| Moderated by: EditorPS | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Shamu Member
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Gosh Shamu, what about municipal golf courses? Don't they count too? Aren't tax paying citizens who prefer golf over baseball or softball equally entitled to recreational outlets to be provided by local town government as well? Wonder why these 'recreation experts' who wrote and managed the Summerfield parks and recreation 'survey' never mentioned golf or golf courses in their survey questions? (I personally thought that was a rather blind though probably intentional undersight and yet another reason the survey isn't really worth much as a credible measure of citizen preferences) I wonder if more citizens would prefer golf courses over ball fields? (How would we know quantitatively one way or the other since it was not an included nor measured response choice?) |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member 
|
Ok I will bite. Baseball buddy knows a whole lot more about this than I do. But I believe there are 900 kids trying to play base ball, softball, tball on the only fields Summerfield has up at the elementary school. There is no soccer offered in Summerfield at all. So we know we have several hundred kids who would use the fields. Could also possibly have some adult leagues with more fields. i understand the kids play very shortened season because of the inability to get field space to play more games. The Town is looking at 3 pieces of land that for the most part I think are 30 acres or less. One piece on 158, one piece on 220 and 1 piece on Summerfield Rd. Off the top of my head with out knowing too much about the issues and costs I think the Summerfield Rd property makes the most sense from a proximity to the other field, ease of getting there. But there are a lot of other issues I am sure. The Town has set aside the money to buy the property but there are probably grants that would help build the fields I don't know. The People in Summerfield have consistantly put ballfields and parks at the top of their lists of things that Summerfield needs. I think the people for the most part expect to pay for the parks and ballfields with their tax money. As to golf as I remember when Dr Sellars went over the raw data of the surveys there were a few requests for golf courses but way down on the list of importance for the folks in Summerfield. Probably because people who play gold can go to Stokesdale for the National or play Par three at the course on Lake Brandt. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: As to golf as I remember when Dr Sellars went over the raw data of the surveys there were a few requests for golf courses but way down on the list of importance for the folks in Summerfield. Probably because people who play gold can go to Stokesdale for the National or play Par three at the course on Lake Brandt. Jane, Thanks for your response. In my reading of the Sellers survey I did not see any reference whatsoever nor any question asked about golf or golf courses? (Can you point me to where within the survey such a question exists?) If the argument is going to be made that Summerfield residents can drive to Stokesdale or Greensboro National to play golf, wouldn't it correspondingly be fair to suggest the same equal inconvenience in driving for those wishing to play softball or baseball at other available facilities in this area? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Jim as I remember somewhere in the survey you got to list things if they had been missed on the survey. There was a cut off as to what made the office report. I suppose if you can get 900 or so people in Summerfield clammering for golf courses something might be done. Although with land the cost it is and as environmentally unhealthy as golf courses are to your ground water I would not be in favor of it near my house. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Jim as I remember somewhere in the survey you got to list things if they had been missed on the survey. There was a cut off as to what made the office report. Jane, I am just surprised a question regarding golf or a golf course would not be an absolute given on a local sports and recreation preferences survey in that we all live in the golf capital of the world, North Carolina and it is a sport enjoyed by a large segment of the adult population in our state and area. To have omitted such an obvious question, seems to me an obvious error and omission in the survey not to have included at least a specific question of citizens preferences measurement. How else could we know for sure whether the interest in Summerfield among residents for a municipal golf course is 900 or 90? The other surprising thing to me in the oversight is, that golf courses generally pay their own way once the initial capital costs for improvements are made whereas ball fields don't. Finally, I think most people would prefer the quieter more passive sport of golf next door to their homes rather than the constant heavy traffic, cheering noise and field light pollution late into the night on a regular basis. A golf course generally serves to improve real estate values of surrounding properties while community ball fields generally have the opposite depressing effect on real estate values is an additional reason I wouldn't want ballfields near me. Last edited on Mar 17th, 2007 01:18 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member 
|
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: let's get back on topic please. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
OK shoot. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Which one of us is getting shot? Ok! Ok! I am off topic again. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Shamu, the 'Big Boys' upstairs don't want us talking about golf courses and getting even more of the Summerfield hookers and slicers all stirred up...... Maybe if we sweep it under the rug no one will notice is their thinking. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Jim I am not sure I can be involved in a conversation about hookers. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Jim I am not sure I can be involved in a conversation about hookers. Jane and I thought all politicians and all former politicians were such W-H-O-A..... never mind! Last edited on Mar 17th, 2007 02:13 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member 
|
FatPappy wrote:He needs to step down now. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Well, what about Oak Ridge and Stokesdale. I remember talk at one time about hooking up with them. Maybe a 'Y'. Do you think that is an option? Maybe get a bigger area that can serve a number of purposes. This is an important decision that we are looking at - spending over a million dollars on. I think some real discussion and evaluation of options is appropriate. Don't you? |
|||||||||||
|
EditorPS Administrator 
|
Hi Shamu, In today's issue of our paper, "Questions You Have Asked," we have a question and answer regarding the YMCA. We asked Mayor Ray Combs of Oak Ridge for an update and he referred us to the YMCA of Greensboro. Greg Jones, YMCA of Greensboro's CEO, told us there is "no full update on our plans to expand into Oak Ridge." For more details, see page 7. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Shamu I agree it is a huge decision that has been batted around for at least 10 years now in Summerfield. We now have 900 kids playing or trying to play organized sports on fields that were built when the town was much smaller. We have an obesity epidemic. We have air polution. Ball fields answer many needs. You can't build houses on them so they give us open space for water recharge although they really are not much better than paved roads for that. They give us places for our kids to exercise and learn important life lessions playing organized sports. I think ballfields also give people meeting places. The Y for the three towns is a great idea but years off and will not possibly provide enough ballfields for all the towns. It is my understanding Stokesdale and Oakridge have similiar problems with lack of space. Maybe not to the extent as Summerfield but they dont' have room to spare either. When we incorporated we said to the county we will be responsible for ourselves. It is the responsible thing to do as a Town to look after our kids. We certainly have large numbers of kids going to other communities to use ballfields. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member 
|
I will give a detailed post on this subject when I have more time. Thank you Shamu for starting this post. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: It is my understanding Stokesdale and Oakridge have similiar problems with lack of space. Maybe not to the extent as Summerfield but they dont' have room to spare either. Jane, Oak Ridge and Stokesdale do face the same problem with lack of ball fields. As a parent of older teenagers, the youngest of which just stopped play organized sports last year at age 16 (only because of an injury) and the oldest of which played until she aged out at 18, I can verify that there are so many kids trying to play these sports. I can also say that recreational sports are a wonderful thing for kids to be involved in. Oak Ridge and Stokesdale are both in the process of addressing their need for athletic fields. Oak Ridge has obtained a PARTF grant and is about to begin construction on their 66-acre park. It will have a couple of baseball/softball fields and a couple of multipurpose fields. Oak Ridge has traditionally had more baseball/softball fields than the other towns, but they lost a couple when the school was expanded. The Oak Ridge Youth Assn. also has a football program -- the only one in the NW area, so kids from Summerfield and Stokesdale also play on it. Although they practice in OR, they play their games on the field at Northwest High School. The ORYA also has a soccer program, and I believe they play their games at Beeson Park in Kernersville, again because OR has no field space. Stokesdale is still in the planning stages for their park, but I believe it will have a couple of multipurpose fields. My understanding is that they now play soccer in the outfield areas of the current baseball/softball fields. While this sounds like a good way to use space, this means Stokesdale can't have both spring and fall leagues of both sports. Baseball/softball teams use the fields in spring and soccer teams use the fields in fall. (If I'm wrong on any of this info, somebody please correct me.) |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
OK, there are good reasons FOR having ballfields in Summerfield (Jane, I'm not too sure about obesity and air pollution), but speaking of pollution, there is pollution created by ballfields. As someone who lives 1/2 mile from the current ballfields, I can personally attest to two types of pollution; noise and light. And the woman who spoke at the meeting on Tuesday just summed it up beautifully by saying "Oh my" (my rough remembered quotation). The ballfields are really imposing if you're trying to just live your life. I'm sure the noise and bright lights add to the experience of participants, but they are unwanted by neighbors. I don't have an easy answer to this quandry. I do think there is a valid arguement for ballfields, even at taxpayers expense (sorry Jim) but this is a situation where a lot of aspects need to be considered. Finding the best place for the ballfields will be a situation of discussion and compromise, but if Summerfield can't do this in a fair, above-board and understandable way, who can? This may actually be the true test of what Summerfiled is all about. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Good points Sandra an' Shamu. |
|||||||||||
|
EditorPS Administrator
|
Shamu wrote: Finding the best place for the ballfields will be a situation of discussion and compromise, but if Summerfield can't do this in a fair, above-board and understandable way, who can? This may actually be the true test of what Summerfiled is all about. Shamu, I believe in one of your earliest posts you commented something to the extent that the TOWN doesn't have feelings and best interests -- PEOPLE do -- and you're right. At this moment in time WE are the town, and this type of debate will be the true test for what WE are about. Can WE be fair, can WE be above-board and can WE compromise? I think we are all guilty of referencing "the town" when we want to put the responsibility on it, as an inanimate object, versus on ourselves. So, can WE be fair and civil and open-minded? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Shamu wrote: I don't have an easy answer to this quandry. I do think there is a valid arguement for ballfields, even at taxpayers expense (sorry Jim) but this is a situation where a lot of aspects need to be considered. Shamu, I actually agree with your statement where taxpayers have signed off on and support purchase of land and construction of ballfields or any other recreational need (including municipal golf courses BTW). To simply build ballfields without taxpayer support, will in the end create even larger headaches and a political problem within the community much greater than the problem of lack of ballfields. We have an excellent 'model' here in Stokesdale where a local group of community leaders saw the need 30 years or so ago for ballfields and they were able to purchase lands and construct two ballfields, all at no expense to the local taxpayer. That model proves it can be done privately when a group focuses on achieving an end and doesn't depend on government to meet all of their needs. Let's face it, the needs of youth are quite different than the needs of others within a community including the needs of senior citizens on fixed incomes. Why should the needs of one group be any larger than the needs of another group? Why should those least able to afford the onerous burdens of government taxation be required to supplement the needs of a smaller minority group? When Jane says that Summerfield has been planning ballfields for 10 years and that there are more than 900 kids wanting to play ball, it begs the question to me at least, why the private sector hasn't responded to this need like community leaders in Stokesdale did many years ago? With a contribution of just over $100.00 per child per year by the families for each of these children for each of those past 10 years, the community of Summerfield would have raised $1,000,000.00 and the ballfields would already be a reality without government rather than a pipe dream while waiting on government. And it would seem that without that kind of parental support ($100.00 per child per year) the community should step back and take a closer look at whether this is a real need as opposed to simply a luxury that people say they want but are unwilling to pay for. (Which is exactly the conclusion that I think the Sellers survey actually represents and says by the way). Throughout the whole United States, more and more state and local governments are facing greater pressures with each passing year on increasing costs and lowering revenues, and more and more state and local goverrnments are starting to look at and implement privatization of government services, with the understanding by all parties, that the private sector can almost always manage and build things cheaper and more cost effectively than government. And I strongly suggest to you and everyone, that sooner or later, there will come that day down the road, when the ongoing maintenance costs to citizens for ballfields in Summerfield will more effectively be managed with lower costs by a privatization of those ballfields rather than leaving them to the public responsibility of government. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Wow, Jim. That's a lot of good information, and maybe a whole new way of looking at it. Thanks for your comments. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
I think the Summerfield Town Council learned a big lesson about 3 years ago when they tried to buy that property on Rabbit Hollow Road for ball fields. In what I believe they felt was a service to the town, they realized the neighbors DID NOT want ballfields there and they backed off. Since then, and especially since they allocated money in last year's budget, they've been very public (at least to my knowledge) about where they are looking at property and allowing the public to speak and town committees to have input. I know they've put out public requests for property that might be available, and they're looking at a variety of criteria, including topography, access and surrounding development -- particularly residential, in evaluating it. Ball fields are one of those things that people want, but it seems like most people don't want them close to their house. (I can think of worse things, but not sure I'd want them real close to me either.) |
|||||||||||
|
Vicki White-Lawrence Member 
|
I live in the neighborhood where the Stokesdale ball park is located. I've lived here for 20 years, and I'm told that the ball park has been here for at least 40 years. Aside from lights shining thru the trees in early spring and late winter, and some minor traffic issues, I wouldn't even know there is a ball park there. Oh yes, sometimes I hear cheers from the park, but that is actually a nice thing. (Traffic issues: a few folks who drive too fast in or out sometimes. People also seem to forget there is a stop sign as they leave the road leading to the park. Maybe they forget that there could be traffic coming the other way since it is a dead end road.) My guess is that if you polled my neigbors they would either say they don't think that much about it (the ball park was here before most of the current residents) or that if it bothers them it is not a big deal. One thing I have noticed in the past couple of years is the increase in traffic in and around the park. As a member of the Parks & Rec Board, I know that there is an increase in the number of children wanting to play. The Board has looked at different ways of making the most of the space they have, and have lobbied the Town to offer "multipurpose" fields on the 25 acres the town has purchased so that soccer can be moved there. As Sandra mentioned, we currently use everything at the current park except the infields when we run our soccer program. For all of the sports offered in Stokesdale, it is hard to offer as much as is needed because, in addition to playing games there, we need practice time on the fields. Children need time to work on skills in addition to participating in games. One other point I'd like to add: I think people who say they shouldn't have to pay for recreation areas because they don't have children don't see the big picture. I think the parks help foster friendships, a sense of community and so much more than just offering kids a place to play. Jane's point about obesity and pollution was right on.... We need to offer viable options to watching TV and playing video games so that our children get out and exercise more (while they're playing) and breathing that fresh air. And instead of developing every inch of space, who not have it as an area for recreation -- why not, say, as ball fields and maybe even a walking track (or trail) around it? I think the argument could be made that we are actually making our communities safer and healthier for EVERYONE by having more ball fields. |
|||||||||||
|
EditorPS Administrator
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Let's face it, the needs of youth are quite different than the needs of others within a community including the needs of senior citizens on fixed incomes. Why should the needs of one group be any larger than the needs of another group? Why should those least able to afford the onerous burdens of government taxation be required to supplement the needs of a smaller minority group? Jim, I think it's great that you're such an advocate for senior citizens, and would love to hear more about how you think we can help them. I actually haven't heard much discussion in Summerfield about the burden of the town's property tax on our senior citizens, but you seem to have your ears closer to the ground that I do so please enlighten me with facts. You rely very much on statistics and scientific data and place little, if any emphasis on gauging public interest and needs by listening to those who come to council meetings, contact the town elected officials by phone, e-mail or in person, submit letters to newspapers, etc. So tell me, based on your more scientific and dependable knowledge, what percentage of senior citizens in Summerfield live at the poverty level, and how much of a burden does the town's property tax place on them? Let's do some quick math. Assuming a home is valued at $100,000 (which is not exatly considered a home owned by someone in poverty, but I'll use it for argument's sake), at a tax rate of 3.8 cents per $100 of property value, the tax on the entire household would be $38 per year. Assuming a home value of $150,000, the tax on the entire household would be $57 per year; and assuming a home value of $200,000, the tax on the entire household would be $76 per year, which breaks down to $6.33 per household per month. Just for the sake of this discussion, let's say you're not considered impoverished if you live in a home valued at over $200,000, so I won't take the calculations any higher than that. Rather than say that the town shouldn't provide parks and ball fields because it's not fair to those who can't afford it, what if the town were to provide a tax exemption for those seniors who truly could not afford the $20 to $76 (based on statistics above) per year in property tax? I do recognize that despite all the $500,000+ homes in our town and all the new Yukons and Explorers that are guzzling gas at $2.50 per gallon, there are some families in our area who are impoverished ... and I think it would be wonderful, noble and right to help them. I just don't think building parks or ball fields has to mean that people in our town are consequently going to go hungry. And what about the parents whose families are impoverished, just like the senior citizens? Are you suggesting we charge them $100 per child for them to play ball? Remember, there are other expenses that go into playing ball, like shoes, uniforms, bats, etc. Now I know, we could just say "too bad" -- if you can't afford to participate, you just can't participate. But isn't that just as wrong as being insensitive to senior citizens on a fixed income? You want to tell kids they can't play ball if they can't afford to contribute to purchasing ball fields? I believe that everything is not just about me -- my last child will be out of the public school system this year, but I don't think I should have to stop paying taxes for education just because I won't personally be affected anymore. And I haven't had a child playing recreation sports in years, but I still want other kids to have the opportunity to play. There are some things that the community benefits from offering, even when you or I as an individual won't personally benefit. Does that mean I want my tax dollars frivolously spent? Heck no, it just means that I don't mind paying $10 a month for the benefit of living in a community that provides parks and ball fields for kids. I am sure you are very aware of our demographics - Summerfield, Oak Ridge and Stokesdale are all at the top of the chart when it comes to household incomes -- let's offer exemptions for the small percentage of people who will truly be burdened by the 3.8 cents property tax. And for the rest of us who can, let's stop haggling over $6 -$12 per month like a bunch of misers counting our pennies ... all the while living comfortably in our nice houses, eating out and driving our gas-guzzling vehicles. Long after we're gone and our bank accounts are closed, the parks and the ball fields will be here. I think what we leave behind for future generations speaks volumes about our character, our values, and our priorities. As for me, I'll gladly contribute to ball fields and parks for about $10 a month -- I've spent a whole lot more money than that on other things and gotten a whole lot less in return. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
