It's easy for you to say that temporary parking for the games will not be a problem since you don't live in this neighborhood and yes taxes will increase. Aren't we paying enough to the BOE in this town and would the revenues raised be added to the town coffers? No, the location of this field is not a good solution Superintendent Polizzi !

Well said Mr Polizzi. I live directly across the street...it is a public street, anyone is welcome to park there; that is where the concept of a driveway came from...exclusive, private parking. It is really beyond me how people in town could be against having a functional field for kids. 70 bucks a year? Really? Folks, that is one tank of gas a year.

I'm not a fan of turf. I'd vote yes it it was sod and do what other schools do to keep geease off their properties - hire a dogs company to chase them off (in the long run it's cheaper than replacing the enttire turf in 8 years). Plus, turf will drain all that water, sod is currently absorbing, to the Hackensack River.

Here are a few facts about turf:

•Heat hazard. The heat-absorbing properties of an artificial field make it too hot to play on in extremely warm weather. On a 98-degree day, the temperature on the turf could rise to more than 120 degrees. A Brigham Young University study found that the surface temperature of synthetic turf at its football practice field was 37 degrees higher than the air temperature.

•Lead. Excessive exposure to lead has been linked to severe mental retardation, stunted growth and death. As Don Mays, senior director of product safety at the Consumer's Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, says, "There is no safe level of lead; let's be clear on that." The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees, saying that there is no safe level of lead exposure and suggesting that levels in soil be no higher than trace amounts (40 parts per million).
•Older turf fields made from nylon or nylon/polyethylene blend fibers may contain levels of lead that pose a potential public health concern. Tests of artificial turf fields made with only polyethylene fibers showed that these fields contained very low levels of lead.
<continue>

•Field Turf, the largest artificial turf manufacturer in North America, sells a lead-free artificial turf, but only if the community asks for the custom-made field. The fields that most communities purchase use lead to brighten the field's colors and for a sport team logo.
•Says Jackie Lombardo, a member of the Sierra Club National Toxics Committee, "We know older turf products contain toxic chemicals associated with asthma, learning disabilities, and cancer. Saying they are safe because they don't contain lead is like saying cigarettes are safe because they don't contain lead. There are so many chemicals in this synthetic grass and we don't know what the effects are going to be not only on children's health, but also what the effects are on the ground water as well."
•The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has consistently recommended "the elimination of all non-essential uses of lead" because of the potential health hazards they pose and has long considered lead dust one of the biggest known health hazards to children; it notes that the combination of age, weathering, exposure to sunlight and wear and tear can cause dust containing lead to be released from older or well-used fields.

<continue>

•Zinc hazard: A Connecticut-based environmental advocacy group, Environment and Human Health Inc. (EHHI), has been sounding warnings about artificial turf fields for a number of years and found support for its contentions in a preliminary study in 2007 by researchers at the Connecticut agricultural experiment station which examined the contents of "crumb rubber" and concluded that several potentially dangerous chemical compounds could escape into the air or leach into water under certain conditions. Levels of zinc found leaching into water were inordinately high. A study by University of North Carolina found a possible link between continued exposure to zinc and cardiovascular damage. •Other harmful chemicals: according to EHHI, shredded rubber could contain other toxic metals like arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and selenium.
•Toxic run-off. When an artificial field drains after a heavy rain, the run-off (which may contain lead and infill material) could leach into and contaminate a community's ground and drinking water.
<continue>

•Increased MRSA risk. Open skin lesions (so-called "turf burns") put athletes at increased risk of MRSA. Studies have shown that athletes who use synthetic turf are seven times more likely to receive turf burns than those who play on natural grass. These open lesions are often the source of contracting and vehicle for spreading dangerous infections. In fact, a 2003 study of MRSA infections among St. Louis Rams football players found that all eight MRSA infections began at turf burn sites.
•Bacterial breeding ground. Medical experts have found that staphylococci and other bacteria can survive on polyethylene plastic, the compound used to make synthetic turf blades, for more than 90 days. Blood, sweat, skin cells and other materials can remain on the synthetic turf because the fields are not washed or cleaned. •Adverse affect on asthmatics. Breathing in dust of ground-up tires could exacerbate breathing problems for asthmatics.
•Once artificial, always artificial. Once a community goes with artificial turf, it has no choice but to install another artificial turf field when the first one needs to be replaced because once plastic replaces natural grass, it kills any living organism in the subsoil making it impossible without years of soil remediation to grow anything on that surface.

