Normally games are played on fields — not with fields.
When Haddonfield residents first began hearing about turf fields in 2010, the impression was we could be stuck with one turf field tops.
Now, more than two years letter, Haddonfield is facing the prospect of not one turf field but three, funded in whole or in part by local taxpayers. Two of those fields are to be located at the high school, and the other at Bancroft.
How did we get here?
First, let me give credit where credit is due. While I disagree strongly with the installation of turf fields in our town, the turf boosters are to be credited for raising several hundred thousand dollars toward the initial installation costs at the high school. Their passion for field sports is admirable.
Unfortunately, the funds raised by the field boosters do not cover all of the initial or any of future costs related to three turf fields planned.
Specifically, with regard to the two high school turf fields, the installation will require an additional $354,000 upfront from Haddonfield taxpayers. Further, up to $1 million in installation costs for a third turf field at Bancroft will come entirely from Haddonfield taxpayers’ pockets.
Initial installation costs aren’t the only turf expenditures that worry me as a Haddonfield taxpayer.
There are annual maintenance costs running into the many tens of thousands of dollars for each turf field. Not to mention the fact that the turf fields will have to be replaced in full every eight to 10 years at a cost of further millions to local taxpayers over the coming decades.
Do we really have millions for extravagances like turf when repairs to current school facilities and fields have gone unaddressed?
All of this brings me to the Bancroft bond. The School Board had included in its Bancroft bond $1 million option to turf at Bancroft, which the board says that it may or may not use for turf.
Do we really trust that the board is not going to turf Bancroft when they’ve already capitulated to a small group of sports enthusiasts on two turf fields at the high school? In my view, an option to turf a third field at a cost of up to $1 million has no place in the Bancroft bond when so many residents oppose turf.
I will acknowledge that recently an article suggested the school board has amended the referendum to not specifically address the turf at the present time; however, common sense is the issue is not off the table and will be resurrected if they can get the referendum passed.
This revision may make some people more inclined to vote in favor of the bond. However, in my mind this action becomes more and more convoluted and less clear and in my opinion fraught with personal agendas, I plan to vote against the bond this January.
Lastly, let’s talk about another hidden cost associated with Bancroft: environmental issues. The structures associated with Bancroft are both historic which means asbestos containing materials, lead based paints, underground storage tanks and probable leaks associated with those tanks.
A Phase I environmental site assessment has been performed and is posted to the Haddonfield Board of Education website. The 200 plus page report will probably not entice most people to read it; however, there are additional costs within that report. The report recommends more sampling to determine if clean up is needed which living in a state that prides itself on addressing contamination issues will result in more cost which more than likely will require additional taxes being levied. Why would the town of Haddonfield want to take on the liability associated with the clean up of this property especially if we do not have a final determination as to the extent and estimated cost of any contamination or asbestos abatement or lead based paint removal?
Where did common sense go given the current economic situation?
Diana Eichfeld