S. Smith wrote: I think the Summerfield Town Council learned a big lesson about 3 years ago when they tried to buy that property on Rabbit Hollow Road for ball fields. In what I believe they felt was a service to the town, they realized the neighbors DID NOT want ballfields there and they backed off. Sandra, I think Michael Brandt has been fairly public about sites, in terms of where they are (and good for him!!). When, and how criterea are being applied needs to be out in the public, with consistency of application across sites. I look forward to seeing this as we work towards our decision(s). |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Lets do the math. With 800 plus kids playing ball on 4 ball fields. Thats roughly 80 teams. We have 4 fields. 1 Tball, 1 Coach pitch, 1 Bronco/Mustang, and 1 for girls Softball. If we had an even division between all (we don't by the way) 1 practice and 2 games a week is not possible. The younger age groups have to be off the field by 8pm. Games and practices are generally not scheduled on Friday but used for a rain date make up. 8 teams can practice on 4 fields in a night. 16 teams can get a game in on 4 fields in a night. Starting to see the dilemma? Saturday you can get 12 teams for 6 game in for the younger age groups on the 2 smaller fields and 14 teams for 7 games in on the 2 larger fields. Thats only 52 teams get to play on a Sat out of 80 teams and 64 teams during the week. Thats playing time with no practice. So now figure in a practice and we don't have the space or time. The sanctioning body that we operate under in PONY. We have to play at least 12 regular season games and have a ending tournament to qualify for sending a team(s) for ALL STAR play. This is very difficult but we seem to make it happen and have to cut out practice after the season starts (March 24th). So now we don't get to practice unless it is at somebody's backyard or at a private facility that costs more money. Practice is essential to develop skills and playing is not practice. I hate to compare Summerfield with other Towns, but here I go. I have a friend that lives in the Southeast part of the county. His son plays ball at Pleasant Garden (that's where I played also). They have a Tournament to open the season, 25 regular season games, and a ending of the season tournament. Last season his son played 36 games while the most played a Summerfield was 16. So who's kid is the better ball player? You would think my friend's son. What area and schools are playing more ball? You would think somewhere other than here. Pleasant Garden has grown since I left that area to move to Summerfield 12 years ago. They realized the need for more ballfields and have added more . Summerfield is falling behind when it comes to supporting the youth sports. Youth sports are important in many more ways to our youth than just physical fitness. It teaches children to work well with others and take direction. It also teaches them to be leaders. I have seen the most introverted child become a team leader from playing organized sports. When parents tell me how well their child has progressed socially not to mention physically it makes it all worth while. Last edited on Mar 17th, 2007 11:59 pm by Baseball Buddy |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Ball fields come in many sizes. What I feel Summerfield needs (my opinion) is large size fields with movable shrinking type fencing to accommodate all types of play. It would be nice for us OLD folks to relive the glory days and play some ball too. I know at least 80 coaches and 80 assistant coaches who would like to play in Summerfield also. By the way we have to go to Greensboro to play. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
A good location should be centrally located. Away from the main highways (220 and 150) and have good access. Shamu, very good question. Funding can be done numerous ways, but right now the Town of Summerfield has 1.5 million dollars budgeted for this. After that there are matching grants and even private grants . I imagine after that it will be self funded. Last edited on Mar 18th, 2007 12:08 am by Baseball Buddy |
|||||||||||
|
WHE Member 
|
EditorPS wrote: As for me, I'll gladly contribute to ball fields and parks for about $10 a month -- It's a deal, Patti! Please make out your check to the Town of Oak Ridge! Thanks! |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Only if things were that simple. Sounds great to me. |
|||||||||||
|
EditorPS Administrator
|
WHE wrote: EditorPS wrote:As for me, I'll gladly contribute to ball fields and parks for about $10 a month -- But I live in Summerfield, WHE ... and I already pay my $10 a month -- with no complaints. You guys in Oak Ridge are doing a great job, though, and you will have a beautiful park when it is completed - right across the street from your very classy town hall! All the while, I'm afraid we'll still be sitting here in the corner counting our pennies and talking about why we can't provide those same things for our residents. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
TRUE DAT as my son would say |
|||||||||||
|
WHE Member
|
EditorPS wrote: All the while, I'm afraid we'll still be sitting here in the corner counting our pennies and talking about why we can't provide those same things for our residents. Hey, there's much to be said about...what is it, a 3.8 cent tax rate? Besides, rumor has it that SF is sitting on a pile of cash just waiting to invest it in some hot real estate. Just hope there aren't any more computer "glitches" along the way.  One day, I would like to see some athletic competition between SF, OR & Stokesdale, and perhaps a Northwest Champion Cup! It would be a great rivalry and lots of fun. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Already happens each year in All Stars. |
|||||||||||
|
Skiddles Member 
|
WHE wrote:
Baseball Buddy wrote: Already happens each year in All Stars. I'd like to see it happen on our new baseball fields!...Skiddle-dee-dee |
|||||||||||
|
Skiddles Member
|
I have a question... with the Loflin and Summerfiled Elementary school discussions, what could this mean to the existing baseball fields in Summerfield? ... just curious if this has been discussed yet. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Vicki White-Lawrence wrote: I live in the neighborhood where the Stokesdale ball park is located. I've lived here for 20 years, and I'm told that the ball park has been here for at least 40 years. That is good information, and I think I know a little about the field you live near. Maybe someone else can provide more specifics on that field for us, but I don't think that the Stokesdale field is similar to what the Summerfield ballfield proponents are desiring. Mostly in terms of size but probably other factors as well. I think, on the other end of the spectrum from Stokesdale, drive by the Carolyn Allen fields on Horsepen Creek Road that were built and opened in the last year. These fields are visible from Guilford College (3-4 miles away) on nights when the lights are on. It is a complex of fields, of similar size in acreage to what Summerfield is looking for. |
|||||||||||
|
Skiddles Member
|
I live several miles away from Northwest High School and hear every home football game that they have. The band and cheers from the crowd amazingly travels along way. However it doesn't bother me, matter of fact I kind'a like it as it brings back those fun high school days. I do have to say, not everyone would find these noises a wonderful flashback of ol' time sake, so I agree it's very important that Summerfield is sensitive to this. Having said this ... I do hope that Summerfield will find ball field land soon because we are running out of options! |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
EditorPS wrote: Shamu wrote:Thanks, I do mean we and I can only hope that all of Summerfield is interested in being fair, above-board and willing to compromise. Maybe even that is too presumptive. I hope not!!Finding the best place for the ballfields will be a situation of discussion and compromise, but if Summerfield can't do this in a fair, above-board and understandable way, who can? This may actually be the true test of what Summerfiled is all about. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: A good location should be centrally located. Away from the main highways (220 and 150) and have good access.What is the reasoning behind "away from 220 and 150'. I would think proximity to these roads would be beneficial as long as good safe access is provided. And I think central can be defined in a lot of ways. What does central mean to you, and what is the value of it? |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
When looking at properties around the area ( Lord only knows how much time I have spent doing that) for ballfields, the properties I, along with several others viewed along 220 and 150 noticed that when we were turning right people would not slow down that were behind you to let you turn in. They would blow their horn and pass you on the other side of a double yellow on both of these roads. Both of these roads have heavy traffic and unless you have a turn in and turn out lane or a traffic light it could be hazardous. Safety should come first. Centrally located close to the Summerfield school. We will still use this facility as long as Guilford county will allow. Transporting equipment will be one issue from one facility to another also. Last edited on Mar 18th, 2007 10:06 pm by Baseball Buddy |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: Safety should come first. Amen |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Shamu wrote: That is good information, and I think I know a little about the field you live near. Maybe someone else can provide more specifics on that field for us Shamu, just to clear up perhaps one misconception, the Stokesdale Community Park actually has two ballfields. Another thing worth mentioning, is that there ARE other ballfields in Stokesdale and the Stokesdale area, which somehow or other, never seem to get mentioned. On Saturday, I drove to Kernersville, and the Bethel United Methodist Church (on Haw River Road) youth and their parents were having a 'Kite Day' complete with numerous activities for children of all ages and the church parking lot and recreation field lots were full. They have scheduled, organized and supervised recreational activities at this church on a regular basis and they do in fact, have a baseball field that they own and which was built entirely without any taxpayer or public money. I think the youth recreational activities are open to any child in the public, no matter whether or not a member of the church. There is also, I believe, an additional ballfield in the Happy Hill area which was constructed by either the church or neighborhood there for the children of my friends of color. I am also well aware of numerous ballfields which I have seen in several local counties and their more rural communities which were built by and on property owned by local nieghborhood churches and wonder why the churches in Summerfield and perhaps, even the larger Northwest area, don't take a more active role in providing recreational opportunities for the children of their churches? They do it in so many other communities and counties, that it begs the question why it isn't done more here? Last edited on Mar 19th, 2007 01:46 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: When looking at properties around the area ( Lord only knows how much time I have spent doing that) for ballfields, the properties I, along with several others viewed along 220 and 150 noticed that when we were turning right people would not slow down that were behind you to let you turn in. They would blow their horn and pass you on the other side of a double yellow on both of these roads. Both of these roads have heavy traffic and unless you have a turn in and turn out lane or a traffic light it could be hazardous. Safety should come first. I'm not sure about the turning issue. People are turning left and right all the time on these roads. Maybe it was because you were not sure where the turn-in was as you were lookkng for something unfamiliar. Also, 220 will be a four lane divided highway in a few years. So I get that centraly located is good for the people transporting stuff from one field to the other. But you might consider that where you are talking about locating is the most densely populated area in the entire town, so you are also inconveniencing the largest number of people possible with, traffic, light pollution, and noise pollution. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
An issue with 220 depending on where the property is will be turning across. The DOT only allows turn across every 1500 feet on a divided hyway so it will be important for ease and safety to be sure there will be a turn across so that people will not be doing a lot of uturns. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: An issue with 220 depending on where the property is will be turning across. The DOT only allows turn across every 1500 feet on a divided hyway so it will be important for ease and safety to be sure there will be a turn across so that people will not be doing a lot of uturns. How in the world did they ever develop Bur-Mill Park on Highway 220? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
The road along there will not be a divided hyway. I don't think the divided hyway will start until Strawberry road going North through Summerfield. They have light at Owls roost so it would have a cut through regardless. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Bur Mill is not on 220. It is on a road off 220 Owls Roost. It has very little traffic other than the Deputies and people who live in the neighborhood. I notice that park is in a neighborhood. Owls roost also has a traffic light. Last edited on Mar 19th, 2007 12:00 pm by Baseball Buddy |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
OK, thank you for staying in this conversation. It is obviously important to us, and a lot of others as well, so I'm surprised more aren't participating. So location of fields needs to be considered. Are there parts of Summerfield that are just out of consideration for anyone? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
For lighted ballfields there are better places then others so while there are no places absolutely off limits, that I know of, to consider, one of the considerations will be how heavely it is developed. The smaller park being offered at Armfields would not be lighted. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Over the past few years, We have looked at several locations for ball fields. We meaning myself, Tom Valent (who is a Realtor that pulled all properties in Summerfield large enough for ball fields from the tax records at the courthouse) , later added George Holub, Michael Brandt, and Councilman Bob Williams. Also my son for a child and players input. After looking at these properties we narrowed it down to 9. Keep in mind we only looked in Summerfield corporate limits at that time. At that point these 9 got narrowed to 3 buy the Parks and Rec committee. I attend the meetings as a rep for SRA and have no voting power or decision making power during the meetings. Then during a Town Council meeting it was brought up by DC that he knew of another property just outside of town.This property did not pan out for the seller or the Town. Several meetings took place over the past months. The committee decided that the best property site was the Friddle property. After this was decided, 2 more properties all of a sudden became available. Coincidental? I don't know but it seems to me this is another delay. I am not one to jump into things with doing my "DUE DILIGENCE" but "PARALYSIS THROUGH ANALYSIS" is what this is looking like. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
I am begining to feel that way too Base Ball Buddy. I hear there are 30 acres available in Pakistan that would be good for ball fields. Enough already. It is time to buy and start building or what ever it is you do to make ballfields. These will probably not be the last ballfields built in Summerfield. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
I agree that there is a point when no amount of further analysis will make the decision easier. And there's not some numbering system that will give the magic "right" answer either. Demcracy is not always the fastest form of government. When Summerfield residents voted to incorporate as a seperate town, I think one of the promises we held was that we would get a greater role in our government's decisions. What is the harm in looking at the selection process for the ballfields. My question to BB is of the nine sites you identified at one point, what criterea were used to eliminate them, or what attributes have made the 'Friddle' property rise to the top. I applaud your hard work (both BB and Jane) in this process, but this is our government business and the public has a right to know how we got to where we are, and the basis of our decisions. Yes, there will be other ballfields in the future, but right now we're talking about spending $1.5 million and possibly significantly deteriorating the value of property and quality of life of some people. Don't you think that's worth an open discussion? |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
Shamu wrote: I applaud your hard work (both BB and Jane) in this process, but this is our government business and the public has a right to know how we got to where we are, and the basis of our decisions. Yes, there will be other ballfields in the future, but right now we're talking about spending $1.5 million and possibly significantly deteriorating the value of property and quality of life of some people. Don't you think that's worth an open discussion? No offense, but, exactly where have you been for the several years this has been going on, Shamu? You can debate all you want, in the meantime our kids are staying up until 9 and 10 at night just to try and fit in a practice. You should have gotten more involved when this started YEARS ago. It's not rocket science, it's baseball. Summerfield isn't that big. There are only so many locations to choose from. Frankly, I am amazed they were able to find 9 possible sites, and I am sure it wasn't difficult, through deductive reasoning and common sense, to narrow that down in 'two shakes of a lambs tail'. Thank you BB! You make Summerfield a better place for our children to live. Otherwise they would be formin' gangs and slingin' dope. As for Jim's golf, I hear Armfield has 90 acres available. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
I am new to the forum, but not to the news of Summerfield wanting to build new ballfields. I support BB 100% for trying to achieve a better community for our youth. Get off the subject of golf courses here in Summerfield--move to Forest Oakes or Some place that has 18 holes. All we want are a couple of baseball diamonds so that our kids can have a place to play ball at suitable times that accomodate everyones schedule. Shamu--do you have a hidden agenda? Your views seem try to support both parties supporting and opposing -- how is quality of life threatened by a few lights and joyful sounds of kids enjoying their neighborhood? Parents loving to see their kids interact with others and socialize themselves in a healthy living environment. Town council please move forward on this! Our land here in Summerfield is diminishing quickly and the number of children are multiplying much more rapidly. I grew up in this community,played on the old ballfield myself--and I hate what is happening in the neighborhood as far as politics go. GRITS--Girl Raised in True Summerfield. |
|||||||||||
|
Easton Boy Member
|
Yes Grits i am new to the northwest forum also. I agree fully on what you are saying. I too grew up in summerfield and played ball there and i would hate for it to go down in a bad way. I love what bb is trying to do for summerfield and yes kids do need to play sports and at suitible times. One thing that i think would be really great to do with it is instead of just having ballfields have multiple things like a screen for a movie to play say on every satuday night. If people of summerfield want to go do something on a saturday night they could drive up to the ballfield and watch a movie and catch dinner there to from the consesion stand. I also think if we had two big fields and two of every field we could have multiple games going on. this would allow kids to get home at a suitible time to do all there homework. This would also allow more games to go on in one season. one who truly cares, Easton Boy |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Hey Easton Boy, Great name. Anybody that knows his equipment knows your name. TRUE BASEBALL. Thanks for the kind words Grits and Easton Boy. Summerfieldrd your correct in saying it is not rocket science. The good LORD only knows how many people have tried to make a simple thing difficult by over analyzing. In my business I have to go into other companies and analyze what they are doing and make changes for the better. I am not paid to over analyze, just make the correct call for better efficiency. I save them money and time. So , now you see why I find it hard when we have been working on this for a long time and now more delays. Hey Grits I'll bet you know my wife. She grew up here also along with 6 sisters and a brother. |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member 
|
Wow! I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of these new members! Welcome to the forum Easton Boy and GRITS!!!!!
