January 11, 2008
Town board’s decision to build only one field on the Amsterdam property a disappointment
David Perlmutter
Town board makes irrational decision to build only one sport field on the Amsterdam property
Jeffrey Scheine
Town board’s decision to build only one field on the Amsterdam property a disappointment
Dear Editor:
I am disappointed with the Town Board’s decision to build only one field on the Amsterdam property. (4-1 against, with only board member, Michael Wolfensohn, in favor of two fields). We still need more, and I hope that the Town Board will explore every avenue possible to build more!
I wrote the following letter to Jan Wells in May 2005 regarding the Amsterdam property. I went through 4 more seasons as AYSO regional commissioner, and field allocations and scheduling only got more difficult as lacrosse gained in popularity.
May 5, 2005
Dear Jan,
Once again, I urge the Town Board to take action now and build two fields at the Amsterdam property. This spring, dozens of our teams have been impacted on more than half of the weekends by games and events at the high school. More teams have had to practice on fewer fields and for shorter periods of time. In some instances games and practices have been canceled.
Most of the field losses are covered in advance in our season field allocation and we are able to schedule around them. However, at the beginning of the season, high school coaches hold practices that are not scheduled at the time of the field allocation letter. During the season, there are the occasional “make up” games for competitions that have been rained out. Additionally, there are events that aren’t on the calendar at the start of the season, but which are programmed for the fields, such as the recent Olde Tyme Carnival on May 21, and the upcoming Alumni Lacrosse game on June 5. Although the advance notice given by the athletic director is sincerely appreciated, no amount of notice can alleviate that we have nowhere else to play these games.
We all want our schools to have a robust program with diverse activities for the community seven days a week. Nonetheless, the adverse impact of the resulting schedule conflicts on the recreational sports programs like AYSO needs to be addressed. If two fields are built at the Amsterdam property, recreational sports’ dependence on school fields will be diminished and we’ll be better able to meet current demands for field use. Let’s build the Amsterdam fields now as a first step to eliminating field shortages for the thousands of kids that play recreational sports in New Castle.
Sincerely,
David Perlmutter
AYSO Regional Commissioner
David Perlmutter is the former Regional Commissioner of Chappaqua AYSO. He has lived in Chappaqua for thirteen years and coached soccer for nine years, and does not like last minute field changes.
_____________________________________________________
Town board makes irrational decision to build only one sport field on the Amsterdam property
Open Letter to the residents of Chappaqua and the New Castle Town Board regarding the Amsterdam Property Fields:
On Tuesday evening I attended the town of New Castle board meeting along with representatives of the various town sports programs. I attended this meeting as both the president of the Chappaqua Youth Soccer Club and a longtime resident of Chappaqua to express my views in favor of the town building two fields on the Amsterdam property. I was told that this was an opportunity for us to have our views considered by the board. Although almost all of the people attending this meeting spoke out in favor of building two fields, the town board, by a 4 - 1 vote, decided that only one field should be built. The only board member that voted in favor of two fields was Michael Wolfensohn.
At this meeting each member of the town board had the opportunity to express their views concerning this issue. Although several board members read from prepared statements as if their minds had already been made up before this meeting, I learned several interesting things from this discussion.
* The board had commissioned a traffic study a couple of years ago that concluded no safety issues arose as a result of building two fields and a park on the Amsterdam Property.
* Each board member in favor of one field stated that they would have voted in favor of two fields except for a recent change in circumstances: the application by a religious organization to construct a building near the Amsterdam property.
* Each board member in favor of one field stated that with the uncertainty surrounding the potential increased traffic if the religious building were ever to be built they felt that solely for safety reasons that it was in the town’s best interest only to build one field today and provide for the option to build a second field when there was a better understanding of the traffic risks, if any. However, the additional incremental costs that would be involved in building the second field at a later point in time (which in all likelihood would be staggering when compared with the approximate $200,000 cost of the second field today) were not known or even explored by the town board.
