Bowen Island Bowen Island
BowenOnline | News | Calendar | Directory | | Accommodations |Classifieds |BC Ferry | Cormorant Marine | English Bay Launch | The Bowen Phone Book | Bowfest 2010 |Road Conditions | Bowen OnLine Advertising Rates |Bowen TV

Bowen OnLine Forum is a community chat forum. Registration with real names/emails required. Please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Posts involving the exchange of money will be treated as classified ads. Info: barbarawiltshire@shaw.ca





Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent

Posted by Anonymous User 
Anonymous User
Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 04:55PM
I'm posting this here, as I haven't had much luck getting my letters printed in the Undercurrent the last few times. It could be editorial policy, or it could just be me!

Democracy and Science

It's amazing what a few words, thrown about carelessly, will convey. Or not, if you know what's really going on.

Matthew Redekopp, in his letter to the Undercurrent, says that in the case of the Artificial Turf (AT) field, "democracy decided". Oh, really? When you look at the facts, any similarities of the Artificial Turf field process to democracy are purely coincidental.

According to both Bob Turner and Peter Frinton, when questioned about how this debacle all started, Council was approached by an advocacy group a while ago, and informed about the availability of a grant from the West Vancouver School Board that could be used in the construction of an AT field (it's not clear if the money could have been used for other purposes). The Bowen Island Football Club (BIFC) played a key role in this advocacy group.

Council thought that this might be a good idea, particularly as an adjunct to the upcoming Community Centre, and assigned Christine Walker as the Municipality representative to investigate. Now, according to Turner and Frinton, due process would have involved looking at various alternatives, weighing them carefully and then taking input from the public (a pretty common sense approach in a democracy, and one that is usually followed). This was not done; the primarily role of the Municipality representative appears to have been to convince Council (and the public) that the Artificial Turf field was the ONLY option. Perhaps this was because, on June 27, 2008, Christine Walker signed her name to a letter appearing in the Undercurrent from the Board of the BIFC and strongly supporting the AT field. The consultant that was hired to assist her played (and, as far as I know, still plays) a prominant role in the BIFC, coaching. So it's no wonder that the process was unduly biased [please note that I do not blame any of the non-Council indivduals mentioned - Council should have known better than to rely on a then BIFC board member for an unbiased viewpoint, or perhaps it suited some member's objectives].

Despite all of this, and strong public opposition (once the public found out what was happening - it was almost snuck through with a minimum of hoopola), 4 of 7 Council members (Doug Hooper, David Wrinch, Cro Lucas and Alison Morse) voted in favour of proceeding with the AT field this past January, but with substantive conditions attached. There was a cap of $500,000 placed on the project. A Plan B (alternative strategy) was to be devised by Municipality staff. Trees were not to be cut, if at all possible. And others. Not one condition was met. However, the ground is now being dug up for the field, and the trees have alrady been cut. The lowest bid came in at $532,000 or so, even with many of the original field features dropped (one can only presume so the bid could get close to the cap) - Council reallocated another $7,000 and money dropped from the sky in the form of a mysterious gift of $25,000. Another $20,000 was requested for more consulting, and granted. No Plan B was delivered. And still the project moved on, even with growing signs that this was not favoured by the majority of Bowen Island (few people I talked to even knew about it, thought it had been killed, and couldn't believe that it was still moving forward with so many other things that Council has identified as priorities).

All in all, I wouldn't call this democracy.

But when Matthew attempts to be a mathematician and scientist, talking about the 'greenness' of the AT field, all I can say is, don't quit your day job. It is a valiant attempt at bafflegab, however.