Glad you explained that name, Baseball Buddy! I'm obviously one who is not familiar with that equipment. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
I know alot of people in Summerfield BB--but I do respect my identity and would like to keep it anonymous for now. But I will say nice try for trying to figure me out--so for now, let's not compare notes. I would hate to go back and inform your wife on some of your comments. |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member 
|
Grits I don't want to know who you are, just keep playing ball (posting for Bama)....... You know Grits and Bacon would be good at a ballpark....  OK I cannot tell a lie...I don't eat grits, but I have been known to eat a little bacon.... |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member 
|
haha nice mike. thats almost as good as the "keep us posted" pun. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
GRITS, I did not mean to try to find out your identity in conversation. It's just a breath of fresh air to see someone else with deep roots in Summerfield. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Ha! ha!---I'LL try to cook my opinions a little crispy--just to keep it tasteful. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Hi new folks. As far as my hidden agenda, there is none. My un-hidden agenda is for open, fair and transparent government. I want to make sure that there is justice for everyone involved in this ballfield issue. I started this Forum to promote a dialogue about ballfields, and there is still a lot to look at. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Shamu wrote: I want to make sure that there is justice for everyone involved in this ballfield issue. Shamu, if you want justice, you better pull out your Funk & Wagnalls and look up justice. Because given what you're looking for, if justice is what you're looking for, that's the only place you will find it. But you already know that. And so does the larger majority. |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Shamu, don't ya think that anywhere they build the ballfields SOMEBODY'S gonna have an issue with it? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
I wonder why it is that in Stokesdale where the Town Council is planning to build ballfields in the new park where land has been purchased, there is absolutely no opposition whatsoever to park and ballfield development. The case is the very same in Oak Ridge. Riddle me this: What is it that Stokesdale and Oak Ridge are doing so right that Summerfield is doing so wrong? Last edited on Mar 21st, 2007 11:33 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
it's because the town enjoys baseball--and the people there are not worried about who gets more bang for their buck when selling their land -- where as Summerfield only wants to sell to developers and bring in high, snooten society people people who want want to get a john deer golf cart and play par 3 all day..... |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Riddle me this. Why do kids come from Stokesdale, Oak Ridge, and Greensboro to play ball in Summerfield? What? |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote:
Of course, somebody probably will have an issue with it. There a couple of ways to deal with that. First and foremost is to show these SOMEBODYS that the process that selected their area was open, above-board and fair. Another is to work with affected people so they have a say in how the development goes. Let them become part of the team that makes recommendations and specifications. In some cases the best solution may be to compensate affected neighbors monetarily, perhaps even assiting them with moving if that is their preference. Of course, we may have the fortune of having all affected people like GRITS, who see it as an opportunity to hear joyful noises, in which case there isn't any issue. Truly a win-win!!! |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: Riddle me this. Why do kids come from Stokesdale, Oak Ridge, and Greensboro to play ball in Summerfield? What? Gosh, I think the answer is actually as simple as it is obvious. Summerfield taxpayers simply seem so willing and eager to spend almost $2,000.00 per child to build a new park and ballfields for any child who shows up wanting to play baseball, no matter where they reside. And with such a liberal attitude on spending taxpayer's money on the part of Summerfield town leaders, we need to make sure we round up as many more kids from Stokesdale, Oak Ridge and Greensboro as we can so you can spend even more taxpayer money and build parks and ballfields to your heart's content. You're taking the burden off of the rest of us who don't like paying taxes for services we don't need and can't afford. Thanks. The leaders and taxpayers of Stokesdale, Oak Ridge and Greensboro should all get together and send your Summerfield taxpayers some nice Thank-You notes. As I said earlier, it really is that simple an answer. And obvious as well. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
WRONG AGAIN! It's because we play baseball here and have a volunteer group that are second to none! We simply have the better program overall and it shows in the growth over the past years. The others have fallen behind where SRA has excelled. Do you honestly think when a child is playing baseball the parents think of taxes? No! It's about having fun. You see Jim, that what it's about. Kids having fun. Last edited on Mar 22nd, 2007 12:14 pm by Baseball Buddy |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: Do you honestly think when a child is playing baseball the parents think of taxes? No! Baseball Buddy, you are probably right about that statement. They are simply part of this newfangled buy now on credit and pay later with cash generation coming of age. However, I bet those senior citizens who drive by those lighted ballfields at night on the way to buy high priced prescription drugs or a few essentials at the grocery store are thinking about taxes which they think are too high. And unlike young and middle aged voters, senior citizens actually have the highest awareness of voting issues and a distinctly higher pattern of voting behavior when compared amongst all voting ages and groups. Senior citizens have historically voted against taxes and the leaders who promulgate them. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
To support what Baseball Buddy said- I do not play baseball and do not have any children that do (yet). But I know when i was in Middle school and High School, the Summerfield baseball league was always known as the best (in skill of players and in the quality of the program). This was just school water-fountain talk so it's not like there was an official survey that went around or anything. So, SF was doing something right. The kids wanted to play there, I'm sure the parents wanted to live there. Oh and the kids do pay to play and since the program would exist anyway, I am not sure i would think of it as a tax burden that non-SF kids came to play. Even if the program expanded due to these outside kids, and new ballfield were built to support the expansion, I think the program would need the fields anyway. And why would you not want people to come to SF and spend money? Even if they just visit and don't spend any money, they will recommend the area to their friends, and say how nice it is and then they will come here and buy/spend money. Or is it that you guys want the SF all to yourselves??!?!?!?!? |
|||||||||||
|
Starcatchr Member 
|
Jim Flynt wrote: And with such a liberal attitude on spending taxpayer's money on the part of Summerfield town leaders, we need to make sure we round up as many more kids from Stokesdale, Oak Ridge and Greensboro as we can so you can spend even more taxpayer money and build parks and ballfields to your heart's content. You're taking the burden off of the rest of us who don't like paying taxes for services we don't need and can't afford. Thanks. The leaders and taxpayers of Stokesdale, Oak Ridge and Greensboro should all get together and send your Summerfield taxpayers some nice Thank-You notes. WAAAAAAAAY back in the day when Summerfield began to be deveoped and people moved here from Greensboro, Raleigh, and other far away places, there was much conversation about the building of walls, fences, and newcomers generally moving in and closing the gate, shutting out the rest of the community. For the most part, that did'nt happen. Who would even consider a selfish act of shutting children from the fringes out of our parks and ballfields? Who in Summerfield has not taken advantage of the parks, museums, pools, gardens, libraries in Greensboro and Winston Salem that are supported by someone else's taxpayer money. I, for one, am proud that Summerfield is finally taking some responsibility for our citizens. Someone posted recently that he boasted to his friends about using Greensboro facilities for free. How embarrassing! Well, there are some of us, and I believe most, who wish to stand on our own in becomng a real town. I am happy to contribute what amounts to about five cheap dinners a year, dollarwise, to help in this endeavor. We do need some services and there are some we can't afford not to have. I'm off the soapbox now and would like to thank all posters for expressing their thoughts and ideas, and for allowing me to do the same. See you at the park! |
|||||||||||
|
Starcatchr Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
You're right, Jim. Most seniors are aware of and take part in what goes on around them. I work with a group of seniors and am constantly amazed at discussions of world events and community affairs - and with some of the dead-set ideas about certain issues. It is also suprising that these people look to and plan for the future. This is not a group of hundreds, so it is not a valid survey, Jim, but just from the buzz of conversation, it is apparent that they are tired of all the sniping, they are in support of the parks, and they all vote! Last edited on Mar 22nd, 2007 01:34 pm by Starcatchr |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Starcatchr. You are a real Star Catcher in this world.(Everything comes back to baseball) This same group of seniors loves to watch their grandchildren play baseball. |
|||||||||||
|
summerfieldrd Banned
|
If you'd ever heard gunshots in the distance, you would find peace in the roar of a crowd enjoying baseball. I do, and I love Summerfield. |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member 
|
"Someone posted recently that he boasted to his friends about using Greensboro facilities for free. How embarrassing! Well, there are some of us, and I believe most, who wish to stand on our own in becomng a real town" That "someone" was me ! Sorry to have embarrased you. However, perhaps the point was not made correctly. It was not so much that I relished in the opportunity to boast, as I was glad that I made the correct choice( or thought I had) to move out of the city of Greensboro some 20+ years ago into what I felt was the best area outside of Greensboro. At the time I moved I was not in " Summerfield", now I am., Thanks to my signature and many more like mine. I can remember the folks coming to my door as if it were yesterday...Sign on they said..Greensboro wants us.. they said, if you dont sign up- Greensboro will get you and you will have to start paying taxes. The fact of the matter is my friends and relatives, some of which live in Greensboro, can't stand the fact that they have to pay the taxes they pay for the services they get. I moved away to be "out in the country" so to speak, to be away from the McDonalds, the stop lights, the hussle and bussle... I will stand by my earlier position, I will "Boast" that this decision was based on the fact that when I needed to shop, eat, or walk in the park., I could Drive 10 mins. for it. If I had chosen to live 25 or 30 miles from civilization, in a town that had nothing to offer., maybe I would feel different. I realize that taxes would/could be higher if Greensboro had "gobbled" us up...but the fact is they didn't because we all signed on for what we thought would be NO TAXES, not " LESS TAXES.. Nothing wrong with wanting to be a "real town" on our own. There are many towns that are larger than Summerfield that have not yet seen the need to tax and spend. I my personal opinion our "real town" and the feelings associated with being a part of it has been lost.. and no park, town hall , water system, resturant or office building will bring it back. On the next town survey, they need to list what folks most would like to see in there town, then at the end ask the question " Would you be willing to pay for your choices above with an increase in your property tax".. I think we would fine that "most" would answer "no" |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
Can someone tell me how the "Park" got priority over the Ballfields in the first place. It seems to me that if we truely needed something for our town, the Fields should have received the money, time, effort that was spent on the "Park" ." Needs before wants" is what my mama always said. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
sorry happycamper--but if you thought for a minute that by moving to summerfield was going to help you in evading taxes--you thought wrong. I do believe the majority of the vote was to set aside x amount of dollars for the purchace of land and ballfields. Why try to kill it now? Your thoughts and worries over 5 cents of your money toward this vote is only hurting our children who will someday be sitting in your shoes gripping over the same issues that we are having today. Our kids already do not get physical education in school--academics are much more important in kindergarten than a healthy mind and body. Summerfield is getting ready to lose the only place available for our kids to be active (ballfields) to the school system. This is happening because you probably voted for the million dollar bond to build new schools---which Summerfield is not getting by the way. Instead, Guilford county wants to shut the doors to Laughlin, and overcrowd Summerfield--when a new school should have been built years ago. Instead the school system opted to renovate Summerfield Elementry (which in my opion was a joke).l My tax dollar may not go to the city to accomodate their facilities--but I do not get to use them for free. I have to pay admission to any community pool in the city limits. i HAVE to pay to park at the coliseum (which was supposed to be free parking when the bond was passed to renovate the coliseum). Again, another joke. So, my point Happycamer is--be careful of what you are wanting or what you suspect you are getting--because in the long run my friend, you are not and will not get it. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
The park actually was first. Several years ago--late 90's town council decided to clean up around the lake and make it park for the community. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Well, the park has been in the works for years, even back when a lot o' them people an' their young'uns that moved out to the country were still livin' somewheres else an' the ballfields weren't quite as big a need. But both projects are in the budget, both needs are bein' addressed, so I reckon the priority, in my opinion, should be to get on with both like the council voted to. |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
sorry happycamper--but if you thought for a minute that by moving to summerfield was going to help you in evading taxes--you thought wrong. I do believe the majority of the vote was to set aside x amount of dollars for the purchace of land and ballfields. Why try to kill it now? Your thoughts and worries over 5 cents of your money toward this vote is only hurting our children who will someday be sitting in your shoes gripping over the same issues that we are having today. Our kids already do not get physical education in school--academics are much more important in kindergarten than a healthy mind and body. Summerfield is getting ready to lose the only place available for our kids to be active (ballfields) to the school system. This is happening because you probably voted for the million dollar bond to build new schools---which Summerfield is not getting by the way. Instead, Guilford county wants to shut the doors to Laughlin, and overcrowd Summerfield--when a new school should have been built years ago. Instead the school system opted to renovate Summerfield Elementry (which in my opion was a joke).l My tax dollar may not go to the city to accomodate their facilities--but I do not get to use them for free. I have to pay admission to any community pool in the city limits. i HAVE to pay to park at the coliseum (which was supposed to be free parking when the bond was passed to renovate the coliseum). Again, another joke. Let me begin by saying that the purpose of my move to Summerfield was not with the intention of "evading taxes"., if you wish to accuse me of something..perhaps "reducing" my taxes would be a better choice. It was primarily based on the desire to move to a rural community that had intrigued me with it's beauty since my early childhood. The idea of no service no taxes was just icing on the cake. Take a look at most real estate ads, low/no taxes seem to be one of the biggest eye catchers. And by the way, for appx 10+ years no taxes (summerfield) were levied, so I have in essence got a little of what I suspected I was getting. Secondly, if you will look at prior posts, I am not against the Ballfields. I feel the ball fields are a "nessisity" if there ever was one. I would also like to see a local community center that has the capability of hosting all kinds of community "needs".Will this cost money(taxes)? Most Likely. I did not say I would not pay taxes, which would be the true definition of what you call the desire to "evade"taxes. I am even willing to concede the fact that now we have established a tax and spend or a spend and tax approach to our town. An approach that seemingly cannot now be reversed. Given that, and accepting of that on my part, my desire is that we do the things that are "needed" first .. And in my opinion that is all that we can do for our "youth" ., this includes a well thought out plan for Ballfields. And yes, I voted for new schools in Guilford county, My Daughter will benefit from this very soon when the new Northern schools open this winter. So, my point Happycamer is--be careful of what you are wanting or what you suspect you are getting--because in the long run my friend, you are not and will not get it. Oh ? Have you taken the time to ask me what I want or suspect I want? What I want is a little R&R when I get home from work each day. A little time with my wife and child. Maybe even the opportunity to get in my car and ride down the road a few miles and enjoy whats left of the rural Summerfield. I would like to see my friends boys play Baseball up in summerfield in the evenings during the spring time ( Which I do)., and to do it on top notch fields. I have many more items that are on my "Want" list as well., many of which I am sure are on your list as well. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
yes, we got a new HIGH school (and middle) which by they way may child attends--but Summerfield did not and will not get a new elementry school. It will continue to operate in the same building that it has for many years. Yes a new Northwest Elementry has been built--only to help move kids from Oak Ridge and Colfax. Only a handful will leave from Summerfield. Thank you for imforming me that you are in support of the ballfields. Also, thankyou for showing support not only spectating your own child's athletic events, but others as well. This strongly supports BB theory that the majority of the community supports baseball, and enjoys watching others enjoy themselves. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Baseball Buddy wrote:Riddle me this. Why do kids come from Stokesdale, Oak Ridge, and Greensboro to play ball in Summerfield? What? Okay, I gotta jump in here. All three towns are building ball fields. Oak Ridge's tax is more than twice what Summerfield's is (8.65 cents per hundred in Oak Ridge vs. 3.8 cents in Summerfield -- and yes, I know that Stokesdale's tax is zip). I'm not making a judgment on what any town pays. I'm just stating a fact. I'm making two points here: 1) the amount of tax charged obviously has nothing to do with whether people approve of an expenditure or not. If it did, Oak Ridge residents would be jumping up and down and screaming twice as loud as anybody in Summerfield. I think some people in Summerfield don't want to spend money on anything -- no matter what it is. I'm sure there are people like that in other towns as well, but obviously we haven't heard from them. 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. |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
Grits, Thanks for your reply. I may be mistaken, but the new Northern Elementary school, which will take not all but some of the Summerfield elementary schools students is scheduled to be open some time early next year. They have just started this school on hwy 150 just outside of summerfield, actually closer than Summerfield Elementary for a lot of folks. I may be mistaken, but I think this is different than the Northwest Elementary...? Still .too little too late for a lot of folks. Sorry to get off the original topic. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: WRONG AGAIN! It's because we play baseball here and have a volunteer group that are second to none! We simply have the better program overall and it shows in the growth over the past years. The others have fallen behind where SRA has excelled. 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. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
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: 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
|
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: 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 |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member 
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
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..... |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
FatPappy wrote: Guilford Record article 'bout the need for ballfields...Ready, shoot, aim!!! |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
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
|
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
|
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. 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 |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Me neither!!! |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Sure is quiet out there. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
The ballfields must be deadhorse! |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
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? 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. Jim, you've made some good points, and unfortunately I don't have the expertise to be able to answer them. I don't know enough about the type of lights used, how much they cost, the costs to install and maintain them, etc. vs. the cost to buy land and build fields to even be able to respond. Jim Flynt wrote: 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. Leasing land might also be a good idea, but I can't really respond to that one either. By my way of thinking, if I had 20+ acres, I likely wouldn't want to lease it for 99 years for ball fields. I'd either do something else with it -- build on it, subdivide it, use it for some other money-making venture such as farming on it, selling the timber on it, etc., develop it either residentially or commercially, sell it, or I'd just leave it undeveloped because that's the way I'd like to enjoy it like that. I don't know what kind of price the market would bear for this type of endeavor, and 99 years is a LONG time. Jim Flynt wrote: 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? Finally, on the number of children and future needs, I think it's like that movie "Field of Dreams" -- if you build it, they will come. Besides the teams already established, teenage and adult leagues and church leagues could play there. Perhaps other sports not currently available in the town for people with other interests or that could be played in different seasons could be made available. Soccer, football and lacrosse first come to mind, but then maybe "lesser known" sports in their area -- maybe rugby, field hockey, etc. You could also hold tournaments there and recoup some of the money. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Summerfield is having difficulty finding land to buy much less lease. Jim are you holding out on the town? Do you want to build a field of dreams--and charge admission? Recoup monies by way of tournaments is an excellent idea, and I hope baseball buddy has full intentions to do so. I can not answer the futuristic statistical question regarding number of kids, all I know is we need to concentrate on now! I am concerned that my child will soon age out and no longer be able to particpate. He will then have to rely on the high school which he may or may not cut. Our SRA is looking out for all ages. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