When it comes to carbon footprints, there’s simply no comparison between natural grass and FieldTurf artificial grass and synthetic turf systems. FieldTurf is lead free and 100% recyclable.
Eliminates impact on water resources
Eliminates the use of billions of pounds of harmful pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides and herbicides, used on natural grass, that can run off into ground water
Significantly lowers the use of natural gas and other fossil fuels needed to produce lawn care chemicals
Eliminates fuel-powered mowing, aerating, and re-seeding . Gas-powered lawn mowers alone can cause as much pollution in one hour as 10 cars. FieldTurf systems save millions of gallons of gas a year.
Eliminates grass clippings that are among the biggest landfill contributors to the greenhouse effect. During the summer months, clippings alone can account for nearly half of a community’s waste.
Drastically lowers the use of paper and plastic products that support maintenance
Removes millions of tires from landfill sites each year
Can contribute toward numerous Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credits
Is less likely to provoke asthma or allergy attacks
Is not a breeding ground for the MRSA (staph) bacteria

I feel Mr. Polizzi's letter to the Patch comes a bit late in the process. To send a letter now, right before the election and vote on the Field of Dreams is to me a bit reactive. Tax dollars to enhance communities for the long term? Isn't that why Mr. Polizzi promoted the creation of the New Miford Education Foundation? I am sure since the inception of the New Milford Educational Foundation, Mr. Polizzi has worked on creating a wish list and would have most defininately put the Middle School Field at the top of the list? Am I wrong to assume that? Perhaps the NM Educational Foundation can contribute money or hold additional fundraisers for "Field of Dreams" at the middle school. Why should taxpayers always have to foot the bill? I thought the purpose of the NM Educational Foundation was to provide for those "extra" items the school budget could not. As a taxpayer I feel the Field of Dreams is an "extra" and I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being spent this way. If we need a field every now and then, lets go back to Dumont as they offered their football field to New Milford High School football team to play Harrison at no cost to New Milford.

Mr polishing,

Do you live next to a football,soccer, baseball, softball field? Would you want congestion every day of any sports season? Would you approve of the noise as well?
Gam are not played every day or night of the week. But practices certainly may very well fill up the schedule. Sorry. Find a better location!

This field is a necessity for our community. So far this football season one New Milford Junior Football home game and one NMHS home football game could not be played in town due to rain the day before. My daughter cheers for junior football and I have visited some very nice fields, most of which are located in residential areas. We live in an area where we have to deal with traffic on a daily basis, so people parking in front of my house once in a while to attend a sporting event would not be bothersome to me. I know economic times are tough, but this field can add value to our community. Our children deserve a field that makes them proud.

I would love to see the field built next to the HS, but the main problem neither New Milford or The BOE own the property.

To be quite honest I'm really pissed off about the gross mismanagement of funds in this school district. How do you justify giving the physical education department IPADs? What do they HONESTLY need IPADs for? The cheapest IPAD currently available is $500. DEOMS has at minimum 2 of these units. Couldn't this money be better used? How about some new fans in the cafeteria because it always hot as hell in that room? or some paint on the walls to brighten the place up a bit? I'M VOTING NO ON THIS F.O.D. AND ANY OTHER D.O.E. SPONSORED ITEM.

New Milford Residents-
Don't let anyone convince you that the UW Property discussions & the proposed FOD at the DEO MS Referendum vote are two separate conversations. They are not.
CHRONOLOGICALLY the referendum vote comes first- & the results of that vote will impact our town for a very long time.

