« Not Right to Make Carlisle Pay | Main | Letter to the Editor: Environmental Impact of No Fields »

Guest Commentary: Group Examined 25 Sites for Fields

The following guest commentary by Erik Jarnryd was published in the May 24, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

Opponents to the playing fields project have stated repeatedly that there are better options for locating a two-field complex than the proposed site at the high school. We would appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

At the outset, it is worth noting the town and volunteers have closely examined 25 alternatives for all-purpose fields (visit www.ccfields.org/sites).

While the proposed high school site was identified in 2001, the search for alternatives started many years earlier. The 1987 Concord Long Range Plan identified the dire shortage of playing field space, recommending a third field complex similar to Emerson and Rideout. The plan also recommended that wooded sites be considered first before farmland or open fields. This seminal report provided the town with a mandate to support field advocates in the search for potential sites.

Armed with these recommendations, the town manager and field supporters teamed up to evaluate options. Several opportunities for playing fields presented themselves as the town acquired parcels of land at Harrington Farm, Virginia Road, Strawberry Hill, Hebb and Mattison field. In each of these cases the group’s efforts to secure partial usage for playing fields were politely rebuffed as each parcel was designated as conservation land. The town then looked at the Albano land on Lexington Road, but the determined access to the site was not adequate.

The end of this phase of the search process was the town landfill project. Mass Highway approached the town with an offer to pay $5 million for the receipt of soils from the Big Dig project. These monies would have been used to build multiple fields on the site. However, safety concerns and resistance from conservation groups led Mass Highway to withdraw its offer.

The next phase of the search process was launched with the 2003 Playing Fields Study. This study assessed existing facilities at Emerson, South Meadow, Ripley, Cushing, Cousins, Rideout, Sanborn, Thoreau and Willard. The study’s main conclusion was that many of the fields were in need of renovation, and that the inability to rest fields for a season or two was contributing to this problem. Lack of available space at these sites also precluded the possibility of new fields.

The 2003 study further intensified the search process. Over the next two years, eight additional sites were considered: the Burke land, the Amendolia land, the White Row parcels on Commonwealth Avenue, the Wastewater Plant, Wright Road (NE Correctional), the Scimone land, and the Concord Ice Company land. All these sites were found to be inadequate or too challenging to develop for fields.

This search re-affirmed the high school as the only feasible site that met all the necessary criteria: maximum benefit to both high school kids and youth sports members; good site access; sufficient parking and environmental suitability. The last two years have focused on a comprehensive and inclusive search for permitting and funding, which have led us to where we are today.

While a very large majority (between 63 and 73 percent on the various votes) at the last Town Meeting supported new playing fields at the CCHS hill site, we recognized that everyone wants to be assured all reasonable alternatives were seriously explored. It seems hardly fair that a small number of opponents would now suggest that there has not been a serious consideration of alternative sites — as that has been discussed at many public hearings and was also summarized at the recent Town Meeting. We invite any interested citizens to learn more at www.ccfields.org/sites. There are also hard copies of the report at both town libraries and other major municipal sites. If you have any questions, please contact us at info@ccfields.org.

Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 07:35PM by Registered CommenterWebmaster | Comments3 Comments | References29 References

References (29)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (3)

Hi Michael:

Just noticed the lead for Erik's recent Guest Commentary indicated it ran April 24....I think it was meant to say it just ran in the May 24 Concord Journal. Small nit. Site is just great!

Dekkers

May 27, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterDekkers Davidson

You're right, of course. I had April 24th on the brain, because of last month's town meeting. The date has been corrected. Thank you. All feedback welcome!

Michael Kolowich
CC Fields Webmaster

May 28, 2007 | Registered CommenterWebmaster

The decease charge from newest week's earthquake in south-west China has risen to 40,075, officials be suffering with said.
Chinese aid workers are struggling to locate shield for millions who at sea their homes. peculiar medical teams be suffering with started arriving in the area.
Tens of thousands more are that time missing, and hopes are fading of happening multitudinous people that time animated.
in any case, Chinese media say a bride was pulled from the rubble 195 hours - or eight days - after the disaster.
It was the deficient saving on Tuesday. Earlier, a man was pulled aware from the remains of a power herb after being buried for 179 hours, villagesman media said. Rescuers fed him sweetened incredible washing one's hands of a tube.
The saving feat has now focused on providing victuals, shield and drinking modify for the millions of people false by the 7.9 immensity earthquake in Sichuan province.
Rescuers arrange launched a concluding try to search all upset area.
On Monday Chinese chief executive Wen Jiabao ordered troops to reach every one village and village in the earthquake sphere within 24 hours.

May 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBruinibre

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>