GRITS wrote: Summerfield is having difficulty finding land to buy much less lease. Jim are you holding out on the town? Do you want to build a field of dreams--and charge admission? My earlier point was simple: How is it that developers can come and are coming to Summerfield and buying land so easily and yet the Town can't seem to find land to purchase? My second point was that some of these developers are buying land at much more affordable prices than what the Town anticipates paying, which also begs the question why. As far as long term land leases go, they are used everyday (Brassfield Shopping Center is just one instance where buildings were built on land leased under a 99 year lease). 99 years is a long time, but that is the maximum amount of time a lease can be legally made. There are financial and tax advantages which can serve as excellent tools for their use. Land leases are not perfect for every situation, but they are an excellent tool to at least consider with great benefits to all parties when they do work. BTW, Oak Ridge and Stokesdale have both purchased park land and both are well on their way toward seeing their ballfields come to fruition. Summerfield has almost $10 million dollars of taxpayer money in the bank (with little or nothing to show for it) and can't get their horse out of the gate. Why? Future statistical projections should be given important consideration, or else whatever you do build could easily be obsolete in capacity even before it is constructed. You wouldn't build a 3 bedroom home if you were planning on having 12 kids would you? Last edited on Mar 29th, 2007 03:42 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Jim Flynt Wrote BTW, Oak Ridge and Stokesdale have both purchased park land and both are well on their way toward seeing their ballfields come to fruition. Summerfield has almost $10 million dollars of taxpayer money in the bank (with little or nothing to show for it) and can't get their horse out of the gate. Why? Pleeeese, this does not deserve and answer. Take off the blinders. Oakridge and Stokesdale don't have the CC's to deal with. Come to any council meetings lately? Read a paper? Look at past meeting min.? Always a road block! Like I said before, this group knows how to play the game and play it well. You of all people know this all too well. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
^ That was my opinion as well. Thanks for stating the obvious Baseball Buddy. -And i dont even live in SF. |
|||||||||||
|
Skiddles Member
|
No kidding Jim, If you have followed from the beginning what the CC have said and done to our town throughout the past few years, then I believe you would understand. Obviously with all of the rambling commits you have made, you really don't understand what is going on here. The CC spin situations to purposely stall, throw up smoke screens and to kill everything at every turn. They have even criticized good people for doing good things only to benefit their cause at that moment. They send letters with untruths and imply wrong doings when no wrong has been done. It is difficult to move forward if you are on damage control all the time. I don't believe the other towns have this to contend with, not to this degree. So, if you haven't been to the meetings to see what has been really happening in our town....then don't start comparing apples to oranges, because you can't! Last edited on Mar 29th, 2007 04:49 pm by Skiddles |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
What seems so obvious to me is that Summerfield has 5 town council members and only two of them were CC's. And as so many of you have pointed out so many times, a vote of 3 always beats a hand of 2. My question simply wondered why the other 3 town council members haven't acted? They certainly have the votes in hand to do it. And with $10 million dollars in the bank, money is not an excuse. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Edited by poster. Last edited on Mar 29th, 2007 04:34 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
Jim, I know you are thought provoking and trying to get people to see all sides of things but it just seems that many of your conversations go in circles. I know I don't have the time to keep up with all the big words, lingo, etc much less the effort to try to decipher what the heck you are trying to say. I know I am lazy in some regards especially in the SF related things but many times you are talking way over my head. I would have to have 3 dictionaries open at once, 3-4 textbooks, and 2-3 paid professional consultants just to read some of your posts. I know you are probably more educated than most of us (No I did not specify smarter necessarily since that is subjective) and that is why you are like this but in my case, I ahve found that in the end, I am not going to understand what you are saying nor am I going to devote a whole week to put together a response worthy of your question. I mean no offense in this post, I am just trying to help you, help us. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Hey BB, can you get the stats on the number of kids in the future? Guys get back on the subject! |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
bama80 wrote: I mean no offense in this post, I am just trying to help you, help us. Bama, Thank-you (and I do mean that sincerely). Let me think about what you have said and see if I can't do better in future posts. I took no offense at your constructive suggestions and always appreciate honest insightful feedback which is meaningful. In person, I am not nearly as ornery nor as crusty as I sometimes come across in my scribblings. I really do think that synthesized decisions from panels of diversified viewpoints create more efficient synergistic outcomes. Thinking outside the box allows us to see things we otherwise never would have dreamed of and sometimes lead to better ways of doing things. Thanks again Bama. Last edited on Mar 29th, 2007 04:41 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Skiddles Member
|
I guess Jim, I got a bit frustrated. I do like what bama said...help you, help us. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Skiddles wrote: I guess Jim, I got a bit frustrated. I do like what bama said...help you, help us. Skiddles. Thanks. Please note that I have sent you a Private Message and will make every effort to do what Bama has suggested. Thanks again and I will be more than happy to privately communicate with you to see if better more receptive communication can't flow from my scribblings. As a note to others, I am always appreciative of insightful meaningful constructive criticism and Lord knows I need it more than anyone. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Jim, I understand your comments, and some of your comments on this subject have been really good. Maybe you should try bigger fonts. Seriously, we're all busy people and sound bites are what works these days. At some point the discussions will get to a technical level that won't work on this format. Any suggestions? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Shamu wrote: Seriously, we're all busy people and sound bites are what works these days. At some point the discussions will get to a technical level that won't work on this format. Any suggestions? Shamu, Thanks for your comments and suggestion. I understand how we all relate more easily to sound bites in modern society and well know that it is difficult to take some technical concepts and easily put them into a few words and still have them retain meaning. Let's face it, we are all as Alvin Toffler once suggested we would be, bombarded daily with more news and information that we can ever examine or absorb. So staying on message and getting through the maze of competing information is a constant challenge for all of us who aspire to share information. I have long been interested in park development and open space preservation in the Northwest, and my present interest is in trying to identify and develop 'pocket parks' or park areas in Stokesdale (such as the downtown arboretum). I have found two additional areas which are being explored and envisioned for such future uses and many of the techinques I have mentioned previously here in this thread are being explored for use in preserving these areas. I suppose my only suggestion might be that I am more than willing to meet with any one or any small group to share ideas and explore some creative concepts that might work for others and for other similar projects. And I am also willing to discuss by either PM, email or telephone any clarification or explanation of any of the ideas which I have mentioned or discussed. I hope this answers your question and is helpful as well. Edited for font size. Last edited on Mar 30th, 2007 01:14 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
OK, so now the town is looking at three sites, one on Hudson-James Road, one off Hwy 220 at Winfree Rd. and one off Summerfield Road. Anyone want to start the conversation going? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
There are to be "open Houses" on the 3 properties later in the month which will allow people to walk the properties, see what the proposed fields will look like and where the lights will be. This is to be on the 21 and the 28th of April. I personally am still pulling for the Friddle property. It is flat, next to commercial development and more commercial property, and centrally located, easy to access. |
|||||||||||
|
dmauser Member
|
Does anyone know if the hwy150 connection actually ever goes through, how would it affect the location on the current Friddle property. Hasn't the proposal been that 150 would connect at the intersection of Old Summerfield Rd and the road that CVS is on... can't think of what the name is, but it then turns into 150 at the light. |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member
|
dmauser wrote: Does anyone know if the hwy150 connection actually ever goes through, how would it affect the location on the current Friddle property. Hasn't the proposal been that 150 would connect at the intersection of Old Summerfield Rd and the road that CVS is on... can't think of what the name is, but it then turns into 150 at the light. Its Auburn Road......I think the DOT is still looking at how to connect 150.....Its low on the list....... |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
There has been a safety meeting on the intersection of Auburn Rd and 220. This intersection in the current form will not handle the traffic or be safe according to EMS. |
|||||||||||
|
WB Member
|
dmauser wrote: Does anyone know if the hwy150 connection actually ever goes through, how would it affect the location on the current Friddle property. Hasn't the proposal been that 150 would connect at the intersection of Old Summerfield Rd and the road that CVS is on... can't think of what the name is, but it then turns into 150 at the light. When we were relocated here just over 10 years ago, I made a point of finding out about proposed new roads. We purposely did not buy a lot that was available since the new interstate was supposed to go right in back of it. It's been over 10 years now and that new road is nowhere in sight. I suspect the same thing about the 150 connector affecting the Friddle property. It will probably be decades before anything happens. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
This may be a dumb question WB, but for future reference, how do you go about checking on that sort of thing? I mean I am guessing you contact some state/county/city office and get with some department there- planning? Thanks for your help. I've always wondered about this. OFF TOPIC I know but indulge me for about 2 posts. Thanks. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Okay, bama, I'm risking being "OT'd" with you... I think you can get that info from the Town Hall where you live. |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member
|
Bama you can get it from the DOT or Town Hall has a copy..... |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
OK last post from me (on this topic). So, the Town Hall would know evrything that is going on in that area? What about if you are outta town limits or the project is -for example- an interstate. Would you need to check with multiple agencies? I'm just wondering if someone was selling you something, if they could still dupe you somehow if you jsut forgot to check with the national nuclear commission or something and found out they were going to turn your new house and yard into a testing site in 7 years or something. Sorry for the OT. I would ahve taken this to PM already but i am sure other people could use the knowledge. edited because there is no such thing as a "twon hall" Last edited on Apr 4th, 2007 02:05 pm by bama80 |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
I still think you could go to the nearest town hall and they could at least direct you. Or maybe you could go to the county seat, although I'm not sure what records you'd ask for.... Maybe you'd go to the Planning Dept? |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
bama80 wrote:
ok... that was funny bama... Makes it easy for me to forgive you for getting off the subject of BALLFIELDS!! |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
macca wrote: I still think you could go to the nearest town hall and they could at least direct you. Or maybe you could go to the county seat, although I'm not sure what records you'd ask for.... Maybe you'd go to the Planning Dept? As long as the roads where you live are under the jurisdiction of the DOT (at least for now, the local towns are not in charge of their roads), you can get this info from the DOT. Now back to ballfields..... Does anybody know anything about the other two properties being considered? I haven't visited them. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Ok here is what I know. there are tentative plans for open house at hopefully 3 properties on April 21, and 28 for the citizens to tour the properties and see what they think. These tours will hopefully get people excited about the ball fields. There are will be drawings of placement of fields for each piece. There will be ads run in our favorite local newspaper when things are definite but this is what we discussed last night at the Parks meeting. The property will be marked so you can see what the acreage looks like and there will be volunteers at each site to hopefully answer questions. There will be a comment box to allow people to make suggestions. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
S. Smith wrote: macca wrote:Now back to ballfields..... Does anybody know anything about the other two properties being considered? I haven't visited them. From what I have heard regarding the property located on hwy 220N beside Gas Town, there is wetlands to considered on the property, and heavily growth of trees. More money would be spent preparing the land to be able to build ballfields. Also, I am personally not in favor of this particular piece of land due to location. It appears to be in a good location but I am more concerned with the traffic that would be generated, considering the school, nursery and gas station is all located here. Congestion on 220 is bad enough especially in this area during all times of the day. After reading the NWO today, we can not count on a 4 lane hwy coming through until 2010 or 2012 to relieve this problem (but it may make it worse). Since the Friddle property is 1) more centrally located, 2) in the HEART of Summerfield, 3) is located near the new Summerfield Park and 4) is really out of the way of residential areas, I considered this to be the best place for the ballfields. I am also hearing rumors not to be concerned or fret over the redirection of hwy 150 that may interfere with this property. This is on the bottom of the DOT's list and probably will never happen. But, SRA and the town of Summerfield better protect themselves over this. Someday, maybe not in my life time, this may eventually happen. I have lived in Summerfield all my life, and personally have seen ALOT of change. Twenty years ago, my grandfather said the same regarding Painter Boulevard---go figure! The only thing I know of the third piece of potential property is that it is located on the outskirts (or is in the outskirts) of Summerfield. I believe the name of the road is Hudson James but I am not for certain. This area is primarly in the Stokesdale school district. Being the location I feel this is going a little too far away from Summerfield. I my opinion, Summerfield is already giving the fine neighborhoods, nice walking trails (hense Armfield) that is supposedly intended for all citizens but would primarily be used by Armfield and Henson Farm residents, because if it is anything like the Vineyards--No trespassing signs will be displayed. If I am correct, the Town of Summerfield paid for trails and bridges in the Vineyards for Summerfield citizens to use, but are unable to because the Vineyards HOA posted no trespassing signs and only residents of the Vineyards are only permitted to use. Summerfield would only be giving Stokesdale another ballpark. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Grits-I think I am right on this. Summerfield required the walking trails in the developments but they are not public and the developments paid for them. A girl scout built the bridge off of Strawberry road for her eagle scout badge if that is what girls get and the trail connects to the Lake Brandt trail. But the Town did not build or spend any money on those trails I don't think. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
you know how rumors start---especially with little towns like summerfield. I heard it from somebody so I can't say that it's correct. But-thanks for the correction Jane. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
GRITS wrote: S. Smith wrote:macca wrote:Now back to ballfields..... Does anybody know anything about the other two properties being considered? I haven't visited them. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Shamu wrote: GRITS wrote:S. Smith wrote:macca wrote:Now back to ballfields..... Does anybody know anything about the other two properties being considered? I haven't visited them. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
Hmm, Sorry. Please don't let my facts get in the way of your opinions. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Ok here is what I know. there are tentative plans for open house at hopefully 3 properties on April 21, and 28 for the citizens to tour the properties and see what they think. These tours will hopefully get people excited about the ball fields. There are will be drawings of placement of fields for each piece. There will be ads run in our favorite local newspaper when things are definite but this is what we discussed last night at the Parks meeting. The property will be marked so you can see what the acreage looks like and there will be volunteers at each site to hopefully answer questions. Shamu, please mark your calender and plan to attend. I am sure when it comes to building ballfields, any potential land will be problematic. Let me just say this, I do not oppose any of these 3 sites--I WANT THE BALLFIELDS TO BE BUILT. As you said-I am entitled to my opionion as well as you. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: edited d/t duplication Last edited on Apr 10th, 2007 09:14 am by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
GRITS wrote: Shamu, please mark your calender and plan to attend. I am sure when it comes to building ballfields, any potential land will be problematic. Let me just say this, I do not oppose any of these 3 sites--I WANT THE BALLFIELDS TO BE BUILT. As you said-I am entitled to my opionion as well as you. Thanks for being positive. You are definitely entitled to your opinion. What I would like to see are some comparisons of the three areas. So that if wetlands was something we wanted to talk about, then we could address wetlands for each of the areas, not just say the 220 area may have wetlands. I'll say that the 'Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to get involved' (a joke about the complexity of the area ownership) area seems to have some life of its own. I think that just because it is near the old Food Lion, and some commercial property, people think it isn't a nice area, and there aren't a lot of residents, but the trees, streams and landscape are really nice there and there appear to be more residents within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius than any of the other areas - based on some air photos and maps. I will try to verify this by walking the areas. So my request is that we try to back up our opinions, or there isn't much point in this website. |
|||||||||||
|
Gestalt Member 
|
Shamu wrote: I'll say that the 'Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to get involved' (a joke about the complexity of the area ownership) area seems to have some life of its own. I think that just because it is near the old Food Lion, and some commercial property, people think it isn't a nice area, and there aren't a lot of residents, but the trees, streams and landscape are really nice there and there appear to be more residents within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius than any of the other areas - based on some air photos and maps. I will try to verify this by walking the areas. I stumbled onto the Friddle property this week thanks to taking a wrong turn........oh well. Will be interested in hearing your comments Shamu |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
OK, one more time. Shamu, this is not my opinion, this is the hard work of many hours put into researching the properties (facts), walking the properties (facts), bringing information to board and council (fact), process of elimination (fact), decision to move forward on the Friddle/Holland property was made by the PARKS committee as it was the best site for this that was available after all were considered,once again (fact). Now that all this has been done you criticize the chosen piece as if you have a higher knowledge. Please enlighten all of us who have spent many hours doing this as you Monday morning quarterback and tell us we are wrong or have not done the homework. Yes this is a touchy subject with me, this process started 10 years ago for me and longer than that with the first elected council. The last year has been tough with the CC's spreading lies and hate propaganda about the SRA volunteers and ballfields we have at this time. They are outdated and inadequate. NOT DILAPIDATED! We need 4 additional ball fields to accommodate the children we are now serving. But, we will soon loose the fields owned by Guilford County Schools if they need to put more trailers there to accommodate more children due to Laughlin School closing. So in fact we need at least 10 to 12 ball fields for the best service at this time. Who knows what the future brings but growth will happen. In 6 years I have witnessed the children almost triple in numbers. Now you have criticized me for not knowing where I was going and not knowing how to drive. I have personally walked and driven all of Summerfield and know where I am going. I know how to use a turn signal and they are working fine. I also know how to drive properly as it is my profession. I own and operate an expedited transportation company. If I don't know an area I have GPS in all my vehicles that tell me where I am or where to go. So let's just say I have spent some time behind the wheel over the last 25 years. Now that I have that behind us, All the properties have some type of creek or water on them. The Friddle/Holland piece has a creek at toward the front close to Summerfield Rd. This is not part of the proposed area that Mr. Friddle is offering. He is keeping the property with the road frontage. He had that rezoned to build a restaurant. The piece on 220 next to Gas town has a creek on the North side running East/West. Though the first thing seen is the cleared off section over half the property appears to be wooded. The Hudson James property has a pond on it. This could be useful for a picnic area. Just a few facts not to get in the way of opinion. |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member
|
All Please ensure as this discussion continues that the comments focus on the ballfields and the related decision making processes. Remember the "flame ideas, not people" thing........let's not personalize it. Thanks |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member
|
We need a public hearing at the May council meeting.....Its time to throw out the 1st pitch.......The Council needs to say........ "PLAY BALL" |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
StewartM wrote: We need a public hearing at the May council meeting.....Its time to throw out the 1st pitch.......The Council needs to say........ I 2nd the motion---and it's a FACT not an opinion! I can't wait until the lights are lit up on Summerfield Road, glimmering against the seams of the baseball. I look forward to hearing the cheers from jolly children and teeth grinning parents, and the disgruntled arguments from the stands against the umps misinterpreted call. I can put up with this type of pollution. Well, said. MStewart! Last edited on Apr 17th, 2007 05:00 pm by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Steve Adkins wrote: All Sorry, You know how I get when I get upset. I turn GREEN! |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Come one, Come all!!! When: Saturday April 21 and 28 Time: 10 AM - 3 PM Where: Projected ball field properties in Summerfield. Hudson James Rd/Thacker property, Summerfield Rd./Friddle Property and 220N next to Gas Town. Wear your walking shoes and come look at the property. Suggestion boxes will be available to give your opinion to the Town Council. There will be infromation, maps showing possibilities for the placement of fields. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Come one, Come all!!! Is the Friddle property (holland and whoever else's) property going to open for visits? --Ballfields need lights. I can not even believe that this is even being considered. The kids are playing ball as I type this and it is pitch dark outside. Most of the time games are scheduled after school, starting a 6:15pm. All games can not be played on the weekend. Be for real. I plan to visit all sites this weekend and make my comments, but is the Friddle property going to be open or is someone blocking this? |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Grits, Here are the addresses for showcase of sites : Site A 8571 Hudson-James Road Site B 5200 US 220 North Site C Near 7044 Summerfield Road (Friddle Property) |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Thanks CJ, my real question is has permission been received for the property on Summerfield road to be publicly viewed ? Last I heard, nothing has been said. That's why I am questioning this. |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you were asking Grits. Permission from whom? The person who has 1st right of refusal? I don't know the answer. Now I'm curious though.
