| Author | Post |
|---|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 01:02 am |
|
S. Smith wrote: 2) I think another reason people in Oak Ridge and Stokesdale aren't yelling about where the ball fields are being built is because they're not talking about building them particularly close to any residences. Both that section of Linville Road in Oak Ridge and Angel-Pardue Road in Stokesdale are relatively undeveloped.
Sandra, you more than picked up on the point I was trying to make.
Perhaps Summerfield could/should learn from the positive experiences of Oak Ridge and Stokesdale.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 01:05 am |
|
Sandra Smith wrote:
Calm down, Buddy -- don't hulk out on us. 
I can't speak to the baseball program. As a parent whose daughters played softball for years in Oak Ridge, I can tell you that all the youth sports associations around here are top notch, primarily because of the dedication of their volunteers. In fact, I'll even share this -- when my oldest daughter wanted to keep playing ball but Oak Ridge didn't have enough girls in the 18 and under age group to field a team, she came over and played for Summerfield.
And I can assure you that Summerfield is not the only town that takes players from different towns. I've known girls that lived in Stokesdale to play for Oak Ridge, I've known girls that lived in Bethany to play in Stokesdale. I think all the local youth sports groups, at least up to this point, have accepted players from other towns, because it's about kids playing recreational sports and getting all the benefits that go along with that.
Thank-you Sandra for allowing other diverse opinions and viewpoints to be heard.
Last edited on Mar 23rd, 2007 01:08 am by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 01:25 pm |
|
Shamu wrote: I propose this new discussion topic for the Forum. There are a lot of things to talk about about, but just a few are:
What is the need for ballfields.
Who will use them.
What type of location is best.
What are the best ways to fund.
What kind of balances need to be considered when locating the ballfields. What are the impacts of ballfields to residents.
What types of ballfields are there. Are they all the same, or are there differences?
I'm sure there will be many others.
Back to Shamu's original reasons for starting this thread, I'll give you my perspective. Sorry for the length this post will require.
1) What is the need for ballfields? I think the need if obvious and has been discussed over and over here.
2) Who will use them? I think the fields would be built first and foremost for the kids of the community. I think there are also adults who would love to be able to play baseball/softball and soccer if there were space for them. Church leagues also used to use the community fields, but I'm honestly not sure where they play now. I know several churches have their own fields.
3) What type of location is best? I'd say flat, cleared land if it is available which has good road access. The idea situation would be away from residences so those people would not be impacted or would be impacted as little as possible. From talking with Michael Brandt in Summerfield, I know these are the things Summerfield is considering. The other two things are location (i.e., centrally located so as to be convenient for all residents vs. on the outskirts or out of town) and price (being centrally located or along a major highway might make a property cost more).
4) What are the best ways to fund? I'll let you guys decide this one. There are obviously people who think they should get something for their tax dollars (whether that be from property tax or from sales tax money previously collected from the county) while others think this should come from the private sector. Grants are another possibility, as is a mix of all of these.
5) What are the impacts of ballfields to residents. I'd say light, sound and traffic and the major ones. From that you could also get things like air pollution (an offshoot of traffic) and damage to property from people walking across/by or parking on your property to get to ballfields (damage to grass, trash, etc.) I'm sure property values also tie in.
6) What types of ballfields are there? I'm not an expert, so won't even try to guess on this one, other than to say I know there are different size fields (T-ball fields are not the same size as what older kids play on) and obviously I know the difference between a baseball/softball field and a multiuse field (which I assume could be used for things like soccer, football, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.)
Anybody got anything to add?
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 01:58 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: Shamu wrote: I propose this new discussion topic for the Forum. There are a lot of things to talk about about, but just a few are:
What is the need for ballfields.
Back to Shamu's original reasons for starting this thread, I'll give you my perspective. Sorry for the length this post will require.
1) What is the need for ballfields? I think the need if obvious and has been discussed over and over here.
One of the things which I have never heard addressed here (or anywhere else for that matter), is how many children and how many teams would one ballfield support? In other words, measured in quantity, how much additional recreational opportunity is added with the addition of each additional ballfield to any proposed park anywhere?
What hours would each ballfield be used?
