by County Board member Chris Zimmerman
Saturday, April 14
Jay -
I trust you have received a fact sheet from the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Resources that provides some more thorough information about their proposal for installation of synthetic grass at TJ Upper Field and the prospective partnership with Marymount University. I hope this will give the community some better information than has been available to this point, and perhaps clear up some confusion.
I would like to correct some misimpressions that people may have received as a result of the manner in which this proposal was introduced. It has to be acknowledged that the community has not been well served by DPRCR's handling of this matter. Unfortunately, this is not the first (or even the second) instance where Park's development of plans has gotten way out ahead of communication and feedback, and generated unnecessary anxiety. Clearly, there needs to be some institutional learning about community relations.
Along with the rest of the community, the Board first learned about this proposal as a result of a budget work session just a few weeks ago. Frankly, I was quite surprised to discover the almost complete lack of vetting of the idea before its presentation to the Board and public.
I think it is important for the community to understand that
the Board to this point has had little more involvement in this
project than has anyone else outside of staff in DPRCR, and has
taken NO action on it. At this point, it is simply a
staff proposal. The budget to be approved on Monday does
include funds that could be used for it IF the proposal were to
go
forward, but that decision has NOT been made.
More specifically, the proposal presents 3 distinct issues, each of which must be considered carefully.
1) Should the county try a relatively new product, "synthetic grass" (marketed under the trade name "FieldTurf"), to help alleviate the critical shortage of usable athletic fields for kids and adults in Arlington?
2) If so, is the upper field at Thomas Jefferson a good place to install it?
3) Should the county enter into a new shared-use agreement with Marymount University in association with such a field-improvement project?
I'm certainly not prepared to give a solid affirmative response to any of these questions at this point. The Board would need more information, a more fully-developed proposal, and the input of all concerned members of the community before giving a "yes" to all three, and authorizing the project. I think there are some good reasons not to reject the idea out-of-hand. Undeniably, Arlington has a terrible problem with athletic fields. We don't have nearly enough to meet the needs of this community, and those that we do have suffer badly from over-use. As field condition degrades, the risk of injury increases. In some cases, fields have even become unplayable. (TJ Upper has been a particular source of frustration. Despite considerable expenditure on resurfacing - more than once - the field always managed to be reduced to dirt in no time. Kids would be playing in a cloud of dust, which I cannot think was healthy.)
Improved practices are beginning to make some
difference. As a result of a consultant study
commissioned by the County two years ago, we've learned a great
deal more about properly maintaining athletic fields. For
instance, some of the grass we were using was not appropriate
for such use, and the procedures for properly cultivating it
were not being followed.
Unfortunately, it also became clear that usage has to be
reduced to sustain a quality grass surface, especially for
sports like soccer and lacrosse. This presents a
dilemma: reducing the usage on a field extends its life
and raises the quality, but reduces the supply of field
time. It's also expensive: You need fencing with
locked gates, which are not cheap. In the
last couple of years DPRCR has created a number of "Level 1"
fields, of which the now-fenced TJ Upper is an example, more
carefully cultivated and maintained-and use-limited to about
300 hours. This has given us a few decent fields, but in
effect we have had a reduction in available fields for games
and practices, even as the demand continues to grow.
This is why synthetic grass is of interest. I must admit that as a long-time, dyed-in-the-wool, visceral opponent of "Astroturf," I was initially hostile. I am still somewhat skeptical, but as a result of what I've learned over the past year, I've become more receptive to the idea. It does appear to be a very different approach to artificial turf than anything I've previously seen, and may have resolved the key problems posed by the old "rugs." As I said, I'm not yet sold, BUT . . .
. . . But, IF it is an acceptable athletic playing surface, it has the potential to significantly improve playing conditions in Arlington.
Instead of a field being limited to Spring and Fall usage for a total of, say 275 hours, we would have a field available 12 months a year, for something like 2,000 hours. This is obviously a dramatic increase in possible playing time. In some sense, it would be like adding 6 or 7 additional fields, without acquiring any new land. (In the case of TJ, what it probably means is that we could return to using the upper field at the rate we did for years, but without destroying it.) And, although it requires a higher initial investment, over time the cost is lower because of the sharply lower maintenance requirements.
So I'm inclined to think it may be worth trying, to see if it is a practical way to meet the recreational needs of a very urban community in which land is very costly, and there's little of it. Where we should first install it is another question, as is whether we should enter into a partnership with Marymount. I think it unfortunate that the first two questions have gotten so caught up on this last point. To my mind, the tone of Department's presentation overly emphasizes accommodating the University's needs.
As you well know, there is precedent, and reasonably good experience, for the County entering into such a partnership. Nonetheless, it should be clear that this is not about serving Marymount. It's about serving the needs of the community. IF a partnership can be structured that is mutually beneficial, fine. If not, we don't do it. As I indicated at the budget work session, we need to start from the premise that the use of the field by TJ Middle School cannot be reduced, nor that of our recreational users. We certainly don't want to give up all the "prime" playing time. If Marymount can be fit into a program that first meets OUR needs, than such a partnership may be worth entering into.
In any case, while we can (and probably will) consider sites
anywhere in the county, this might be an opportunity to get
some real facility improvement at TJ, that perhaps could be
beneficial for everyone, including your neighborhood. At
least, it seems worth considering. I hope we can have a
constructive and pragmatic dialogue about all these
issues. Whatever is
finally agreed upon, I know the ultimate decision will be
better with full an open input from the community. I look
forward to the discussion.
-- Chris Zimmerman