|
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
yes, that's correct. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
The Friddle property is being offered for sale to the Town of Summerfield. If the Town decides on that piece of property then an offer will be made and the person with first right of refusal has to be prepared to buy the property for what the Town has offered other wise the Town will own the property. At least that is theway I understand it. So come on and look Grits . |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
oh i plan to be there=thanks jane |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
The Town of Summerfield's new website is up and it has maps and directions to the properties. And it's purty. http://www.townofsummerfield.com/cms/ |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Did anybody visit any of the properties today that are being considered? I wasn't able to go, but am interested in hearing what some of you thought after actually getting out on the property and seeing the proposed field layouts. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
IS. Smith wrote: Did anybody visit any of the properties today that are being considered? I wasn't able to go, but am interested in hearing what some of you thought after actually getting out on the property and seeing the proposed field layouts. I visited all three sites, and it is all about location and safety for me. I did like site B (hwy 220) for the size and the potential growth to do more in the future. I don't like where it is located----too many accidents on 220, and safety is a first when it comes to my kids. I did not like Hudson James road at all, basically because of the location (too far away in consideration to the other properties). The land is too hilly and a stream of some sort is in the center of the field. I like site C the best (Friddle) because of the location--less chance of accidents.--more centrally located and in the core of Summerfield near the park. I have stated that before and I still am are in favor of this property. Last edited on Apr 21st, 2007 07:34 pm by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
We had about 40 people I think at Hudson James site. Mostly neighbors to the site.A lot of the neighbors agreed that if something was going to be done on that site then they preferred ball fields to houses but mostly they preferred it be left rural. We got a lot of filled out questionnaires in our suggestion box. Hopefully more people will come out next Saturday. I have walked them all now and I think Friddles for location and flatness is first choice, 220 because I am concerned about 220 but love the piece of land. Few immediate neighbors, some good flat land although it will require some work and Hudson James least. It is a lovely piece of land but very hilly and will require a lot of earth moving. Plus it is too far from the middle of town. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
This is a good opportunity fer people to get a good idee o' what the differ'nt pieces o' land look like an' give the council feedback. Mebbe we'll be ready to narrow it down an' get it goin' real soon. I b'lieve it was Ms. Strickland who was ready to go ahead an' vote on the auto salvage yard property the night it came up a few months ago. I'm glad that property didn't work out, but if the council was that close to votin' then, they ought to really be ready this time. I hope any curve balls we might see will occur on the field after the fields are built an' not durin' the land buyin' process. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
The Friddle property is the best choice. Everyone I spoke to feels the same. Only 1 person that came out to the site I was stationed at favored the 220 property. I feel that person had other motives than choosing the best site just from limited conversation. Safety should come first in this decision. There are more car crashes at this location (according to EMS) than anywhere else in our area. Now, add more traffic get the picture. I noted this in an earlier post of how when visiting this site I got passed from behind on the left by someone on a double yellow line. Not just by one car but two! For this property to work it would need it's own traffic light. Also Summerfield Rd meets 220 within a few 100 feet of this location. That would need a light also for the extra traffic coming to the area for safety. I am in favor of safety first. The 220 property is last on my list in safety. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: There are more car crashes at this location (according to EMS) than anywhere else in our area. I must have driven by this site certainly hundreds if not thousands of times, and for the life of me, I have never seen an accident there nor have I ever heard of a serious accident there. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened or couldn't happen, but from simple observation, it would not seem nearly as dangerous as other locations around the Northwest area. If in fact, this location is so dangerous, it would seem that the Town of Summerfield should in conjunction with the NC Department of Transportation reduce the speed limit down to a safe acceptable limit, request or provide warning or stop lights, and request additional monitoring of this stretch of highway by both the NC Highway Patrol and Guilford County Sheriff's Department. And if things truly are as dangerous as you suggest, these actions should be taken regardless of whether or not a ballfield is ever located on this property. I generallly monitor a radio scanner for the local fire departments and EMS and while there are several locations which do seem to have an increased frequency of severe motor vehicle accidents, this just simply isn't one of them. You wouldn't by any chance be stretching the truth or exaggerating the safety threat for other purposes would you? Last edited on Apr 22nd, 2007 01:55 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Jim, accidents may not particularly occur right in front of Gas Town but I will comment that only living 1/2 mile within this area I can honestly account for the amount of calls the fire/sheriff department has to take this route just to accomodate for the amount of calls that are placed. I agree DOT should make changes such as stop lights and reducing the speed limit but having lived here for 40+ years I can attest to the number of times I have witnessed drivers passing on the double yellow just to get around the blue hair Sunday driver or a tractor using 220. I can honestly say I am to blame also for doing such a crime when I was younger and very inconsiderate of other drivers on the road. Thirty five years ago, traffic was not so horrendous on this particular stretch. The traffic is far to heavy right now, very inconsiderate drivers (young and old), and I for one are not in favor of increasing more for a ball field--safety does come first. I also asked if entrance to the field could be accessed from another road, but it seems as though you would still have to use 220 to get to Winfree Road. Even if that happened the owner on Winfree Road would need to sell his property or grant access. I too have listened or monitored emergency calls via scanner, have a former sheriff and EMS in the immediate family. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Jim I quote a Guilford County EMS dispatcher. "This area (Gas Town/220/Summerfield Rd Intersection) has more calls than any other in the Summerfield area." This was quoted by Patrick Lee to me. Also you must not have seen the dump truck hit a Camaro there a couple of weeks ago. I have no reason to lie or streach the truth or tell half the story. Last edited on Apr 22nd, 2007 02:39 pm by Baseball Buddy |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Baseball Buddy wrote:There are more car crashes at this location (according to EMS) than anywhere else in our area. This was the larger point I was trying to make. Shouldn't steps be taken to make this area more safe? Where are the drumbeats for community safety from citizens? |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: And if things truly are as dangerous as you suggest, these actions should be taken regardless of whether or not a ballfield is ever located on this property. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote:The Friddle property is the best choice. Everyone I spoke to feels the same. Certainly in the context of ballfield location, you make a good point, BB. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
I do believe this issue has been addressed by the safety committee, no changes will occur until the potential for the widening of 220 takes place. A map from the DOT was available at Site B (gas town) and it reflected Laughlin Road to be made into 90 degree angle (the nursery will be removed) and then a light will be put right there. This is several years down the road, what really needs to be considered is the I-74 that is going to come through. I just think that it very important for emergency vehicles to get through when need be without the headache of traffic congestion. By putting a community park here only henders such vehicles, and you and I both know that not all drivers respect emergency vehicles eventhough it is the law. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
And just whatwould you suggest Jim? The widening of 220 has been put off to 2012 due to no money to widen. Probably we have heard about the widening for at least 12 years and it keeps being moved up. That is the single most effective way that safety will be improved on 220. The highway is so over used that slowing down to look across the street can back traffic up for miles. With this widening will come the improvement of the old Summerfield road entrance onto 220 which is an issue right there in front of Gas Town. I doubt very seriously that DOT would put a light in there as the traffic is not heavy enough off the Old Summerfield Rd. The issue is to cross over 220 is so dangerous and people drive very agressively. The Town has attended all the meetings with DOT and anybody else involved but the fact is there is no money. People don't seem very interested in paying more taxes to widen roads. Look at the grief Summerfield gets with a 3.9% tax. Now I don't necessarily agree with Baseball Buddy about the property and its appropriatness for ball fields. Friddles is I still think the best choice but I think this piece is a close second with the road access being the issue. I know at some point DOT will widen the road and incidently but in solid medians which means that everyone may very likely have to turn right and make a uturn to get back to Summerfield. Ulitmately when the interchange for 73/74 (not sure which) is put in 220 is slated to become a local road. The heavy traffic trying to get to the airport and Greensboro are anticipated to go off on the loop around. Unfortunately I think that will not happen in my life time. |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
I've seen all three sites now and I visited them with an open mind because I don't care where we build the ballfields if we can just get them built! The Hudson James Property
And for the record, I do NOT pass thru the Gas Town area daily and about a month ago, I sat in a traffic jam, because of a very bad accident in that area on 220. They had to divert all traffic up Summerfield Rd. Accidents do happen there whether you're seein' them or not. And one accident is enough for me. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
CJ thanks for the info. The traffic jam you spoke of happened from a 2 car crash at the area. I was visiting the 220 site along with Tom Valent and my son when this happened. My son said "Guess that sums up how safe this site is!" 12 years old and smarter than most. You see Jim, We spend a lot of our own free time trying to make this a better place. Safety first. Save money second. But it looks from the estimated costs we can do both. Plus have more ball fields. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: We got a lot of filled out questionnaires in our suggestion box. What kind of questionnaires? |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Sandra- Opinions on which ballfiedl people preferred or why they didn't think a specific site was good. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
We should be looking at ways to make the 220 site work, as the only drawback appears to be access from 220. There are several things to look at including access from Winfree Road, turn lanes from the north and south and possibly a traffic light. I am not sure the NCDOT is as inaccessible as some say. For example, they did a study and held meetings for the 150 re-alignment based on a request from Summerfield. People turn on and off of 220 every day, seven days a week. I am not making light of things people have witnessed on the road, but we can’t base our decisions on anecdotes. Summerfield Road is not exactly perfect either, given curves, speeders, and the possibility that the 150 re-alignment will come right through the site. At least at the 220 site there is a good line of site in either direction. By the way, I don’t think the rough numbers thrown out on the cost sheets that were given out at the sites were intended to become an argument point for the decision. Grading numbers are obviously a wild guess. I would suggest that we contact. Michael Brandt before anyone starts to hang their hats on these numbers. Also, Mr. Marshall, a very nice man and completely supportive of the ballfields on his property, mentioned that when DOT takes his road-frontage and house, there will be a substantial amount of money coming back to the Town. BB, you seem focused on the Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to be involved site. I would think you would be a supporter of ballfield sites in general. Are you willing to consider any of the other sites? Do you have a hidden agenda? |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Shamu wrote: We should be looking at ways to make the 220 site work, as the only drawback appears to be access from 220. And property cost. Why NOT the Friddle Property Shamu? Just curious. Also, Mr. Marshall, a very nice man and completely supportive of the ballfields on his property, mentioned that when DOT takes his road-frontage and house, there will be a substantial amount of money coming back to the Town. Will the DOT pay $315,000 for that house and the road frontage? That's the difference in the property cost. (Not including any construction or grading) And isn't this "speculating" or something like that? Seems like I heard that term being thrown around at some point. Maybe Jane can speak to that. Isn't it illegal or frowned upon for the town to purchase property with intent to resell? BB, you seem focused on the Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to be involved site. I would think you would be a supporter of ballfield sites in general. Are you willing to consider any of the other sites? Do you have a hidden agenda? Shamu, I'm sorry and I do not in anyway mean to flame or accuse with this statement, but you seem focused on anything OTHER than the Friddle property. It appears that you have more of a hidden agenda than Baseball Buddy does. I just don't know what it is. If any of you have hidden agendas, just put them out here on the table and we can stop playing these silly games. We need ballfields!!!! |
|||||||||||
|
Lilly Spears Member
|
Shamu wrote: We should be looking at ways to make the 220 site work, as the only drawback appears to be access from 220. There are several things to look at including access from Winfree Road, turn lanes from the north and south and possibly a traffic light. I am not sure the NCDOT is as inaccessible as some say. For example, they did a study and held meetings for the 150 re-alignment based on a request from Summerfield. Hi Shamu, I am with Cracker Jax -- let's just get the ballfields built. But in having said this, I must ask what are the other advantages specifically to 220? I thought the NCDOT said that they would not put cut throughs along 220, forcing everyone to turn right. That could be a nightmare considering the traffic congestion at all times of the day. Think about the median located at Wal-mart at this very moment. How many times of you traveled battleground regardless of the time of day and either had to slam on brakes to avoid rear ending someone or as a driver-by spectating such an event? These accidents are caused by hurried, non-paying attention drivers either driving too fast, or pulling out in front of on-coming traffic from Wal-mart. I fear the same thing could happen here at Gas Town. Why make more madness? Not only do you need to think about the traffic, but how many homes are being built by Turner in the new development? I thought, we were looking for land that would note greatly impact homeowners. I know it can not be totally ruled out, but wouldn't it be more feasable to put the ballfields on Summerfield Road? I thought I had read in an earlier post that you would look into how many homes would be affected specifically on Summerfield Road, have you gather any information yet? I am curious to know in comparision to all affected properties. Regardless of where the ballfields end up, I do believe EVERYONE will be affected in someway, whether it be lights, traffic, or noise. But this is something that the youth needs in our community, and the town has agreed to build it. We will learn to accept this change in our community as we have accepted the change from Summerfield's overpopulated growth. Is there any particular reason as to why you appear to be protesting the Friddle property? I am just curious. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
My agenda has never been hidden nor has my identity. Don't try to make this into something it is not. Don't try to draw attention away from you and your agenda by saying I have one. This is a typical CC in the works people. This is how they operate. I am turning green. |
|||||||||||
|
Super Moderator Super Moderator
|
Shamu wrote: BB, you seem focused on the Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to be involved site. I would think you would be a supporter of ballfield sites in general. Are you willing to consider any of the other sites? Do you have a hidden agenda? Baseball Buddy wrote: My agenda has never been hidden nor has my identity. Don't try to make this into something it is not. Don't try to draw attention away from you and your agenda by saying I have one. This is a typical CC in the works people. This is how they operate. Flame ideas, not people please |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
I have a hidden agenda that I will unveil at this time. I like to get home in the afternoon/evening without being stuck in traffic. there it is.. that's it. I hope you all get your ballfields. There definitely seems to be a need for them. Well, I guess you could just build more houses.... Anyway, I travel through that Gastown area numerous times a week. I think everyone knows how busy 220 can get with trucks, etc also. Please don't muck up 220 more than it already is. My hidden agenda is out. I have no idea where the other locations are but I hope they are not off hwy 68 at the bottom of the hill near Harrell RD. haha. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
bama80 wrote: I have a hidden agenda that I will unveil at this time. I like to get home in the afternoon/evening without being stuck in traffic. I have no idea where the other locations are but I hope they are not off hwy 68 at the bottom of the hill near Harrell RD. haha. Bama, you and I share the same hidden agenda, except mine goes one step further, I also like to get out of my driveway in the mornings and afternoons on a timely basis, which is sometimes a feat that even Houdini would envy. I also share your concern about locations along Highway 68 although my more specific concern is about a mile and a half north of you just past the golf course. When oh when are elected officials going to figure out that the cost of more growth and development is more traffic congestion and more accidents? Last edited on Apr 23rd, 2007 01:54 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Thanks Bama for your honest hidden agenda. Your input on traffic congestion certainly supports the fact that alot of us are trying to make. I have no hidden agenda--I have looked at the properties with an open mind and I have formed my decision based upon my own opinions. I already knew alot about the properties before hand through listening to others that serve on Parks and Recs and SRA. I felt obligated to view the properties myself and make some conclusion of some sort. I was concerned about the traffic from the very beginning on 220 (not about the creek on the property). After visiting the site and the others, I still do not think anything that the DOT can or will do will eliminate the traffic problem. Baseball is a summer sport, and so is water sports. Increase traffic from vehicles pulling water recreation toys. Gas town is a stop to top of on fuel before you get to the lake. Cars pull out in front of cars all the time, making it more difficult for the towing driver to slow down and stop. Get the picture-----let's protect our kids and everyone else and decrease EMS calls instead of increase. The speed limit within Summerfield's Town limits is 35 unless otherwise posted. Well, it is posted as 45--just a note to think about. Bama--you are safe on Harrell Road unless Oak Ridge wants to do something. Highway 68 is certainly far more dangerous than 220. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
I do have one question about the Friddle/Holland property. I understand that the owner (which might be the town at that point) might have to give up some of this property if the DOT ever decides to realign Highway 150 through there. I know there is no money for this project and it would be years and years down the road before this could ever happen. Does anybody know about how much of this property might later have to be sacrificed? And if the town had to make a decision on keeping property which it had bought and developed for ballfields or getting a new road, which one would be more important? |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Lilly Spears wrote: Shamu wrote:We should be looking at ways to make the 220 site work, as the only drawback appears to be access from 220. There are several things to look at including access from Winfree Road, turn lanes from the north and south and possibly a traffic light. I am not sure the NCDOT is as inaccessible as some say. For example, they did a study and held meetings for the 150 re-alignment based on a request from Summerfield.I did some little outside investigating myself today by contacting John Turner who is building the 23 homes located on Robinson Road that is behind the potential property being considered for the new ballfields. He strongly suggested that before purchasing this piece, an engineer should look at the slope of the gully that backs up to his property, and perform soil sample tests. He inlightened me that this is not just a running stream, (nor is it a river) but it is considerably large. The ground is very moist and the cost of grading 3-4 acres (that is approximately the amt of acreage involved on the ballfield property ) to get the land suitable for anything could cost astronomically high. He doubts very seriously ballfields or any type of field could be placed in this area due to the soft ground layers. I do not think Mr. Turner was misconstruding any information because he in fact liked the idea of a residential neighborhood having a ball park in close proximity. He did in fact speak with Mr. Marshall possibly purchasing the land himself to build homes on, but the gully and the high price of the total acreage made him decide not to persue this any further. Last edited on Apr 26th, 2007 01:55 am by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
My as-to-date hidden agenda is I live within 1/2 mile of the Friddle/Holland whoever else needs to be involved property. And I'm concerned about how the ballfields in that area would effect me and my family. I'm also concerned with how the Town of Summerfield treats the people who are most effected by these ballfields. I think their track record is poor. Ask me about Rabbit Hollow Road in 2004. Despite BB and Michael Brandt's claims, I do not think an adequate study for potential sites for ballfields was done. I am an expert in site selection studies. 1. I do not do business with the town of Summerfield. Neither my company or myself have been hired or paid by the Town for any business purposes. 2. I do not own commercial property, or adjacent property, to the A, B and C sites. I would like everyone else participating on this topic to address these specific areas as well. Now, here's some figures: In the 1/4 mile radius of the 7044 Summerfield Road property, there are 32 houses. there are 99 within 1/2 mile excluding houses east of 220. I am excluding houses on the opposite side of 220 for the Summerfield Road site and the Marshall property because I think it is probably not as important to someone who is living across a highway regarding lighted ballfields. There are 6 houses within 1/4 mile for the Marshall property, and 25 within a 1/2 mile. There are 19 houses within 1/4 mile of the Hudson-James property and 73 within a 1/2 mile. My resource is the USGS 7 1/2 minute Quadrangle Maps, Guilford County GIS aerial photography and some walking around and looking. These numbers are approximate based on data available and amount of walking around looking I could squeeze in. More to come!! |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Shamu wrote: My as-to-date hidden agenda is I live within 1/2 mile of the Friddle/Holland whoever else needs to be involved property. And I'm concerned about how the ballfields in that area would effect me and my family. I'm also concerned with how the Town of Summerfield treats the people who are most effected by these ballfields. I think their track record is poor. Ask me about Rabbit Hollow Road in 2004. How many of these properties are owner occupied? Or occupied at all? The Mobile Home Park included? |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
The numbers do not include the mobile home park, although it is within 1/2 mile. The numbers for Summerfield Road would be quite a bit higher if the mobile homes were included. The reason they weren't included is because they are not shown individually on the maps. As far as owner occupied, probably most are, although even if they aren't I'm not sure that makes any difference to my point (which is comparing how many residents are effected). My walking around and driving around so far indicate there are very few unoccupied houses, which is a good thing. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Shamu wrote: I'm also concerned with how the Town of Summerfield treats the people who are most effected by these ballfields. I think their track record is poor. Ask me about Rabbit Hollow Road in 2004. Since you have invited me to address the 2 specifics stated above, I will inform you I do not exchange business or own commercial or adjacent property to the A-B-C sites. Nor do I participate on any committee to either entice the deciding factor either way. I joined your forum to give input to help benefit the proper property for ballfields. Either direction other than the Hudson James Proptery, I am within a 1.39 radius of the Friddle or Marshall properties. Please let everyone know a little bit more regarding Rabbit Hollow Road---this has some history to it regarding location and ballfields. I would like to know exactly what the tract record is regarding how the Town of Summerfield treat others affected by ballfields. Please do not insinuate anyone has mistreated only a selected few, facts would beneficial. If this has any bearing on the Summerfield Road location, please be specific. Instead of protesting this particular property and you are an expert in site locations, can you direct M. Brandt and BB to other potential properties to take into consideration for ballfields? This does not need to be delayed another year, it is time to move forward. Any help that you can assist with would greatly be appreciated. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