What are the costs for lighting each additional ballfield, and could this cost be reduced or eliminated by simply not lighting a field? Could the monies saved from not lighting a ballfield be more than sufficient to construct additional ballfields without lights? It would seem to me that the overall construction cost for ballfields (not including land costs) would be reduced by as much as 50% and perhaps more, simply by not lighting a ballfield.
Could the use of a long term (99 year) ground lease for land not be utilized to significantly reduce the overall costs of ballfield and park development? It seems to me that the simple use of ground leases could easily reduce overall development costs by 50% or more.
What is the census history for the past 10 years in Summerfield for youth league aged children and what quantification in the number of children does that history present? What are the projections for growth in the number and percentage of children who will place additional demands on recreational support in the future, and how will this impact requiring that additional ballfields be built in the near and foreseeable future?
Other than lightly glossing and glazing over the broad concepts, there doesn't seem to be any REAL discussion here of the so many important aspects and details which I am sure that public citizens would like and should be entitled to know before deciding whether or no to sign off with their support for such taxpayer funded public improvements. Nor does there appear to be any really creative constructive ideas and thinking in examining the other many alternatives in funding, planning, development, and long term costs of maintenance.
Last edited on Mar 25th, 2007 02:05 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 02:11 pm |
|
It would cost less if fields weren't lit, but then there would b a greater need for even more fields because you couldn't play on them after dark.
We already have 8 year olds practicing until 9:30 p.m. just to be able to have practice once a week before games start.... That's past their bedtime on other nights during the school week.
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 02:20 pm |
|
macca wrote: It would cost less if fields weren't lit, but then there would b a greater need for even more fields because you couldn't play on them after dark.
I was aware of that issue in posting the earlier question (which I noted in my earlier post) but in trying to get across the larger point I was trying to make, perhaps I can best show by a hypothetical example:
Suppose that under the current plans, that each ballfield costs $100,000.00 to develop, and that $75,000.00 of that cost is attributable to lighting.
Assuming that sufficient land is available within a proposed ballfield park, the savings (on not installing lights) of $75,000.00 per field, would more than be enough to constuct 3 additional ballfields.
So, in the end, instead of having 2 lighted fields, for the same approximate costs, there would be 8 ballfields, although none of them lighted.
That is why I asked what I believe to be a legitimate question worthy of consideration. And I don't think in my hypothetical example that the cost ratios, for lighted versus unlighted, are all that far off.
I was hoping that those involved in planning and constructing ballfields could shed some specific insights into the actual line item costs of development for each one field. We could then interpolate those individual costs to larger quantities and perhaps look at savings based on economies of scale.
Last edited on Mar 25th, 2007 02:26 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 02:22 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: What are the costs for lighting each additional ballfield, and could this cost be reduced or eliminated by simply not lighting a field? Could the monies saved from not lighting a ballfield be more than sufficient to construct additional ballfields without lights?
One other consideration and rationale for NOT lighting these ballfields, is that light pollution, one of the major objections to their construction by neighbors, would be eliminated.
And with energy costs projected to increase over a future period of time, significant financial savings for taxpayers could also be realized in lowering ongoing annual maintenance and operation costs.
Last edited on Mar 25th, 2007 02:41 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 02:45 pm |
|
| I thought that part of the problem now was in finding land because it is much more profitable to develop it for uses other than recreation.....
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 03:03 pm |
|
Guilford Record article 'bout the need for ballfields...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070325/NEWSREC0112/703250309/1058/NEWSREC0112
Maybe they don't all need to be lit, I don't know. Hopefully we're gettin' close to findin' some land to accomplish step one.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 03:15 pm |
|
macca wrote: I thought that part of the problem now was in finding land because it is much more profitable to develop it for uses other than recreation.....
I guess what I can't understand is how all of these real estate developers can come into Summerfield and find land so easily and readily, yet the Town of Summerfield is at such a loss in not finding the same opportunities?
And that the real estate developers seem to be buying their land tracts at a much more affordable price per acre than what it would seem that the Town of Summerfield is willing to pay and discussing having to pay, is all the more unbelievable. Especially when it comes to Summerfield Town Council members spending valuable taxpayers dollars in their proposals for making such huge land investments for ballfields.
That is why I have always said and will always believe that the private sector can purchase and deliver services so much more efficiently and cost effective than government, and no one has disproven that theory in the instant situation. That is why governments everywhere and at every level are more and more moving to privatization of government services in realizing cost savings from the greater efficiences and effectiveness of the private sector.