The central premise behind ANY attempt at saying that a plastic field can be greener than a natural one is reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with a reduction in automobile travel. There was a great of analysis of the Queen of Capilano's emissions in the letter, but regardless of how many cars get on the ferry, it will still run. There will be no savings of greenhouse gas emissions there, period. There might be an argument that fewer cars MAY travel to the mainland as a result of the AT field (thus reducing THEIR emissions to and from the ferry), but since many people combine trips, that is far from proven. And they won't go downtown to play soccer. Science is very inconvenient for the Matthew's of the world, as it requires first, a hypothesis, and then second, proof that this hypothesis is valid. So until someone can prove that car trips will be reduced, it's all guesswork. I could just as easily say that car trips will increase, particularly on Bowen, as people may not make as much of an effort to carpool to the new AT field, and they will still travel to the mainland for their errands (yes, going downtown).

Maintenance of natural vs AT fields was also brought up. Yes, natural fields do have to be maintained with equipment that generate greenhouse gases. But so do AT fields. In fact, AT fields have to be kept clean of organic matter (something you don't have to worry about with natural fields), and it is still unclear how that will be accomplished here (short of hiring a gatekeeper). Plus, everyone is calling this AT field all-weather, when it is anything but. You can't play soccer on an AT field in snow and ice. West Vancouver, which David Wrinch talked about to me ("West Vancouver doesn't have that problem"), can't be compared to Bowen Island - last winter, they had a few days of snow, while ours was still here for several months. The City of Coquitlam (which has weather more comparable to us) has had to develop a snow removal policy for their artificial turf field, but when I asked about whether anyone investigated that particular aspect, all I got was blank looks. Snow removal requires equipment that generates greenhouse gases. And there is no method at present to melt ice on an AT field (directly from the City of Coquitlam).

In short, there really is no scientific evidence at all that our AT field will be any greener than a natural turf one (and lots that it isn't). So we're stuck with a piece of plastic that we have to get rid of in 8 to 12 years, trees that were cut down (and were not replaced), lights that simply have to be put up, according to several members of Council (generating light pollution) so that the field can be played on in the winter (assuming, of course, that the snow and ice can be removed) - and this will cost more money, taking us well over the so-called upper limit of expenditure - and possibly even more car trips (my hypothesis - until I'm proven wrong, just as valid as any other).

Finally, to add insult to injury (and to further make a mockery of the democratic process), a fee will not only be charged to use the AT field, but, as I understand it, the natural field adjacent to it as well.

I don't know what the colour of anger is, but colour me that!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2009 06:02PM by David Chamberlain.
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 05:45PM
great letter, david!!!

did you submit it via email to the editor of the undercurrent or as a comment on their website?

there's other things too....one involves the study on artificial turf as commissioned by Upper Canada College, which David Hocking presented. it is a fairly extensive study and according to Mr. Hocking, he did the mathematics contained within the study to show that artificial turf would release less greenhouse gas effects. HOWEVER the study offset those emissions by recommending trees be planted to such up carbon emmissions which a grass field and trees would do. the field in question was to plant 1,861 trees!!!! this also took into account that the soil dug up would be used elsewhere. this was not taken into consideration by Hocking's figures or Council's decision. yet another budget cost that wasn't factored in.

fake grass needs the cleansing due to bacteria outbreaks. it also has to be watered in hot weather as the temperature of artificial turf in hot weather can soar to 30 degrees higher then grass....yet another unforseen maintenance cost not budgeted for.

let's not forget the online petition by artificial turf advocates that Council accepted. It contains many anonymous names and people from out of country.

AND the contractor doing the job is having to subcontract....what are those costs? it is my understanding the sub-contracts were not built into the quote. let's hope i'm wrong.

the acrylic wool hat was pulled over the eyes of many.
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 05:53PM
That is a very good letter, David, and we all have every reason to be extremely angry over this blatant disregard for what appears to be the majority of Bowen taxpayers by this "rump council" as James has so aptly called it. Given that the Undercurrent has published a number of letters that are pro-turf (or anti-natural, however one wants to call it) and they appear to not take yours, I would suggest you contact the owner of the paper, David Black, in Victoria. He is very approachable. It might also look good in the Vancouver Sun.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o313/tackybridge/calvin047.gif
"I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." Calvin & Hobbes
Anonymous User
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 06:00PM
I will be submitting it to the Undercurrent via a letter to the editor. If it looks like it won't get printed, I'll pursue other means. But these things tend to get out, regardless of where they appear.