Yeah it seems like there is a lot of resistance to certain sites but no positive statements for any site. This gives me the impression that certain people just don't want ANY ballfields. I wish they would just come out and say it instead of trying to surreptitiously derail the process. If I were a nearby landowner, I would much rather have the hind end of a commercial building or another 1/3 acre-per-lot superdevelopment in my back/front yard. ->that was some sarcasm for you people that did not pick up on that. Puhhhlease waht do you think they are going to do with the land in the future if the town of Sf doesnt buy it for ballfields? Turn a million dollar piece of property into a $50 wildlife preserve?!?! I don't think so. There are nature minded good samaritans out there but I wouldn't hold my breath. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
I live 1.25 miles from the Friddle and Marshall properties. I do participate in the committees as a rep for the SRA but have no voting power. The PARKS Committee voted to proceed with the Friddle property as the best site. I was asked to speak in front of the Town Council to show the need to move forward on this piece of property. After doing so I was personally attacked by BS for what reason GOD only knows. Now we have a self proclaimed expert that lives in Summerfield coming out from under a rock after this has been an issue for 10 or more years. We have people working with the Town who are "REAL" experts in acquiring land for development of ballfields. This group has been doing this since 1970. They have a great track record and have aquired land and developed many many ballfields. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
It does seem blatantly obvious even to someone from Stokesdale |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: We have people working with the Town who are "REAL" experts in acquiring land for development of ballfields. This group has been doing this since 1970. They have a great track record and have aquired land and developed many many ballfields. OK. I'm dumb so I'm game. I was not aware that the Summerfield had engaged outside ballfield experts and perhaps others aren't either, so it would seem beneficial if you could elaborate and tell everyone more. WHO are these "REAL" experts you mention? Which tracts of land have they acquired and which ballfields have "they" developed? What is the cost to the citizens and Town of Summerfield for these "REAL" experts? |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Jim, I think it is time to stop attacking BB. He is trying to help the Summerfield community. I wish you could understand that. You cut down trees in Stokesdale, so stop cutting down BB. He is a gentleman, and I thank him for at least trying to give back to our community. If your are trying to help that is great. Share your knowledge so we can get moving on this. I am not flaming by no means, this discussion needs to be open minded, so please keep that in mind. By the way , I thought you did not have "dog in this fight." |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
GRITS wrote: Jim, I think it is time to stop attacking BB. He is trying to help the Summerfield community. I wish you could understand that. You cut down trees in Stokesdale, so stop cutting down BB. He is a gentleman, and I thank him for at least trying to give back to our community. If your are trying to help that is great. Share your knowledge so we can get moving on this. I am not flaming by no means, this discussion needs to be open minded, so please keep that in mind. Grits, say what you will, your entire post was a FLAMING attack on me even as you accused me of attacking the previous poster by simply asking that poster to expound on his own comments. You duplicitously engaged in the very same behavior which you accused me of so falsely. Reasonable and prudent people would not read a personal attack in my simply asking that a poster expound on his own comments, for the education of a public with a right to know. You even go so far as to say (hypocritically, I might add) that "this discussion needs to be open minded" until, of course, myself or anyone espouses any position contrary to your own or questions the veracity of a statement made (which of course defeats the very concept of 'open mindedness' that you pay hollow lip service to without any genuine sincerity). I take it that you did not or do not think that the questions which I asked were reasonable? I honestly was not and am not aware of the specifics which BB himself raised and while I would certainly like to know more. I am also sure other uneducated or undereducated readers might also benefit from BB expanding on his own comments. If "REAL" experts are being engaged by the Town of Summerfield, don't the citizens of the community have a right to know? Personally, I wish the Town of Summerfield would spend every last cent of the nearly Ten Million Dollars of tax payer money they have in the bank and build as many ballfields and ballparks as Ten Million Dollars will buy, so that all the whiners could then move forward to other topics and issues. With all due respects, I share the blessing and joy that all citizens from Oak Ridge and Stokesdale live free of in not being distracted in our own growing communities with this, your never ending war and community division over ballfields that Summerfield has been cursed with. Why this issue continues to divide and besiege your community and it's citizens is beyond my intelligence, imagination or understanding. After ten years of Summerfield talking about building ballfields, the debate is getting a little tired for those of us in the rest of the Northwest if not Summerfield don't you think? Perhaps we are both saying the same thing: As the old saying goes, maybe it's simply time for Summerfield to quit or git off the pot. If ever an academic or political or athletic or development institution wanted to discover or derive the perfect case study in 'How Not To Develop A Community Ballpark', they should look no further than the Town of Summerfield, North Carolina. Last edited on Apr 27th, 2007 02:48 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Super Moderator Super Moderator
|
GRITS wrote: I wish you could understand that so stop cutting down BB. By the way , I thought you did not have "dog in this fight." Jim Flynt wrote: Grits, say what you will, your entire post was a FLAMING attack on me even as you accused me of attacking the previous poster by simply asking that poster to expound on his own comments. You duplicitously engaged in the very same behavior which you accused me of so falsely. Reasonable and prudent people would not read a personal attack You even go so far as to say (hypocritically, I might add) that "this discussion needs to be open minded" until, of course, myself or anyone espouses any position contrary to your own or questions the veracity of a statement made (which of course defeats the very concept of 'open mindedness' that you pay hollow lip service to without any genuine sincerity). After ten years of Summerfield talking about building ballfields, the debate is getting a little tired for those of us in the rest of the Northwest if not Summerfield don't you think? This "verbal fist fight" needs to end, and get back on the topic of Ballfields please. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Super Moderator wrote: This "verbal fist fight" needs to end, and get back on the topic of Ballfields please. M. Supermoderator: I think if you will go back and review my earlier post (2 posts back), a careful reading will show that I simply asked the previous poster ('Baseball Buddy') to elaborate and expound on this comments regarding "REAL" experts which Summerfield seems to have engaged. I then simply responded to what any reasonable person would clearly see as a FLAME attack by the poster posting as "Grits." My most previous comments were simply pointing out that violation of the NWO Forum policy on flaming a poster as well as highlighting the duplicity of this poster in making their attack. I have no interest in any verbal 'fist fight' with anyone nor do I feel that either of my most previous posts are reflective of such. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Baseball Buddy wrote:We have people working with the Town who are "REAL" experts in acquiring land for development of ballfields. This group has been doing this since 1970. They have a great track record and have aquired land and developed many many ballfields. Despite the FLAME ATTACK on me personally regarding my earlier post, I hope that the questions which I previously posed to Baseball Buddy will not go unanswered, as an expansion and clarification of BB's earlier comments would seem to be in order, and might assist the larger public in their own education of these issues. That, of course, assumes that open mindedness and transparency in governmental decision making is at all important to anyone in this discussion. Last edited on Apr 27th, 2007 12:56 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: Baseball Buddy wrote:We have people working with the Town who are "REAL" experts in acquiring land for development of ballfields. This group has been doing this since 1970. They have a great track record and have aquired land and developed many many ballfields. Town Continues to Seek Recreation Property
|
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Much obliged fer that reminder, Grits. Hopefully we're gettin' toward the end o' the process an' some actual construction can begin so these young'uns can get out there while they're still young'uns. Those years go by so fast! An' a big ol YEE HAW an' much obliged to BB fer givin' so much o' your time to our young'uns! Lots o' people in Summerfield who know what you do share that sentiment. |
|||||||||||
|
Gestalt Member
|
FatPappy wrote: An' a big ol YEE HAW an' much obliged to BB fer givin' so much o' your time to our young'uns! Lots o' people in Summerfield who know what you do share that sentiment. Agreed......BB you have many supporters who see your dedication and appreciate what you do. From my observations (unscientific and with no data to support other than my own judgements) I think it's about 95%/5% pro/con. So keep up what you're doin'. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Now that the viewing of the properties are over, when will the council move forward and make a decision? Does anyone have a clue? |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member
|
Grits they should have a public meeting in May....Its time to decide and get the ball rolling.... |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
StewartM wrote: Grits they should have a public meeting in May....Its time to decide and get the ball rolling.... Amen Mr. Mike. I second that emotion. Good Luck tonight too Mr. Mike! Hope you bring home the bacon! |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
I still request that if you post on this site, and you receive money for any type of goods or service from the Town of Summerfield, you say so. If you own commercial or investment property within 1/2 mile of any of the sites, you say so. You have a relative or significant friendship or relationship with someone who does fall in the above two categories, you say so - you get to say on this one, let your conscience be your guide. Now, I understand why some outsiders are puzzled about what's the dilly-O with ballfields and Summerfield. If the ballfields are going to be put near me, I want to have a substantial amount of input in the front end and the back end. I thought that was why Summerfield incorporated; to allow individual citizens and small groups to have a say. And if that’s what I want for me, I think its reasonable to assume that other people would like that too Remember the golden rule. I am not against ballfields. I think we should find a suitable area, have lots of discussions with nearby residents, and see if we can find a win-win situation, perhaps negotiating on the number of fields, number of lights and types of lights, parking capacity, hours of operation etc. Right now, I think the best site is the Marshall property. It is large enough to get several good fields, has very few nearby neighbors (and we still need to talk with them in great detail to find out their concerns), has expansion capacity, and there is a clear path to purchase with a ready and willing seller. The Summerfield Road area is highly unwanted by nearby residents ( I say this because I am in possession of a petition with over 35 names on it – and many more residents to be contacted), has a highway planned through the middle of it, and a seller who doesn’t have control of the transaction, because someone who we can only assume is against the use of the land as ballfields has a right of first refusal ( so even if it can be bought, which is unlikely, it will cost much more than the “estimated costs” given out at the “Open Houses”.). I also think there are environmental issues with the site relating to the Greensboro watershed and groundwater contamination (I am waiting on MB to respond to me regarding these issues). But none the less, the “Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to be involved site” lives on. Wonder why? See the beginning of this post. P.S. I am not going to publicly post the Rabbit Hollow Road of 2004 story, as its not about what’s going on now, and some of the players have changed, but will be glad to private post if you request. But I do have one question to Town Council and Admin; how come $150,000 was enough for ballfields in 2004 and now its 1.15 $Million. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Shamu wrote: shamu: I still request that if you post on this site, and you receive money for any type of goods or service from the Town of Summerfield, you say so.
Shamu: If you own commercial or investment property within 1/2 mile of any of the sites, you say so.
Grits: DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE DONE TO YOU UUMMM = SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. I'll let your conscience be your guide. GRITS:"I am sure this is more than likely to be discussed, it is an important issue. number of fields preferrably 8--more choices for the other children to participate in other activites other than baseball. lights= no input, I have no expertise here to even begin. I will leave that up to the planning board. Parking = adequate parking to accomodate large numbers, there does not be an overfill. Again, not an expert--I will leave that as well to the experts. Hours of operation = clearly should begin at a reasonable time that allows as much daytime hours as possible, but will also take into consideration the time that correlates after school hours and any programs that kids participate in. The night hours should have an ordinance of some sort. I do not particularly appreciate kids playing until 10pm, but hopefully with the addition of numerous fields, more than one can can be played. But, if a time limit should be placed I would go no longer than 10pm. Shamu; Right now, I think the best site is the Marshall property. It is large enough to get several good fields, has very few nearby neighbors (and we still need to talk with them in great detail to find out their concerns), has expansion capacity, and there is a clear path to purchase with a ready and willing seller. Grits: STRONGLY DISAGREE: HEAVY TRAFFIC ON 220---SOFT WETLAND TOWARD THE BACK OF PROPERTY---A WIDE GULLY WITH A STREAM. AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN. OUR KIDS ARE AFFECTED AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND THE BACK. Cost substantially more than the other two properties.
Grits; So you have maybe 36 maybe 40. I don't really know, but do know that more are in favor than you allude to. And I am not sure how substantial this information is when referring back to your post regarding resident counts within a .25 to 0.5 mile radius. Seems rather low in comparision to you 99 + count. I would also think that due to the ballfields current location at Summerfield school, you and your neighbors would be more affected by the current traffic congestion, lights, and noise. This is much more in closer proximity to Rabbit Hollow Road than the "Summerfield Road" property. I fail to see your argument here. Shamu: has a highway planned through the middle of it, Grits: This does not have to happen--according to past articles and the town council--this property does not have to be given up. The state can not take this property unless the town willing does so. This road has been talked about over 40 years, and can remember my grandparents talking about this. Again, this is no where in the futuristic plans of the DOT--- there is no money. This is a FACT. Studies have been done on Auburn road and the intersection of 220, the road can not handle any more traffic load according to EMS director Bob Wray in it's current form simply due to safety purposes. What would you rather have, nuisance from road congestion at all times of the day and night or nuisance from a community ballpark which eventually does end at some point of the day/evening. Shamu: and a seller who doesn’t have control of the transaction, because someone who we can only assume is against the use of the land as ballfields has a right of first refusal ( so even if it can be bought, which is unlikely, it will cost much more than the “estimated costs” given out at the “Open Houses”.). I Grits; Did you not say something to the effect of these number should not be given great thought or start holding to the exact dollar, or even close? If so, then the Marshall property is by far the most unattainable price. Don't start inflating the price when the exact numbers are not there. Shamu; also think there are environmental issues with the site relating to the Greensboro watershed and groundwater contamination (I am waiting on MB to respond to me regarding these issues). Grits; No more than Food Lion or any other businesses located in this area. The only contamination I see at the present moment is the vacant delipidated, rat infested Old Food Lion that Agapion owns, and no one can do anything about. When the ballfields are all said and done (regardless of location) I would love to have you tackle this one and get it cleaned up or removed. Off the subject a little--but if ballfields went on Summerfield road, this vacant building could be used for an atheletic center for everyone. You should also address the creek on the Marshall property if you are really concerned about contamination into the watershed. Where does this creek drain to? A new housing development is going in behind this property--which also contributes to contamination, if your argument is that ballfields cause contamination. Any type of constructions can contribute to this.
Grits; Yes it most definitely is, I will let your conscience be your guide. Grits; The cost of ballfields; uumm in my opinion at this time in this long drawn out saga; " PRICELESS" Last edited on May 2nd, 2007 03:12 pm by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
Super Moderator Super Moderator
|
Shamu wrote: I still request that if you post on this site, and you receive money for any type of goods or service from the Town of Summerfield, you say so. You may "request" participants post this information, however it's of everyone's free will to do, or not to do. This is a discussion forum, not a "discovery" process. |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member
|
Shamu wrote:shamu: I still request that if you post on this site, and you receive money for any type of goods or service from the Town of Summerfield, you say so.
stewartm: I agree Shamu: I am not against ballfields. I think we should find a suitable area, have lots of discussions with nearby residents, and see if we can find a win-win situation, perhaps negotiating on the number of fields, number of lights and types of lights, parking capacity, hours of operation etc. stewartm: I agree we have found sites in a open process now let's discuss.
stewartm; This is why they are having public hearings to get the citizens input....The town council needs this info... Shamu: has a highway planned through the middle of it, stewartm: I at one time lived 75 ft from 220 about 26 years ago...I was told they would widen 220 and take my house...2 kids was born and raised in that house...still no sign of 220 being widen |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Shamu wrote:shamu: I still request that if you post on this site, and you receive money for any type of goods or service from the Town of Summerfield, you say so. Last edited on May 2nd, 2007 12:12 pm by Baseball Buddy |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
I will not be indulging shamu in this "outing" process. By doing so, I think it would put pressure on the rest of the forum members to toe the line which I disagree with. I will however divulge that I have significant friendships and relationships with people on Summerfield Rd..... and 220...................and Pleasant Ridge Rd...... and hwy 158... and on Capital blvd.. .and Tryon Rd..... and Rte 2. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
I respect anyone's choice to stay anonymous. I'm not looking to see who people are. I'm asking to see if there are "hidden agendas" as far as where people are coming from. Someone asked me first, I think, and I thought it was a fair question. I think it's important to the overall discussion, and will certainly be looked at by me and others, and hopefully by all voters of Summerfield, as the town makes its decisions. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
I am not sure what the "hidden agenda" question has to do with anything. What is an "hidden agenda"? Shamu lives close by as does Mr. Mike and BB, I don't live close by but I really like the Friddle Property for ballfields. There are several really flat pieces of land on a road close to my house but we checked them out and they are not available. There will be no perfect place but there are some absolutes: The Town needs ballfields is the main one. So now lets come together as a town and decide where is the best place to put them. If we all are NIMBYs then absolutely nothing will ever get done in Summerfield. Okay so the neighbors don't want ballfields why not? I didn't want Henson Farms, Henson Forrest, Armfields,theVienyards or even to be annexed in to the Town of Summerfield but they came and I was annexed. I have survived and I think the Town has done as excellent job of protecting property owners rights and property values. The one thing I think that is saddly lacking though is a feeling of community and I think this constant I don't want it in my backyard perpetuates this lack of community. So lets get down to specifics and decide where to put the ballfieds. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: BB: Painter Blvd was to be built in 1943 also. It changed many many times before being started just a few years ago. So don't hold your breath on that. BB, I am curious where you got your information that Painter Boulevard was supposed to be built in 1943 or is this simply a date posted in error? My recollection is that Painter Boulevard was first proposed in the mid '60's and the first political actions started occuring in the early 1970's. (I will go back and do a little research if necessary, but the 1943 date simply isn't correct for the Painter Boulevard as we all know it today). I do agree that future road proposals do take time, but everyone should keep in mind that while Wendover Avenue and Bryan Boulevard were planned around 20 years prior to their actual construction, they were ultimately built. In hindsight it is difficult to imagine what chaos traffic and driving would be without Wendover Avenue and Bryan Boulevard. And in the very near future, we will all look back and feel the same about Painter and other major road improvements which will become necessary as well as essential as this entire Northwest area not only grows but explodes with development. Rural days in the Northwest are over and traffic congestion and highway gridlock will become and continue to be the wave of the future for those wishing to remain here in what once was, our bucolic paradise. Last edited on May 3rd, 2007 01:41 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Jim Bryan Boulevard/Benjamin Parkway were planned way more than 20 years ago. I grew up on Hobbs rd and I can remember the talk when I was in elementary school. The houses on Westridge would all go up for sale depending on where the route was proposed that year for Bryan Boulevard. That was porbably in the mid to late 50's. Actually Benjamin Parkway was built in the mid to late 50's and it was known then that there would be a connection which turned out to be named Bryan boulevard. I could walk from my house to watch them as they built Bryan Boulevard. But either way the road planned to go by the Friddle property is not even on the wave paths of DOT and the current thinking is it would take a couple of acres certainly not go down the middle of the property but rather take one corner. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote:
