HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-18 Public Comment - M. & K. Albee - Van Winkle Stadium LocationThe stadium and classroom building proposal should not move forward as most recently described. We must hold
public investment in infrastructure to a higher standard than that permitted in the private realm, yet this proposal
follows the private development patterns in our community lock step- taking little heed of the needs and
perspectives of existing residents and taxpayers.
The stadium plan is not what was approved by voters. Voters approved a project for the current stadium site and
no other. We voted for the levy, trusting that the plan included an “in place” stadium as the district warranted.
This design would not pass a vote of the people and this should be telling. We were misled. Apparently, the
stadium’s architectural plan never was compatible with the voter-approved in-place project. Rather than
modifying the plan, it was decided, without any level of voter approval, that the environment should be altered to
accommodate the plan. The clear lesson to our students is this: if push comes to shove, violate the environment,
not your pocketbook. This is hypocritical and mercenary. The district and the city continue to support minimizing
out-of-pocket short-term costs over maximizing long term social benefit. The school district is telling our students,
community and taxpayers that the long-term and unknown health and environmental impacts of both the siting
and the turf are preferred to the very predictably benign impacts of using in place siting and a natural grass
surface- “Do as we say not as we do” is the overarching mantra here.
The new plan is a mockery of the public’s trust on practically every front. As the world heats up we follow like
sheep, covering one of downtown’s largest green spaces, rapidly turning it instead into yet another black paved
heat island. Rather than actively promoting ways to decrease automobile use, the school district builds more
parking lots. Schools should model ideal citizenship and stewardship, yet they pursue the opposite. There are
myriad ways to promote alternative transportation. Let’s use our imaginations folks! Decades ago, parking fees
helped ration spaces for many schools around the country- including mine. Why not implement a well-conceived
parking fee system for students and staff whose proceeds go to reward walking, car-pooling and using bus transit?
I trust that our schools are teaching about the dangers of global warming, yet this project thumbs its nose at the
prospects. Are we that hypocritical? We need to act now to decrease our carbon footprint, but this development
action bluntly demonstrates an attitude that this is only a prescription for others. We could build classrooms two
and three stories high on the sites of dilapidated single-story ones, yet the district decides to cover more grass and
to remove more trees. After cutting enrollment by 40%, how can there be any need to increase our impervious and
heat absorbing footprint? The perfect opportunity for the school district to demonstrate a commitment to our
environment has been replaced by an aggressive assault on it. It is sad that this proposal has gotten so far, in
support of activities that are such a small fraction of the lives of our students, our schools and our community.
Though perhaps not a part of this debate, it is unsettling that this project ignores many other long-term impacts. A
glaring one is the decision to pave/turf the playing field. I say “pave” because this surface acts much like the black
pavement of a parking lot. There are lawsuits across the country seeking redress from the health and
environmental impacts of artificial turf. According to readily available reports in the NY Times and elsewhere, the
residue and break-down products of the plastic “crumbs” and deteriorating blades used in turf are carcinogens, as
will be runoff from precipitation and the water used to keep the field cooled. Large amounts of water are needed
to cool artificial turf! 65-degree sunny days can cause the surface temperature to climb to 100 degrees and higher.
Artificial turf’s maintenance costs are not even less than those of natural grass since all new tools must be bought
and new procedures followed. Life span repairs will be higher, with complete replacement needed in 15 years or
less. Natural grass maintenance is well understood by our staff people, the tools are already purchased, runoff is
minimized and filtered, the field surface is cooled naturally and the rate of serious injuries like ACL/MCL’s is
significantly reduced over turf. For good reason, many stadium authorities have torn up their turf to plant grass.
Thank-you. Mark & Kellie Albee, 922 West Beall St. Bozeman. 599-3283