[I forgot to add the bit about user fees - just edited the initial post, and that's how it will go to the Undercurrent]
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 06:07PM
Great letter David....
Van
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 06:09PM
There are some important facts you left out in your letter David.

This project has been in the works since at least November 2007 so it didn't just crop up from no where as we are being led to believe. The West Vancouver School District, Ministry of Education and the Union of BC Municipalities were also actively involved. It is quite clear to me at least why this particular project was approved by successive BIM Counil.

David in any democratic government including our own Municipal Council is the majority rules and in the case of the At field that is exactly what happened. You can spin it any way you wish but the fact remains is that when the vote was taken the majority of Council members voted for the At field. This also applied to the previous council votes on this issue. In fact in the December 3 ,2007 at Special Council Meeting the Council of the day approved a motion to proceed with stage 3 of the At field project. This project has been in the works since 2007 David and to place blame on to the four current council members as you have is unjustified and disrespectful. You may consider that this process as not being democratic and you are entitled to your opinion even when that opinion is wrong. Sorry David our Councils have voted in the majority on at leats two occasions to proceed with this project and that is democracy at work in my book.

For all in intense and purposes the $500k ceiling of which $125K was in the from of a Provincial grant is still in tact. The extra money that was received makes up the short fall and therefore doesn't violate the requirement which your comments are trying to lead us to believe was broken. So what, if the $25,000 came anonymously and the remaining $7k came from the WVSD. Quite frankly, I couldn't give a hoot where the money came from as long as it didn't come from Muni coffers which it didn't. FYI, it is very clear from both the minutes of the WVSB in Dec 2007 and the Letter from the Provincial government in Feb 2008 the the grant was specially for Phase 3 of the AT Field project. To suggest that this is unclear is misleading.

What is the difference between the Arts group advocating for a Community Centre/Theatre and The Bowen Island Football Club (BIFC) advocating for a AT Practise field? You seem to be indicating that the BIFC was wrong in advocating for an AT field. The fact is they didn't do anything wrong. The reality is that there is absolutely no difference between the two "special interest groups" and their attempts to achieve their respective goals.. Hopefully the Arts group will be as successful as the the BIFC has been.

The balance of your arguments regarding maintenance etc will only be proven one way or the other in due course and the arguments of this nature by proponents and opponents and their "experts" and their respective studies will continue for years and years come. One thing I will say though is that our CFL football league has been using AT fields since 1970 without any ill affects to the players that I am aware of. Edmonton is the only team that plays on natural grass. But like I say these arguments will continue. Believe it or not I also found this company that actually sells used At turf. Perhaps we won't have to throw out our old At after all.

As for the fees being charged. Why should Bowen be any different any other municipality in BC that charges for the use of their respective sports fields? Councillor Morse made it very clear why user fees were being charged for all facilities and what they were to be used for. Since David forgot to mention why they were going to be charged. She stated that these fees would be used for the maintenance for the various facilities. This Btw, seems quite reasonable to me.

Sue, What makes you think that what this and the previous council demonstrated "a blatant disregard for what appears to be the majority of Bowen taxpayers" First of all David nor anyone else has proven anything of the sort. What makes you think that a majority of Bowen taxpayers are against this project. Was a poll taken? Did you take a poll of all taxpayers of Bowen island which btw includes people who live off island who I might add pay a higher rate of tax then on island residents.