Jane, Thanks for your response to my earlier question. I have highlighted two portions of your response, and the first part wherein you say "the road planned" suggests that a road is in fact planned (by DOT or someone for some point in time in the future). Is that correct? I'm not sure what the second portion of your response (which I highlighted) wherein you say "is not even on the wave paths of DOT" means relative to the first highlighted portion. By this I mean, if the road has been planned by DOT for some future date, then why would the proposed location not be on DOT's wave path? While we can agree that both Wendover and Bryan Boulevard did take a rather lengthy period of time between the idea inception and their completion, other major road projects (road improvements for Federal Express, Koury Boulevard, and Dell Computers) were in fact quite expedited based on immediate needs; they all three went from drawing board to reality in less than five years. When growth and demographic changes completely stretch transportation infrastructure, future road projects have a way of being re-prioritized by the powers that be. And if growth continues unmitigated in the next few years as it has in recent years, that may well be the case with tranportation needs and road improvements throughout the Northwest, including in and around Summerfield. The projected ancillary needs just from the Federal Express facility, will drive our Northwest area, with explosive growth as projected and likely to occur, inflicting either serious transportation gridlock in the very near future, or demands for infrastructural improvement by citizens which cannot and will not be ignored by elected officials wishing to remain in office. So, I agree with you that no new roads will be started tomorrow. But that new roads, throughfares and thruways will sooner rather than later find their way into our Northwest lifestsyle simply seems to me to be without question. It ain't a matter or IF. Only a matter of WHEN. Simply go back in time a dozen or so years ago and recall what Cary, NC looked like and what roads existed there then, and then revisit Cary today to see the vast number of road improvements not even envisioned all that many years ago simply to not only ease but even to allow traffic in and out migration. For all those folks who like the life of congestion and wall to wall sprawl in Cary now, they are going to love the Northwest area in less than 20 more years. Perhaps, even in less than 10 more years. Because the way we're going and selling out to the developers and outsiders, our three NW communities just can't seem to want to get there fast enough. We're killing the goose that laid our golden eggs and many are so blind they simply can't see it. Last edited on May 3rd, 2007 03:10 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I am not sure what the "hidden agenda" question has to do with anything. What is an "hidden agenda"? Shamu lives close by as does Mr. Mike and BB, I don't live close by but I really like the Friddle Property for ballfields. There are several really flat pieces of land on a road close to my house but we checked them out and they are not available. There will be no perfect place but there are some absolutes: The Town needs ballfields is the main one. So now lets come together as a town and decide where is the best place to put them. If we all are NIMBYs then absolutely nothing will ever get done in Summerfield. There is clearly a conflict of interest with the Summerfield Road property, regarding council and committee members. And I'm not talking about where people live. I'm talking about good old money in the pocket conflict of interest. So you think that by forcing ballfields on a bunch of people who don't want it, that will forward a sense of community? |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Shamu wrote:So you think that by forcing ballfields on a bunch of people who don't want it, that will forward a sense of community? Sometimes it does come down to what is best for the greater good of the community versus rights of individuals. If it does, we could only hope we as individuals, residents and good neighbors would be willing to let our conscience be our guide. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
I own property within a quarter of a mile of the proposed ball fields. I don't understand how this ballfield is going to make a bit of difference to the price of my house. The only person that I am aware who owns any property in the area on the council is Bob Williams. As I understand he owns two rental houses and a piece of Friddle Property right close to the proposed ballfields. It would seem if your theory is right that he would be very much against the ballfield in that area because it would hurt his potential resale value of his property. I think more than anything the council is for ballfields. Do I think forcing ballfields on a community encourages community no more so that forcing 200 houses on a community but I also think that there are lots of people in the area who are not against the ballfields.They recognize the advantage of ballfields over 30 more houses and the advantage of open space. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
ok my conscience is my guide, and my conscience tells me that my heart is for the kids in this community. My heart tells me that only our youth is going to be hurt, and as a separated community due to worries of having to reach down deep into their pockets we have disappointed our kids. The value of life in Summerfield is quickly being deminished. It is sad but very true----conflicts of interest has ripped and frazzled of even the most generous souls against his neighbors. Why, why , why? I am left with nothing but sorrow, and grief, and only pray that this "straw-man" will find his heart. Eventhough, it feels as though Satan has bitten a piece of our American Dream, my conscience and my heart tells me to NOT GIVE UP. All of Summerfield must come together and show support for our kids. Hang in there Summerfield, the kids ballfields are at the end of the rainbow, along with that pot of gold. Last edited on May 3rd, 2007 10:44 am by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
StewartM Member
|
Shamu wrote: There is clearly a conflict of interest with the Summerfield Road property, regarding council and committee members. And I'm not talking about where people live. I'm talking about good old money in the pocket conflict of interest. What and who are you accusing council or committee members of doing.... These are serious statements you are making about people, what do you have to back it up.... |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
macca wrote: Shamu wrote: That entire line of thinking certainly could easily open a long and open minded discussion and philosophical debate of the merits of the collective good versus the individual rights of a minority and the individual. Which might inure to the benefit of both. To not enage in such a larger community discussion of this dichotomy, can and will only lead to the continuation of one side versus the other, and will insure the ongoing formidable obstacles to building community or consensus. With continuing and often bitter divisive results. The decision making and the decision making process for such an important decision should be conducted only with the foundation of consensus decision making models as the guide. A Google search of 'consensus decision making' might be informative to those unfamiliar with the process. Last edited on May 3rd, 2007 11:35 am by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Shamu wrote:
You know, a long time ago somewhere on this Forum, I suggested that both sides should simply agree to put this whole ballfield question to the Summerfield voters on a ballot and let them decide. If both sides truly feel as strongly as they do that a majority of citizens are on 'their side' then I cannot see why either side would be unwilling or afraid of letting the people decide? And then let all sides live with the results. By allowing Summerfield citizens and voters the right to make this important decision, both sides should know that voters made the decision fairly and democratically. I just don't see how anyone can ask for any more than that? |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote:By allowing Summerfield citizens and voters the right to make this important decision, both sides should know that voters made the decision fairly and democratically. I just don't see how anyone can ask for any more than that? While this may seem a reasonable way to determine this, it sounds as though the decision HAS been made about the need, the problem now is WHERE to put them. It sounds as though they are getting feedback from the community about the 3 possibilities and will take that into consideration. If they wait until the next election (November) then that delays it that much longer. If they hold a special election, there are expenses, etc involved. If you say "Come to Town Hall during such and such a time and cast your ballot," would that work? Would some people say they didn't know about it? Who would monitor it to make sure people only cast one ballot, or that nothing happened to the ballots already cast? Suggestions as to how this vote would take place, Jim? |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
StewartM wrote:Shamu wrote:There is clearly a conflict of interest with the Summerfield Road property, regarding council and committee members. And I'm not talking about where people live. I'm talking about good old money in the pocket conflict of interest. I agree! Shamu obviously has a legitimate and understandable interest in this property, but if serious accusations like these are going to be made, they need to be backed up by more than vague insinuations from people with an interest in the outcome -- financial or political. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
I still want to know why you think your property will be negatively affected by the proposed ball fields when Rabbit Hollow is closer to the current ball fields. And why will it benefit other property owners as you accuse such as supporters of the ball fields (Bob Williams and Debbie Hoffman). Also how about the proposed realigning (or whatever) of Hwy 150, how will that affect you. Are you wanting this rather than ball fields. Will this benefit you and make your property more valuable if DOT decides (30 or 40 years later) to come close to your property or possibly purchase your property? When people purchased property on Rabbit Hollow there were ball fields across the street at the school closer than the Friddle property. I still recall a piece of property that the Town tried to purchase on Rabbit Hollow. Many people came out and it was a heated discussion. May be you are still mad about this and still have an axe to grind. Seems to me with this petition 35 to 40 names are not much when 800 plus children are playing ball 6 days a week till 10 pm . Others have to travel to play (I was in Thomasville last weekend for a baseball game with a team from Summerfield) because there is not enough field space to play here. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
FatPappy wrote: StewartM wrote: I haven't made any accusations of anyone. There is not one person in Summerfield that I would have trouble sitting down and discussing this with. Conflict of interest, in my opinion, and I think in the sense of government ethics, is about potential or appearance. I have not accused anyone of doing anything wrong. But I think the Summerfield Road area is tainted simply because of the co-incidence of leaders' and decision makers' interests in the area. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Shamu wrote:
This is clearly a conflict of interest with Shamu. Summerfield does not need to go back to the planning board on this one. Shamu, you knew about this property from the get go. Council has been upfront and vocal to the public considering this land. You only joined the committee to "fight" and not show support. You only show support for the Marshall property only to appear to be positive regarding ballfields. You dance around the questions asked specifically addressing your number 1 choice for site location. If you have thoroughly done your homework, being an expert, you would have addressed the issue the public has directly asked regarding traffic, creeks, new highways and residents that are exact mirror images that obstruct both properties. You often say the 220 has lots of potential, but you do not give details. This property offers no more than the friddle property, in fact less acreage will be available from the front to the back of the entire site. Less ballfields or whatever other potentials that it may hold will not be available, and the town is paying more for this particular piece. The Friddle property and now you are involved piece can be used for 8 ballfields and obtained for less money. You have worked deligently and secretively to kill the Friddle property. You criticize council members owning property nearby, and insinuate their wants is to make money to put in their pockets. I guess if the marshall property is purchased you will be screaming about the the town pocketing money from renting the house back to Mr. Marshall. So wants your 'DILLY 'O' really about? |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Shamu wrote: FatPappy wrote:StewartM wrote: Here we go again. This is a CC witch hunt or some kind of conspiracy theory. Same old story when things don't go the CC's way. Money in the pocket conflict of intrest sure sounds like an acusation of somebody taking money for supporting ball fields in this case. I am starting to turn GREEN about this. |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
You're probably right, BB. Where does all this stand with the Town Committee and Town Council? Perhaps we should just drop this dog and pony show that keeps getting trotted out here on the forum and just focus on what is really happening.... |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
macca wrote: You're probably right, BB. I 100% support your suggestion Macca. The forum has been successfully used as a discovery process since the origination of "Ballfieldss" from it's originator. The discoveries should lie in the hands of the Town Council now. My pony is being put in it's stall. Let the Town Council do it's job, that we as voters have elected them to do. See Ya! |
|||||||||||
|
macca Member
|
GRITS wrote:macca wrote:You're probably right, BB. Hope you're not gone for good, GRITS!!! See ya on MAAN and other threads??!!?? |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Thursday night we are going to look at the ball field lights at the New Northern School. This will put to rest any problems with area residents concerns with lighting. This type of new engineered lighting system has minimal if any intrusion off site. Lighting has come a long way in the last few years and Duke Energy (formerly Duke Power) has a whole department dedicated to ball field lighting projects. WOW! Not only will they install they make sure it is the most efficient for us. And guess what? They will finance it for us!! Cool |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
I'd be interested to hear comments if any of you go see the athletic field lights at Northern tonight. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
S. Smith wrote: I'd be interested to hear comments if any of you go see the athletic field lights at Northern tonight. My pony has been it's stall long enough---I would like to know what the response to the ball lights were as well. Can anyone give an update? What other concerns were addressed? How many people showed up for the viewing. BTW---I specifically looked out last night to see if I saw a massive light shining in the eastern sky --- thank goodness the smoke had already cleared. No lights shining in my backyard! This is a little bit of sarcasm referring way back to Shamu's earlier post regarding the intrusion of lights from Carolyn Allen being able to be seen all the way to Guilford College. Northern's lights are much less intrusive. Good job BB! |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Freedom of speech is alive and well in Summerfield. I just saw a sign in a person's yard on Shadyside Dr. with "Strike against ball fields" on it. Well, are these people against ball fields or just the area that was noted as best for ball fields? With ball fields on Summerfield Rd there is a natural buffer around the property for sound and lights. There will be no increase in traffic to Summerfield Rd since we already play ball at the school that is on Summerfield Rd. It will spread out the volume into two areas so it will seams as if it will be decreased. |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
How did the light viewing go t'other night, BB? |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
The lights looked great. We could have had a better look if the street lights could have been turned off. From a distance you could see the way the lights projected on to the fields with very little if any intrusion into the other areas. Viewing the lights from Spencer Dixon Rd through the small patch of woods you could not see them. With this type of lighting and a little buffer you will never know they are on. |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Tonight in Summerfield there was a "special call meeting" of the Summerfield town council held primarily to discuss the acquisition of ball field land and the budget. This meeting was "special" indeed. The people who attended were treated to an unprecedented sight. Councilwoman Barnes and Mayor Brown literally buckled under to the pressure of the Concerned Citizens and voted against the apparant majority of citizens in Summerfield. Next time, I suppose it would be more effective to carry SIGNS into the council meeting since some of our council members seem to only respond to that. Councilman Wray presented arguments in favor of purchasing the Friddle Property that were IRONCLAD. Councilman Williams, while he had recused himself from the vote, supported Wray's position with a prepared speech of his own. Collins said that she had gone back and forth on the issue, but the fact that choosing the 220 site was going to result in the loss of more trees. The only negative that Strickland could come up with about the Friddle property is that the person that holds the first right of refusal had written a letter stating that she was going to exercise her right and purchase the property. Let's think about this.....Is it at all possible that some of our council members were duped??? Let's say that someone goes to Mrs. 1st right of refusal woman and says "How about writing a letter stating that you will exercise your right. Don't worry though, the council will be so SCARED of losing our votes that it will never even come to pass and you won't need do anything further." And if she resists, they tell her "Worst case scenario, if you do exercise your right, we have a buyer just waiting in the wings who will gladly take this property off of your hands" Strickland also stated that she didn't want to "waste" any more of the taxpayer's money. HELLO? How much does it cost to MAKE AN OFFER???? A couple hundred bucks???? So, as a result, we are spending 5-8 HUNDRED THOUSAND (Isn't that what Wray said?) more of our tax dollars to save that couple of hundred. REAL sensible. I stated earlier on that I didn't really care where the ballfields were located, but that the Friddle property was the most sensible choice. I have heard NOTHING to change my mind. I am so frustrated I could just scream. They wasted MY time and the time of all of the others who visited the sites to give EDUCATED input on which land to purchase. The citizens spoke. They wanted the Friddle property. The majority of citizens in attendance tonight wanted the Friddle Property. I hope Barnes and Brown counted the votes that walked out the door tonight. I also hope they compare them to the number of signs up along Summerfield Road. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
Cracker- I don't often disagree with you but I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out.. Neither property was perfect but some of John's figures were misleading I think. Doesn't matter which property the Town buys they will have to put turning lanes in. That cost was not included in any of the land preparation figures. 220 was where the council orginally many long years ago earmarked as being a good place to have ball fields based on the fact that 220 is a major highway and there are limited residential areas. 8 to 10 more ballfields on Summerfield road would have a significant impact on that road. The number of Summerfield residents impacted was pretty significant. The Marshall property is for sale no ifs ands or buts about it. Mr. Marshall has indicated he is willing to negotiate. While we were waiting for the Friddle property to come free if it did we can start on the ballfields on the Marshall property. We potentially could have lost both properties while we tried to buy the Friddle property. I think the Friddle property from a location stand point was better but I also think the potential 8-10 ballfields was a lot to ask that one neighborhood that has houses some of which are 75 to 100 years old to shoulder. Lets pull together as a community, work on the road issues on 220, get the ball fields built quickly and then look, if we still need ballfields, for another tract in a different neighborhood. I thought the goal here was ballfields. I think John Wray showed the right spirit of compromise and negotiation when he said he would volunteer his time to see that the safety issues were taken care of. Lets all get behind the council and lets get these ballfields built!! |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Shame shame shame. I am very disappointed in Mayor Brown and Mrs. Barnes. Logic was not used while voting. Many times in the past I always could not agree with what goes on at council meetings but could see the logic in the decision. I could not find that here. The oldest political trick in the book was used on these 2. Using the fear of not getting future votes from these people against them in an election year. If you 2 had to worry about not getting votes from this group of Concerned Citizens you never had their vote anyway. Now you have probably lost the support of many more than the few who stroked you. This is exactly what the Concerned Citizens hoped would happen and it did. Now you will have to explain why 5 to 8 hundred thousand dollars extra had to be spent and all we asked for was an offer to purchase the "Friddle property that would not cost nearly anything to make the offer. Plus if the Town would exercise the right for Immanent Domain to purchase the Friddle Property the first right of refusal would have no bearing and thats a fact. A couple of weeks ago this property was too dangerous and all agreed, now what changed? The only change I see is a few signs on Summerfield Rd. Mayor Brown said on the 21st that he feared someone would be killed there. Strickland said it was the most expensive. John Wray said it was a disaster waiting to happen. Deana Barnes and Carolyn Collins agreed with John Wray. Bob Williams Has always thought better of the Friddle property. What changed? What happened tonight? I felt like I was in an episode of the Twilight Zone! |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Cracker- I don't often disagree with you but I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out.. Jane, you know I love you I just don't understand why the parks committee wasn't consulted in the first place if they were the ones to ultimately make the decision. Why was the public invited to give input? Be sure to plug your ears so you don't hear all of those trees on the marshall property screamin' when the bulldozers come racin' thru....... |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out.. That is if the safety issues with the highway can be worked out. Previously I was told that this was a BIG if--if I remember correctly, I was told that the DOT has already said that they would NOT put a light at Gas Town and Old Summerfield Road because there was not enough traffic generated here to support a light. Instead medians were going to be installed and traffic would be forced to turn right when leaving the Marshall property. So when did all this change? Nothing will be done until the new highway comes through, or has that changed as well at the expense of the taxpayer? $800,000.00 is alot of money for a light, one light. This will just be added on to our tax bill, and now I have to argue this. What happens if the safety issues aren't resolved? Are we still going to agree to put ballfields here? Are we obligated to this property? We also now are decreasing the amount of ballfields that are needed because a resident of that area specifically asked if Jay Copeland had overkilled his guesstimates--did the town really need 8 ballfields? The answer to that is yes---I suggest we buy both pieces of property and develop them both for athletic fields. We are going to need them. I hardly think that the 7-9 signs displayed on Summerfield Road could even possibly hold that much bearing to sway a council in making the proper decision. Jane if 8 ballfields is the determining factor as to too much impact on the resident's quality of life, could a compromise of 6 ballfields have been reached? Was this even considered? I personally would not use Oak Street or Shady Side as a cut through--there is hardly any room for 1 vehicle to drive down these streets. I also fear a child darting out in front of my car due to the overflow of vehicles and boats parked on the side of the road. Why are these resident not screaming about the traffic currently using this a cut through at 5 o'clock in the afternoon? I haven't heard complaints about this, but mention a ballfield moving from one side of their property to the other---they all start screaming about traffic. Buying the Friddle property would not add traffic to Summerfield Road because the kids are already playing ball at Summerfield School. already on Summerfield Road. This was not and still is not a valid argument. I do support the ballfields, but I do not think the council has made the right decision. They obviously did not listen to the majority of the town. Instead they listened to SHAMU simply because of his instrumentation on the Rabbit Hollow case. That is what this all boils down to. Way to go CC's you did your job--but the fight isn't over. (Edited by S. Smith) Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 12:45 pm by |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
GRITS wrote: DOGGETTJA wrote:I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out..That is if the safety issues with the highway can be worked out. Previously I was told that this was a BIG if--if I remember correctly, I was told that the DOT has already said that they would NOT put a light at Gas Town and Old Summerfield Road because there was not enough traffic generated here to support a light. Instead medians were going to be installed and traffic would be forced to turn right when leaving the Marshall property. So when did all this change? Nothing will be done until the new highway comes through, or has that changed as well at the expense of the taxpayer? $800,000.00 is alot of money for a light, one light. This will just be added on to our tax bill, and now I have to argue this. I don't think I'm understanding this safety thing either..... If the parks committee added the caveat that the safety issues had to be worked out, and the safety procedures won't even be able to be implemented until the road is widened a zillion years from now, should we wait until then to purchase the fields to be sure to follow the parks committee's recommendation??? This is exactly the kind of thing that Strickland would jump all over if she had the true interest of Summerfield at heart. Once that ball park's built, it's gonna be too late. It's not gonna matter one whit whether or not the DOT agrees to our safety concerns. We're stuck with a ballfield whether we have safe access to it or not. At least the parks committee will be able to say that it's "on the record" that they added that caveat. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Cracker Jax wrote: DOGGETTJA wrote:Cracker- I don't often disagree with you but I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out.. Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 03:48 am by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