What Summerfield should really consider, if one assumes good financial stewardship of taxpayer monies is at all important, is to have the Town of Summerfield put out a RFP* among an experienced real estate development community (on a low bid basis) and see if the private sector doesn't come back with significant overall cost forecast savings over the efforts of your development amateurs at Town Hall.
(Note * RFP means Request For Proposal)
Last edited on Mar 25th, 2007 03:31 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 05:23 pm |
|
FatPappy wrote: Guilford Record article 'bout the need for ballfields...
http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070325/NEWSREC0112/703250309/1058/NEWSREC0112
Maybe they don't all need to be lit, I don't know. Hopefully we're gettin' close to findin' some land to accomplish step one. Ready, shoot, aim!!!
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 05:31 pm |
|
Sorry, cheap shot and not furthering the action. I see that some the the comments by Jim, Sandra and others are clearly saying that, excuse the pun, maybe all the bases haven't been covered.
I've avoided this point because it may look like blaming, but I think it's important to note that our town council and administration bought property and invested about an additional $100,000 in a proposed town hall..sheriff substation and then found out after the sunk costs that the land itself was unsuitable.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 05:40 pm |
|
Ok Jim enough!! How much land have you tried to buy in Summerfield? I am assuming you do know that per acre is much less on undeveloped large acreage then on smaller flatter acreage close to major highways. We happen to own 40 acres on a not so major highway and I would anticipate that somebody would pay me at least what the Town is is being charged and probably moreif we had it for sale. Developers buying 100 acres can deal with wet areas and creeks because they can move the houses out of those areas the where as the Town has to buy flat with a revlatively large not wet area in order to put ball fields.
I think you have insulted a lot of volunteers, several of whom have real estate licenses and can advise the Town on comps and cost and who have worked many hours, along with a community who has stepped up and offered property to sell. I know you don't believe this but I do not know of one single soul in Summerfield who just fell off the turnip truck and I find you insinuations that we are all a bunch of bumpkins most insulting.
Having said that I am going out and work in my garden.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 05:50 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Ok Jim enough!! How much land have you tried to buy in Summerfield? I am assuming you do know that per acre is much less on undeveloped large acreage then on smaller flatter acreage close to major highways. We happen to own 40 acres on a not so major highway and I would anticipate that somebody would pay me at least what the Town is is being charged and probably moreif we had it for sale. Developers buying 100 acres can deal with wet areas and creeks because they can move the houses out of those areas the where as the Town has to buy flat with a revlatively large not wet area in order to put ball fields.
I think you have insulted a lot of volunteers, several of whom have real estate licenses and can advise the Town on comps and cost and who have worked many hours, along with a community who has stepped up and offered property to sell. I know you don't believe this but I do not know of one single soul in Summerfield who just fell off the turnip truck and I find you insinuations that we are all a bunch of bumpkins most insulting.
Having said that I am going out and work in my garden.
Jane, believe it or not, I have spent the better part of my working life as a real estate developer and broker, specializing in land sales, development, consulting, and appraisal in several counties in several states . I also have in the past handled real estate appraisals on land and have testified as an expert witness in numerous courts as to land values (especially those involving large acreage as well as centrally located commercial properties (such as around the Greensboro airport and for NC DOT highway condemnations and acquisitions). I would be more than willing to bet, that my real property raw land appraisal education and experience resume reads even more credibly than your own.
I too am more than familiar with not only many real estate professionals and developers in Summerfield, but many of the more recent real estate transactions in the past 5 years or so, and the costs of land per acre under those sales. Obviously, I am aware of the many factors, including size and topography, which can and do influence land prices on a per acre basis.
I stand by my earlier comments and would be more than happy to discuss or debate you on what land costs are in Summerfield for the private sector versus what the Town of Summerfield seems willing to pay, which is so much higher than the average land market costs historically being paid by developers.
Last edited on Mar 25th, 2007 05:56 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 25th, 2007 11:45 pm |
|
| that my friend is exactly what the tax payers of Summerfield are upset about. Paying taxes and still no sheriff sub-station. I just don't want to see the same thing happen with the ballfields.
|
|
|