Wendy, if an off island signatory to the petition you speak of is a tax payer for property they own on Bowen then they have every right to sign it just as a on island tax payer does. For example, my neighbour lives in LA, California and has the same right to sign a petition as you or I or anyone else who lives on Bowen Island and I wouldn't have it any other way and neither should you..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v702/vhayden/medium-smiley-053.gif

"Common sense is not so common" Voltaire
and
"It is much easier to be critical than correct" Benjamin Disraeli


Cheers,
Van



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2009 06:47PM by Van.
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 06:24PM
Van,

The maintenance, improvement, and ultimately the disposal costs of this field WILL come out of the property taxes of Bowen Islanders....

all of THAT will "come from Muni coffers".

It is contrary to all that Bowen supposedly represents....and I don't believe for ONE second that the majority of Bowen Islanders want that plastic field...why would they?
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 06:48PM
What ever else you may argue Van surely you must concede, given the continuing and heartfelt opposition, to not just the AT but the whole process, that the project has been dreadfully handled? Hell even the mayor agrees!

Even if you are satisfied it is abundantly clear that a lot of rational, intelligent, balanced individuals are left feeling deeply, deeply unhappy about the way council, this one and past, have bollocksed up the whole thing.

It started badly with no one on council realising just how sensitive this bloody thing would be and then it just went downhill, fast, from there.

And now we will have a half finished AT field that needs fences and brushes and lights and probably expansion at some stage.

Meanwhile everyone's focus (and a fair sum of cash) have been taken off the critical issues that face this island.

Any way you slice it it is a bloody cock up.
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 06:51PM
Just wondering..... what coffers is the money coming out of to repair the damaged grass field when all this is done. There is that major trench being dug across the field for drainage over the edge somewhere, etc...
Will the grass field be returned to "as it was' condition or better?
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 06:59PM
"4 of 7 Council members (Doug Hooper, David Wrinch, Cro Lucas and Alison Morse) voted in favour of proceeding with the AT field this past January, but with substantive conditions attached. There was a cap of $500,000 placed on the project. A Plan B (alternative strategy) was to be devised by Municipality staff. Trees were not to be cut, if at all possible. And others. Not one condition was met."


That last sentence is what infuriates me - did common sense die? [www.naute.com]




.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o313/tackybridge/calvin047.gif
"I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." Calvin & Hobbes
Van
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 07:01PM
Kelly,

No one knows what kind of advancements will have been made by the time the field needs to be replaced. Check out the link about used turf being sold, Maybe the disposal costs will not be as high as you seem to think.

As for what Bowen represents .All I can say is That I feel it represents different things to different people. You can believe anything you want. It still doesn't make it a fact. For one thing maybe the majority agree that this facility and will be an added amenity that is sadly lacking on Bowen Island. You don't know and neither do I. Both you and I are speculating on this point which in the real world means absolutely nothing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v702/vhayden/medium-smiley-053.gif

"Common sense is not so common" Voltaire
and
"It is much easier to be critical than correct" Benjamin Disraeli


Cheers,
Van
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 07:31PM
van....your guess is as good as mine on how many of the 'out of country' petition signers have bowen property.....i'm guessing not all of them do. and what about the anonymous signees???

and what about Hocking's misleading math and the trees that should be planted to make a carbon-neutral trade-off?

democratic? hey, there's been some decisions made in the past i simply did not agree with and muttered a plenty under my breath but accepted because due process was followed. in this case it was not.
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 07:54PM
Investigation is always better than speculation. That is why the municipality should have been genuinely concerned about what Bowen Islanders truly felt regarding this project rather than holding "fake" and demeaning info-commercial meetings which presented no alternative options or compromises, (as was originally promised to the community) Genuine dialogue with the community did not happen. It is this "fact" that prevents many many in our community from simply being able to let this one go and accept the "that's democracy" rhetoric. Conditions set by council itself were not only "not met" but were completely ignored and treated as if they had never been articulated ... Failed leadership over and over again, in my view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2009 07:58PM by Lisa Shatzky.
Anonymous User
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 18, 2009 08:56PM
Van, I presented the facts. You can interpret them any way you want - heaven forbid that you let the facts change your opinion.