The parks committee meeting was not a productive meeting. It was a split decision with people getting mad and having to leave before they lost their religion. I left early because my wife was sick and the baby was crying. I would have probably showed my but also if I had stayed. I don't know what happened to you people in the last couple of weeks but like I said I felt as if I was in an episode of the Twilight Zone. I realize I am not a voting member of the Parks committee but thought I had some input that held water up until now. This is very disturbing when people ask your opinion and it does not matter. They should have just asked my dogs opinion. Or did they think it made me fell better to ask my opinion? I wish I had never been asked. We have all these Monday morning quarterbacks saying what we should do. I have personally looked for land in Summerfield for over 5 years and walked every inch of Summerfield looking at land. I don't claim to be an expert at any of this but did get asked for my opinion. Safety should always be the first factor in any decision. It was not here. Saftey has to come after the fact. Now we have to make it safe before we can pursue ball fields. This is not a good example of being good stewards with the taxpayers dollars. You have no excuse because you did not even try to make an offer on the Friddle property. Council will be ridiculed for this. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Cracker- I don't often disagree with you but I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out.. This is what is very disturbing to me. How did the P & R committee leave agreeing on the Marshall property, when I was told by an individual that sits on the committee that the meeting was left with you guys recommending the Friddle Property? Something went on afterwards, and everyone who had a vote (not all that walked out of the P&R meeting--due to no compromise could be reached) were not included. What happened? I hope Jane, that as strongly as you felt regarding the Friddle property and previously was very much in support of, your compromise was to resolve the issue and get the ballfields built for the kids. I am going to believe that and will not question, but others had other reasons. I may never know the exact reason, but will always wonder why? I have to agree with CJ---I should have never been asked for input if the town had already made it's decision. I feel as though my concerns were overlooked and were of no importance. The safety issues should have been in place and done before purchasing the Marshall Property. I guess I have to live with the decision for now---but let it be known it was not made on my behalf. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
I am confused. Did the town not look at land before on 220 but decided to move away from it because of environmental concerns? I will never agree to this town using immanent domain to purchase land. I will always feel it is an unfair use of power, but enough discussion on that. Everyone has the right to speak their opinion and have their voice be heard. The decision was made whether you agree or not, but this town needs ballfields so we need to pull together and make sure we get the ballfields built. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
Isn't Democracy wonderful? Not perfect. But still wonderful. Ya'll sure keep things interesting over in Summerfield for the rest of us. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
Hairbrush wrote: I am confused. Did the town not look at land before on 220 but decided to move away from it because of environmental concerns? I will never agree to this town using immanent domain to purchase land. I will always feel it is an unfair use of power, but enough discussion on that.That was a different piece of property. It was close to this one, but not the same one. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
Thanks Sandra, that is what I thought. I don't remember a big safety issue on that one, but that could have been because the environmental issue came up so quickly. |
|||||||||||
|
S. Smith Moderator
|
I'm confused on some of the last few posts and the mention of the Concerned Citizens. Are you guys talking about the Concerned Citizens, or the group of citizens on Summerfield Road who were opposed to buying the Friddle property? Or are the two somehow connected in a way that I'm not aware of? I know emotions are running high on this issue, but let's remember to "flame ideas, not people." It is certainly okay to disagree and some of you have done a great job stating your case, but let's don't bring private citizens into the fray. |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Hairbrush wrote: The decision was made whether you agree or not, but this town needs ballfields so we need to pull together and make sure we get the ballfields built. I think ya'll know me well enough to know that I will do whatever I can to see these ballfields become a reality.... Wherever they are located. Pulling together toward a common goal will not make me forget how the decision was reached and who the decision makers were. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Can someone please give me a list of the VOTING members of the Parks committe who were present at this meeting? |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
The good news is we're gettin' ballfields! The bad news is the council's wishy-washy performance left a lot of people wonderin' who's in charge and what's really goin' on. John Wray made some very clearly stated and well reasoned arguments for the Friddle property. That's what Pappy likes to hear. I agree with Crackah, I didn't hear anything compelling in favor of the 220 property. Hairbrush also has a good point. The decision's been made, so let's pull together. On the other hand, what if they build a ballfield and nobody comes? Pappy sure don't consider the 220 property a field o' dreams. Let's hope it don't become a field o' nightmares instead. |
|||||||||||
|
Cracker Jax Member
|
Sandra, I'm asking for a list of the parks committee members because I want to know who the apparent decision makers were, not because I want to flame any of them. I appreciate the time they donate to help our town. It's not their fault that the decision was based soley on their recommendation.... Just wanted to clarify that. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
Cracker Jax I know that you will make sure that the town gets those ballfields built no matter where they end up. I never had any doubt about that at all. You are my long lost sister after all and us sisters have to stick together. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
I think the ballfields being located on 220 will result in the building of a hospital, a hotel, some restaurants, a car cemetary, and a towing company. Good Job on that one! what a nightmare 220 already can be at times. I can only imagine the mess now. What a joke.- but I'm not laughing. I don't even live in SF but once the development of this stuff on 220 begins, I don't even think I will turn my car in the direction of Summerfield. On second thought, I think I will open up a flower and wooden cross shop there so people can honor all the tragedies that will occur. -may be being over-dramatic, but my point stands. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
S. Smith wrote: I'm confused on some of the last few posts and the mention of the Concerned Citizens. Are you guys talking about the Concerned Citizens, or the group of citizens on Summerfield Road who were opposed to buying the Friddle property? Or are the two somehow connected in a way that I'm not aware of? They are part of the concerned citizens. I am only stating a FACT that regardless of where they live, and they do live here--I have to question if their fight against ballfields were strictly due to their backyard reasoning or other political avenues. They have lived beside the ballfield for years and possibly forever if any of them can say they have been here for as long as I have. It didn't appear to be a problem in their backyard then--why now? Who's running this town? |
|||||||||||
|
happycamper Member
|
Whew...glad I stayed out of this one! I am not affiliated with the "concerned citizens" group, and try my best to stay neutral. I am on the side of the citizens who are concerned. ie. those closest to the property that feel that the ball field will have a negative impact on their property values. If the decision was made to protect these folks from what they viewed as a possible intrusion on their neighborhood, I say it was a good decision. If it was made to gain votes in an election year, I say bad decision.. but I feel that it was not an attempt to gain votes... and give credit to those who stood up for the neighborhood. Would it have hurt the neighborhood? Who knows, but the fact remains that the neighbors thought it would. Our neighborhood protested an office going up,even had the planning board with us 100%,and we had well over the amount of signatures required to protest.. and still we lost. Talk about not being heard, why did we even go to the trouble of attending meetings,gathering signatures, etc....a complete waste of time! The idea of imminent domain being used scares the daylights out of me ! Come on, this is still a small town, folks know one another, kids go to same schools together, etc.. Surely no one wants to have government step in and force a decision. Are most of the games still played late in the evenings and weekends? Seems to me most of the traffic on Hwy 220 is during weekday business and rush hours. Can the games and practice times be arranged such that it takes into account the busy traffic issues? In conclusion, I'm for ballfields...and trust that the decision was based on nothing but with the best intentions...at least that what was explained to me when we lost our neighborhood. |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
From what I have seen, games and practices are after school on weekdays (rush hour) and on weekends. I havent done any traffic studies other than driving through there multiple times per day over the last 2 years but hey, what do i know.. |
|||||||||||
|
Lacka Member 
|
When I visited the three sites I was given information about plans for each site. I visited all three properties and was given a questionnaire to fill out about which site I would prefer. What was the purpose of this? When Michael read the comments that the citizens who visited the sites made, at the TC meeting, most comments were for the Friddle property. When I visited the property on 158 there were two citizens present who opposed the ball fields being built on this property. They were very polite, however, made their voice heard and it was important enough for them to get involved. I may or may not agree with them, but it made a difference to me that they were there on site when I visited the location. When I visited the Friddle property I didn’t see any citizens who opposed the fields in their back yards. How far is the current ball field from the back yards of the citizens who have signs in their yards in comparison to the site on Friddle road? It looks like to me it is not any closer than the current ball field. bama80 wrote: On second thought, I think I will open up a flower and wooden cross shop there so people can honor all the tragedies that will occur. Sick thought, but true. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
The well being and the safety of my children is my first priority. I love them both dearly and would not DARE compromise to jeopardize their lives for the sake of a ball field. I can not fathom the idea of parents and grandparents sitting in a seat would even agree to jeopardize their kids and grandkids lives. This is both heart breaking and sickening to me. You guys say we need to pull together and get these ball fields built -- but sometimes you have to stop and ask yourself just what is being put at risk here and at whose expense. I am sorry but no ball field is EVER going to come before my family. The safety issues on 220 should have been set in concrete before even persuing. This may never get resolved., AND THEN YOU MUST LIVE WITH IT. FIND A BETTER LOCATION IF NONE PRESENTED WHERE SUITABLE. LET THE CITIZENS VOTE AND MAKE THE DECISION IF COUNCIL CAN'T MAKE THE RIGHT ONE. Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 04:50 pm by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
GRITS wrote: LET THE CITIZENS VOTE AND MAKE THE DECISION IF COUNCIL CAN'T MAKE THE RIGHT ONE. I fully support the concept of citizens being allowed to participate more vigorously in citizen initiatives and major policy decisions. It should happen more often if we truly want people to be part of and close to good government. That being said, I wonder who you would suggest would decide whether or not the council decisions made are the 'right' one? And in your mind, how would such a process to override council decisions work? |
|||||||||||
|
bama80 Member
|
yeah once you start to undermine the council, then basically you would have to have a citizen vote (referendum?) on every decision that anyone was unhappy with. Therefore nullifying the need for a council at all. |
|||||||||||
|
Shamu Member
|
To my knowledge, there is NO connection between the group 'Concerned Citizens' and people who put up signs asking the town to find another site for ballfields. The neighbors in the vicinity of Oak Street, ShadySide, Rabbit Hollow and Summerfield Road were only connected by an interest to preserve their quality of life and safety. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Jim Flynt wrote: GRITS wrote:LET THE CITIZENS VOTE AND MAKE THE DECISION IF COUNCIL CAN'T MAKE THE RIGHT ONE. I suppose that decision right now would be left to the citizens. Of course you are going to have those that agree council made the right decision, and you will always have others thinking the opposite. IMHO - when the town asked the citizens to visit the sites and give their input as to what they liked or disliked about the properties,and which you preferred, it was a large number and it was a majority of the visitors all agreed and preferred the Friddle property. Site B (220) was a close 2nd with the exception of the safety issues that the majority had. How the entire voting process went was so misconstrued -- not even making the offer toward the 1st right of refusal, and just burring their heads & making light of the major concerns regarding safety like it could easily be resolved is why I suppose this is the group that will always feel like the wrong decision was made. Now since you asked about override of council decision I have been asking all morning long if this could be done. If so I want to know the process. I have not had time to do any research this morning, but I have been thinking of avenues to approach for answers. I know nothing about political science when it comes to such factors, but I plan on finding out. How can a person on the Parks and Rec committee be able to vote, when he clearly had a conflict of interest with the Friddle Property and was asked to help Michael Brandt and BB find suitable land for ball fields. He did nothing other than gain supporting ammunition to fight the number 1 choice of most of the citizens of Summerfield--said he had a petition with 30 some signatures opposing the Friddle property (which was never produced-- as I figured)-- ignored forum questions regarding environmental issues regarding the Marshall property but went to great extreme protecting the Friddle property concerning the environment and the watershed. He came right out and told me not to assume facts that I stated about the Marshall property--he tried to make look as if I knew nothing and wanted to know where I got my information. I may not of had access to government maps like he said that he did--but all it took was a small visit to the sites and view them before the town invited everyone to do so. He could vote with the P & R committee, but Bob Williams was advised not to because he owned property that was adjacent to the other 30 acres that Friddle was not selling to the town. Becky Strickland lives here as well, but was allowed to vote. He is a resident of Rabbit Hollow. lIf you are going to play a fair game and aid in making affective decisions that is for the best interest of the town, then play fair. That's all I'm asking. This is wHy council's decision should be overridden. Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 07:56 pm by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Shamu wrote: To my knowledge, there is NO connection between the group 'Concerned Citizens' and people who put up signs asking the town to find another site for ballfields. The neighbors in the vicinity of Oak Street, ShadySide, Rabbit Hollow and Summerfield Road were only connected by an interest to preserve their quality of life and safety. Please. I am an educated man. Don't take us for being stupid. If it looks like a duck ........... |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Shamu wrote: To my knowledge, there is NO connection between the group 'Concerned Citizens' and people who put up signs asking the town to find another site for ballfields. The neighbors in the vicinity of Oak Street, ShadySide, Rabbit Hollow and Summerfield Road were only connected by an interest to preserve their quality of life and safety. Say what you want but if you really wanted to preserve quality of life and safety you would have put the KIDs at the top of your list with their quality of life and saftey as priorty,. and your personal, quality of life and safety next. |
|||||||||||
|
DOGGETTJA Member
|
There is no conflict of interest issue to my mind that comes in to play on the committees. First of all all the people on the parks committee are for parks and ballfields that is a conflict in that we have already made up our minds on the issue. Also the committees are only advisory so do not make the final decision. I told everybody who came to the 158 site that the surveys were only part of the information that went into the decision as to where the ballfields would be put and that lots of other issues would come into play. I think there is no question that the surveys eliminated the 158 site but the other two sites had equal but different problems. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
GRITS wrote: Say what you want but if you really wanted to preserve quality of life and safety you would have put the KIDs at the top of your list with their quality of life and saftey as priorty,. and your personal, quality of life and safety next. When you back away and think about it, that's a pretty extreme statement to make now isn't it? Your approach presumes that a serious decision boiled down to only one of two choices available, when in fact, there are (were) other choices available (such as no ballfields at all). Perhaps you lose sight that this poster (neighbor) has the same rights to his opinion as you and others who share your views do. For that poster and similarly affected residents, perhaps they might choose no ballfields over the inconvenience of having more of them in their neighborhood. Why can't someone be opposed to having to shoulder more of a burden of ballfields in their neighborhood (as Jane mentioned this morning in her earlier post) without being attacked or labelled as a member of some group, however sinister or not? Doesn't it really just boil down to the fact that there will always be those neighblors who are opposed simply because of 'their' legitimate concerns which translate into opposition best understood as NIMBY? Individuals always act in accordance with their own (perceived) best interests. Institutions often times do as well. In an ideal world perhaps your suggestion would be substantially correct. But often times, idealism is illusory at best. Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 08:25 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
They all have the right to act upon the 1ST amendment-- I asked earlier if number of ball fields could be decreased for the Friddle property--because it was stated the 8-10 were too much of a detriment on quality of life for the occupants of 100 year old houses. But no one will tell me if that was even considered. We all agreed that we were for the kids and we needed to give them something--but when their lives are at risk you endanger their quality of life. Thanks Jim I knew you would correct me---now let's not flame. Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 08:22 pm by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
GRITS wrote: They all have the right to act upon the 5th amendment-- How and what in the world does the 5th Amendment (the legal right to not self incriminate and compensation for takings) have to do with this discussion of ballfields? Are you advocating for Eminent Domain in the instant situation? That one flies right over my head......What am I missing? 5th Amendment to the US Constitution Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 08:12 pm by Jim Flynt |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
GRITS wrote: They all have the right to act upon the 1ST amendment-- Grits, I agree with you on not flaming. Not my intention. But please explain now what you mean in context your comment regarding 1st Amendment rights? Somehow or other, I am still missing the point you are really trying to make. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
I and everyone participating in this discussion is entitled to enact upon their freedom of speech--standing up and voicing for what they feel is correct. We all are engaging in our 1st amendment looking for ballfields. Whether the comments come across as negative, positive, factual or assumptions -- people are still entitled to say what they want. Sometimes negative comments can be reality to some and eventually become positive. That is usually hard to acheive if someone is not willing to reach an agreement. That is why we get so many Agree to Disagree final words. It is an easy way out, end of topic so to say. That's just my opinion. |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: There is no conflict of interest issue to my mind that comes in to play on the committees. First of all all the people on the parks committee are for parks and ballfields that is a conflict in that we have already made up our minds on the issue. Also the committees are only advisory so do not make the final decision. Maybe this would not be so hard to swallow if in fact the Parks and Rec. committee remained advisory instead of influential which aided Mark Brown to primarily quote the P&R is in favor of the Marshall property therefore as the tie breaking vote I am in favor of the 220 property as well due to this recommendation. I know that is not word for word his quote, but his statement was strong enough that even though you guys were not the deciding factor, Brown sure made it sound that way. |
|||||||||||
|
Baseball Buddy Member
|
Just a thought. The Summerfield Rd, Oak St, Shadyside Dr and Rabbit Hollow people need to work on getting the old Food Lion building in shape if they are sooo worried about their property value. This EYESORE is detrimental to all in the area. Ballfields would have been an improvement of property. This is a dilapidated and hazardous building with no future. Maybe your efforts are needed here? But I'll bet we never hear or see any of you until it effects you at home. I have never seen any of you come out to volunteer to do any work in the Town to make it a better place. You only show up for your self serving needs. Shadyside could use a good clean up and what about those for sale lots on that side of Pleasant Ridge? Looking at what might happen in your back yard where you will never see it because of the natural buffer instead of looking at your front yard and what all can see every day. |
|||||||||||
|
Hairbrush Member
|
Baseball Buddy, I do own property on Shadyside. I do volunteer many hours for this town. I wish also that I could do something about the food lion but until the ordinances change or until someone is willing to pay the unreasonable price that the slum lord that owns that property wants for it there isn't much I can do about it. When he lets those buildings slid beyond code then he gets a letter of enforcement and he then brings them just up to code. If you or anyone else has an idea I would love it, because I too think the food lion is an eye sore and Summerfield deserves better. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
While it is not entirely on topic, there is an excellent article in today's Raleigh News and Observer entitled Soccer Fields Win Johnston (County) Approval with a secondary headline which reads, Rural Residents Wanted Their Quiet. The article describes the rather spirited zoning battle between a large number of supporters and opponents and the strong feelings if both sides. It might be helpful in the instant situation to more fully appreciate that there are generally two sides to so many of these zoning cases in our contemporary society. Read the article to see what happened and the conditions which were also imposed to limit some of the concerns of opponents. The article can be found and read at the following weblink: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/591850.html |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Sally Lawings persuaded Mr. Friddle to sell her an extra 30 acres of land for the reasoning of needed pasture land for her horses. Funny thing, those are some strange looking show horses grazing in her extra pasture. Instead she used the land to put a cell tower there. How do the resident's feel about this blinking light. I personally can see this emitting flash of light from across 220. No lie, I have been woken up in the middle of the night noticing my bedroom would come to life every 10-15 seconds. The residents argue ball lights disrupt their lives, at least they are not used every night and are turned off. Also, what about their quality of life now with the proof of cell waves being hazardous causing cancer? EMF, electronic magnetic field emits electronic magnetic radiation and poses a risk to your health. As people use cellular phones to make phone calls, signals are transmitted back and forth to the base station. The radio waves produced at the base station are emitted into the environment, where people can be exposed. Exposure to baseball is not a carcinogen. |
|||||||||||
|
Jim Flynt Member
|
GRITS wrote: Also, what about their quality of life now with the proof of cell waves being hazardous causing cancer? EMF, electronic magnetic field emits electronic magnetic radiation and poses a risk to your health. Grits, are you suggesting that society do away with cell phones and that perhaps Summerfield should impose a ban on their use within the town limits to protect the health, safety and welfare of Summerfield residents? |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Nope |
|||||||||||
|
GRITS Member
|
Last night the Bronco baseball teams finished their season with the Summerfield Cardinals. Congratulations Cardinals--well deserved win; and going undefeated for the season. What really warmed my heart was the small, robust boy on the opposite team that gleamed and showed pure admiration to his team mates, coaches, opposing team and Jay Copeland, SRA president while handing out the trophies. He had the greatest smile on a child even though his team had just lost. Great, great sportsmanship, I can't say more on how this child portrayed himself. SRA baseball brings out the best in every child, and I am proud to say that my family has had the opportunity to participate in this wonderful atmosphere. The Summerfield Baseball group really does bring a sense of family to the community. Good, positive and great enthusiastic fun is what I love for my children to experience, learning and knowing that their community is home. Last edited on Jun 8th, 2007 10:54 am by GRITS |
|||||||||||
|
FatPappy Member
|
Thanks fer sharin' that, Grits. That's the kind o' thing ol' Pappy likes to hear. |
|||||||||||
|
Steve Adkins Member
|
GRITS wrote: Last night the Bronco baseball teams finished their season with the Summerfield Cardinals. Congratulations Cardinals--well deserved win; and going undefeated for the season. What a nice commentary GRITS !! Thanks for sharing |
|||||||||||
|
ff12 Member 
|
Will there be room for people to fly remote control aircraft when no games are scheduled? Plent y of room . |
|||||||||||