* Each board member acknowledged that there was a desperate and immediate need for additional fields in town and that adding only one field would not meet these needs.
* The board acknowledged that there is no current plan to add additional town fields of any kind, although some undisclosed options are being considered by the town board.
* The board acknowledged that the existing fields used by our town sports programs are being destroyed from overuse.
In addition, board member and former head of the recreation commission Robin Stout challenged the various sports clubs in town to help the board come up with ideas to help meet the needs of our children. I believe a simple solution is right in front of us.
Explosion in the use of sports fields in Chappaqua
I have lived in Chappaqua for over 18 years, have three children and have witnessed first hand the explosion of the town’s student population and ever increasing participation of our children in the various town sports programs. During this time the Chappaqua Youth Soccer Club has grown from 10 to 25 teams and the American Youth Soccer Organization program has experienced similar growth. Ten years ago the lacrosse program was almost nonexistent, but today has multiple teams at every age level and the number of children enrolled in the town lacrosse program increases significantly each year. Last, but not least, the baseball program has experienced similar growth, especially with numerous teams playing during the fall in addition to the traditional spring season. However, during this 10 year period only one town field has been built, a baseball field at Gedney Park. Since field space is an issue for all town sports programs and all programs share the use of town fields, all of us have been anxiously awaiting for eight years the construction of the Amsterdam multi-purpose fields by our town.
Needless to say I was very disappointed when the decision, after eight years of waiting and the ever increasing participation in town sports programs by our children, was to build only one field. Moreover, I was even more disappointed to learn that each board member who voted in favor of one field said they would have voted for two but for a change in circumstances, the application by a religious organization to construct a building, which may or may not even be built, and even if built will in all likelihood not be completed for several years at the earliest.
Suggestion: update the traffic study to base decision on current facts
Building fields on the Amsterdam property has been an eight year struggle that seems to encounter a new obstacle at every turn. With land available to build fields in our town being almost nonexistent, this is a rare opportunity to build a second field if we can accept that the additional use of the Amsterdam Park that would result from two fields as compared to one is not dangerous. With all this at stake I would think there is a solution to this perceived concern. I would strongly recommend that the town board explore every option available to address this perceived traffic concern. At a minimum I would think the board should update the traffic study and see if the potential additional traffic, assuming the religious building were built, does in fact cause any additional traffic risks.
I would think before we scrap the second field idea we need to be very sure there is in fact a traffic issue. Also, if the traffic consultant does find that traffic concerns exist I would then explore every alternative to see if such risk could be dealt with reasonably. One simple solution comes to mind. During times when people are going into or leaving the religious building, have a police officer directing traffic, just like has been done since I can remember at many places of worship in our town and at the Chappaqua train station.
Traffic issues are not unique to our town. There must be a solution to address a desperate need in our town, more fields for our children to play sports on. Until every possible solution has been run to ground I think the town board is doing the children of our town a great disservice by limiting Amsterdam to one field. Chappaqua is a town that prides itself on being made up of can do people and on our children developing the skills to help solve the world’s problems. I would think there must be a solution here other than a let’s wait and see solution.
All of this leads me to a simple conclusion. Build two fields today. If the proposed religious building is ever completed in the years to come, we can address any traffic issues then. Worst case is that we build two fields that are both used for several years before the building is completed and then if traffic issues do arise in the future we have the ability to limit the use of these fields at such time to deal with the issue. On behalf of the Chappaqua Youth Soccer Club and all other sports programs in our town that would have use of these fields I can assure you that all of us would fully support any decision to limit field use in the name of safety concerns. This decision would be fiscally responsible, meets the current needs of the children of our town and provides for the flexibility needed to address traffic issues, if any, in the future. We don’t have the luxury to wait another eight years for another town field.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Scheine
President – Chappaqua Youth Soccer Club
Copyright 2008 NewCastleNOW.org