Vote NO for the FOD DEO referendum, and we will all see the support for the proper community development of the UW property skyrocket. The BOE and other officials will be tripping over themselves to throw their support behind SOD.

The UW property can handle so MANY of the needs of our community (Flood Mitigation, Sports, Community recreation) and build real value for our town- better than any of the other solutions currently proposed.
A NO vote on the referendum will keep the pressure on our elected officials and show a united community working together.

A yes vote for the DEO/ FOD will divide our community stance against the misuse of the UW property. As stated by Boswell- a yes vote in Nov will quickly ramp up the plans for development at DEO, it will be built, be controlled by the BOE and not the residents of NM, and our elected officials will start to ignore the will of the residents of our town- again.

If in the end, the UW property goes against the wishes of the majority of New Milford residents, the FOD /DEO proposal can always be readdressed.

Don't let those with an agenda rush this decision for us all. This is about the future of our town-

The referendum on the proposed field is non bimdikg folks. It is a temperature taker. If the vote goes two thirds in one direction or the other, it is a significant representation of the entire communities attitude towards the proposal. If it is 52% one way or the other, the vote will be completely insignificant.

Please vote no for this. Why not just use the United water property?

If the DEO field referendum is passed, we can have a new field in a relatively short period of time. We may be able to stop Hekemian from building the proposed development, but I don't see them turning the property over to the borough of New Milford. People are complaining about a $73 tax increase to build the middle school field, if Hekemian was willing to sell the property to New Milford, how much would taxes increase? I see this fight taking many years, if a field is built next to the High School my kids will probably be grown by the time it is finished. We need a new field now. As it is raining today I hope football can be played tomorrow in New Milford.

There are many grants that can be applied for to buy the UW property as well as additionally build out flood mitigation and community spaces, fields. I also think an important point is that NM residents would be more willing to consider spending their tax dollars going toward a project that will build real, long term value for the WHOLE community (not just sports programs) for the long run.

We all appreciate the need for BETTER fields, but, please realize, Football is not the only driving factor in our community decisions.

The DEO MS field buildout proposal is not a quick, short term solution- IT IS A VERY LARGE PROJECT that the town will have to support, and deal with the consequences of FOREVER.

Once again football can not be played in New Milford tomorrow due to today's heavy rains.

I have never commented on anything I have read on the Patch, purposely made a practice of not because of my position, however I can unequivocally state that absolutely no official notice of this presentation was ever received by the Mayor and Council through the Borough Hall.

Christine what is r position

Ms Demiris is New Milford Boro administrator.

Some of the council members have kids in the local school system. They probably heard about the presentation from notices sent home with their kids.

FOD, Please take a step back and realize the original UW/ FOD location has promise again.

Perhaps with current local news (lurings) it is not too much to ask for DEO/ FOD advocates to be more sympathetic, even more caring, to the local DEO neighborhood residents who are expressing concerns about having thousands more transient cars parking around their homes over the course of the year.

Seems to me whenever anyone who lives in the local area expresses these concerns (parking/ crowded streets, overcrowding) they are attacked with rhetoric about "NIMBY" and "how they don't care about the needs of the football kids of NM" or about how public streets are not owned by the resident, and therefore open game for whatever the FOD needs.

Seems to me, the opposite is actually true and these local residents care a great deal about their kids and their neighborhood.

I think the FOD advocates are doing their best to provide for the kids and have good intentions, but they could take a step back and realize the UW property, The ORIGINAL location THEY proposed for the FOD, could be back in play for the residents if everyone works together.

The DEO/FOD proposal isn't going to disappear if it doesn't happen before the UW property is fully resolved- right?

Let's all care about ALL of our neighbors and ALL of the KIDS and families of NM.
The UW property is in a much less residential neighborhood, and has much better access in and out that can be monitored and controlled.