008 Recreation minutes:
"...
3. Regulation Baseball Field
Ed Sekelsky asked if we got a punch list from the contractor. Michele Harcher was asked if our list was given to Chris Smeltzer and Michele Harcher indicated that she did give Chris Smeltzer our list. Michele Harcher reported that Chris Smeltzer gave Jeff Graydon the specs for the ball field and that Cathy Marcelli will give Jeff Graydon the soil samples and test results. Jeff Graydon will make a recommendation to Chris Smeltzer after he reviews everything. Mario Fiorentini indicated that a hose bib needs to be put in. The commission also recognized that the field will need to be added to our field policy and fee structure schedule. The commission also wants in writing that they had absolutely nothing to do with the design or the construction of the ball field and that our previous liaison had never addressed the Township Committee with the commissions concerns. The Recreation Commission also would like the Township Committee to call the ball field a "Regulation Ball Field" not a Babe Ruth Field.
4. Shed for Baseball Fields
The Commission agreed that two sheds are needed. One shed for Millstone and one for Village Park. Beth Veghte asked Michele Harcher to get HPAC approval for Village Park and she will give the Parks Commission information on the sheds.
..."
http://www.cranburytownship.org/rec_minutes101608.pdf |
|
 |