June 18, 2010
by Tom Pile
To the Editor:
I was not at the June 14th Planning Board hearing, but from what I understand there were many town residents who attended, and many who spoke passionately for both sides of the argument as to whether the Town should be allowed to build a regulation [full-size] field at Amsterdam park.
As a Millwood resident and avid user of our parks and recreation areas, I understand the fear that the additional encroachment on the wetland buffer that this project will create will do irreparable damage to an important natural resource. The careful preservation of open space, wetlands, and nature preserves in New Castle is part of what our ridiculously high taxes pay for, and we all recognize that these elements are a major part of what makes life here special. No one wants to see that change.
As a member if the AYSO board I also understand the desperate need for more full-size playing fields in our town. We struggle every weekend during the spring and fall to find enough space for all of the various recreational and sports activities that need to share our town fields. Do the math: 1500 New Castle kids are playing soccer on any given Sunday. At a minimum, half will be playing on fields in our town. With an average of 12 players per team, that’s 62+ teams. At three or maybe four games per field, that’s still a requirement for 15 fields. In the spring, Lacrosse and Baseball are competing for many of the same fields and time slots.
This need for playing fields has been recognized for years. After long study, the Amsterdam site was chosen as the best location where both requirements could be served - the need to preserve nature’s gifts and the need to create safe and accessible playing fields. Two fields were needed, and Amsterdam could accommodate two fields, yet only one field was built during the first phase of construction, and that one is smaller than regulation size. A second field was part of the plan, and the argument comes down to whether that field can be 30 feet wider, or regulation size. That difference of 30 feet requires a new permit to allow the construction because of the additional encroachment into a wetlands buffer area.
Why not just build a smaller field? Why do we need a ‘regulation’ field? Because a full-size field can handle any kind of game, where a smaller field has less flexibility. It’s full-size fields that the town is particularly short on.
If we constantly weigh one need against the other, and frame the argument so that one side has to win at the expense of the other, then progress gets stymied. One side or the other will always holler because they perceive themselves to be the loser. We have to do both things. We need more playing fields and we need to preserve precious wetlands and natural open areas. Neither is more important than the other. We just have to do both, and do both things well.
Copyright 2012 NewCastleNOW.org