I will say that I don't believe that identifying specific individuals who have played a part in this drama is either unjustified or disrespectful. Exactly what are you or they afraid of? The truth?
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 19, 2009 12:21AM
Van. At present this chunk of plastic will, after eight to ten years, end up in sombody elses dump. This is simply ecologically irresponsible. Hoping that by the time the AT needs to be replaced, it will be recyclable, is entirely speculative.

A Plan B was reqested by council of the Recreation Director. It never happened. So much for process.

Yours truly,

Disallusioned



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 12:59AM by Heather Woodall.
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 19, 2009 12:56AM
What I can't figure out, is why the pro turfers are still poking the stick at the pro-grassers. Neil's crazy letter two weeks ago and now this. Haven't they won? What do they want? Do we have to squeal like pigs to satisfy their conquest fantasy?

A little bit of advice: Be gracious and quiet in victory lest you rouse your enemy to new battles you will never win.
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 19, 2009 06:09AM
Beautifully phrased. Is that an original Cameron? Just in case I need to use it, I'd like to be able credit it appropriately.
Anonymous User
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 19, 2009 07:00AM
Well, they won the first battle, at any rate. Don't forget that they still want lights, and to expand the field.

Or maybe there's just a full moon out.

And by the way, everyone should take note of all the NO TRESPASSING signs surounding both the AT field construction site and the natural field beside it. The future is here, now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2009 07:10AM by David Chamberlain.
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 19, 2009 07:25AM
"Be gracious and quiet in victory lest you rouse your enemy to new battles you will never win. "

Brilliant quote, David.

"It started badly with no one on council realising just how sensitive this bloody thing would be and then it just went downhill, fast, from there."

This is about as accurate and simple an explanation of how this started and proceeded as you can get, Ambrose. Thanks.
Van
Re: Response to Artificial Turf Letter in the Undercurrent
July 19, 2009 07:48AM
Lisa, You were a member of Council in 2007. Why didn't Council do the very thing you said they should have done now. The time for this to happen was then not when it is so far down the road that the current council had very little choice but to proceed. I will tell you way. Council that your were a member had any idea that this field would be so upsetting to some then I am sure you would have done that very thing. Finally, one thing about hind sight and that is it is 20- 20. Never failed yet.

Also David with all due respect I find your "Facts" to be somewhat selective .For example why didn't you mention that this project has been in the works since 2007? Why didn't you mention that the previous Council approved with going ahead with this project back in Dec of 2007? Sure wish you would present ALL the facts instead of just the ones that support your position If you had done that then we both would be satisfied. btw, not once have ever ststed that mistakes were made. The point I was trying to make that not all of them were made by this Council alone which you seem to have been forgotten in your comments.

As for me being afraid David. You are way off base and all I can say is that if you knew me you would not have made such a dumb statement.

Believe it or not Ambrose I agree with you. But like I said before hindsight is 20 - 20 and If both councils knew what they know now, I am sure they would have done things differently. I don't recall having ever said that mistakes were never made. In fact I know I haven't because I know when humans are involved mistakes are bound to happen. having said that I will defend anybody including our Council against what I feel is unjust criticism. Sometimes it is not so much of what is written but rather how it is written.

Heather, It may not be true that the old grass will end up in someone's dump. It would appear that you and some other folk did not bother to look at the link I provided in my last comment where a company sells used artificial turf. So maybe our turf will not end up in the dump as is being claimed and like I said before who knows what technology will bring about recycling artificial turf like many other things we use..

Wendy, don't ask me about Hockings comments I have no idea if they are factual or not. Why don't you ask him yourself. It is always better to get the answer from the originator rather then second hand. Yeah what about the anon signatories in the petition. Why don't you ask Council? Then you can report back on both counts.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v702/vhayden/medium-smiley-053.gif

"Common sense is not so common" Voltaire
and
"It is much easier to be critical than correct" Benjamin Disraeli


Cheers,
Van
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login