Why are soccer fields sacrosanct?

A seasonal lake? Isn't that a "vernal pool" ? Talk about sacrosanct.
 
Kids are fat. Soccer players aren't. Soccer fields are a good public investment. Without being familiar with the area in question, I can't possibly weigh in on whether the location in question is an appropriate one or not.
 
Why are you against job creation? I'd also ask if the city is planning on charging fees to use the facilities (league play and such) if so then wouldn't that bring it closer to being either cost neutral or even a possible revenue source?

You also didn't address what it costs now to maintain that area. I find it highly unlikely that the city spends zero dollars per year on the land if for no other reason than seasonal lakes are breeding grounds for mosquitoes that need to be controlled, skunk and raccoon populations are a serious rabies hazard that need to be at least monitored and keeping the brush under control for fire safety reasons along with all sorts of other stuff that most people don't think of when they see "Empty" land. All of that can add up.
 
TimCallahan said:
Actually, she was a middle-aged lady, and the meeting was at night. Previously, the Pasadena city council had a public meeting on their plan to cut down mature Indian ficus shade trees on Colorado Blvd. because they had a plan to replace them with alternating ginkos and Mexican fan palms. When, at a public meeting, most participants said it was a stupid idea to cut down well established shade trees, the council failed to come to any conclusion. Then they held another meeting, which the misrepresented as being on "tree planting." At that meeting they brought in a bunch of people to support their position - including a weepy lady who said she was afraid every time she went out of her shop at night because the dense foliage of the shade trees made it so dark. Yeah, lady, it gets dark at night. That's why cities have street lighting.

The upshot of this was that they cut down the mature shade trees so they could put forward their plan. Now, that section of Colorado Blvd. is hot and shadeless. Most of the ginkos are not doing well, and it will be decades before there's decent shade there again.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you mean by middle-aged? I should warn you I am 24.
 
Around here, we have a gazillion soccer fields. Most are on public land, and are rented to the soccer group that dominates the area, and plays nasty if anyone dares to complain.

They just ate the model glider airport with understandings that they have to provide access, there's a separate parking lot with "no soccer parking" and so on. Guess how well that works?
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Why are you against job creation? I'd also ask if the city is planning on charging fees to use the facilities (league play and such) if so then wouldn't that bring it closer to being either cost neutral or even a possible revenue source?

You also didn't address what it costs now to maintain that area. I find it highly unlikely that the city spends zero dollars per year on the land if for no other reason than seasonal lakes are breeding grounds for mosquitoes that need to be controlled, skunk and raccoon populations are a serious rabies hazard that need to be at least monitored and keeping the brush under control for fire safety reasons along with all sorts of other stuff that most people don't think of when they see "Empty" land. All of that can add up.
Click to expand...

Rabies? really?

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa/surveillance/human_rabies.html
 
lopeyschools said:
Rabies? really?

http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/location/usa/surveillance/human_rabies.html
Click to expand...

Yes really. California has very aggressive rabies control programs both at the state and local levels. So much so that certain animals (like ferrets, which are more difficult to inoculate due to their needing a different type of live vaccine) aren't even allowed to be brought into the state as pets even if they are spayed or neutered first. The infection rate is so low because of those programs but there are still outbreaks in wild animal populations from time to time and skunks and raccoons are some of the worst culprits for spreading the disease in those cases.
 
Why not raze City Hall to build soccer fields? Think of the children!
 
casebro said:
A seasonal lake? Isn't that a "vernal pool" ? Talk about sacrosanct.
Click to expand...

Again, take a look at the video link. Consider how many trees have to be chopped down, how much sediment needs to be hauled onto the site, the expense of putting in a watering system to keep the field reasonably green, the amount of insecticide, herbicide and rodent poison required, the cost of paving an area for parking lots and the cost of putting in nighttime lighting.

Also, the seasonal lake does have frogs and tadpoles, which most of the kids who go there will have never seen in an urban setting.
 
IMST said:
Kids are fat. Soccer players aren't. Soccer fields are a good public investment. Without being familiar with the area in question, I can't possibly weigh in on whether the location in question is an appropriate one or not.
Click to expand...

Hikers, cyclists and, for the most part, equestrians are also not fat. Again, my objection is where they are proposing to build these fields.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Why are you against job creation? I'd also ask if the city is planning on charging fees to use the facilities (league play and such) if so then wouldn't that bring it closer to being either cost neutral or even a possible revenue source?

You also didn't address what it costs now to maintain that area. I find it highly unlikely that the city spends zero dollars per year on the land if for no other reason than seasonal lakes are breeding grounds for mosquitoes that need to be controlled, skunk and raccoon populations are a serious rabies hazard that need to be at least monitored and keeping the brush under control for fire safety reasons along with all sorts of other stuff that most people don't think of when they see "Empty" land. All of that can add up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the usual attack mounted on anyone who opposes developing anything. I could as easily ask you what you have against peace and quiet.

As to mosquito populations, they don't seem to be that much of a problem in the area. I regularly hike on a trail that parallels a creek. In summer, when the creek bed is reduced to stagnant pools, the gnats can be really irritating. However, I have yet to be bit by mosquitos while hiking. I suspect the reason for this is two fold. First, the frogs tend to keep the mosquitos down. Second, mosquitos tend to be most active after dark.

As to skunks and raccoons, they, along with coyotes, have already penetrated deep into the city of Pasadena and are doing well there. Rabies doesn't seem to be a problem.
 
swright777 said:
Did you stop to think that maybe the mosquito control program (if there is one) is working?
Click to expand...

I haven't, as yet, been able to find anything out about mosquito abatement in Hahamongna Park. I'll try calling the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito Abatement District tomorrow to find out about their operations there and the cost. I was able to find that there are mosquito fish in the creek that runs through the area.

One thing I was able to find out was that one of the main sources of mosquitos in the San Gabriel Valley was poorly maintained swimming pools.

I have never seen any indication of mosquito abatement in the creek bed of the national forest are where I hike. That, of course, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

ETA: People have been enjoying the park for generations without any great complaint about either excess mosquitos or any excessive tax burden relating to the area.
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan said:
I haven't, as yet, been able to find anything out about mosquito abatement in Hahamongna Park. I'll try calling the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito Abatement District tomorrow to find out about their operations there and the cost. I was able to find that there are mosquito fish in the creek that runs through the area.

One thing I was able to find out was that one of the main sources of mosquitos in the San Gabriel Valley was poorly maintained swimming pools.

I have never seen any indication of mosquito abatement in the creek bed of the national forest are where I hike. That, of course, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

ETA: People have been enjoying the park for generations without any great complaint about either excess mosquitos or any excessive tax burden relating to the area.
Click to expand...

One common method of mosquito abatement is to drop some "mosquito eater" fish into any large puddles. Unless you happened to come across them while they were doing it, you wouldn't really notice anything out of the ordinary.
 
TimCallahan said:
This morning, I found a petition in my e-mail to save an organic farm from being bulldozed to make way for soccer fields. This struck a chord in me because the city council of Pasadena, California, near where I live, wants to bulldoze and grade a natural area in Hahamongna Park to create three soccer fields where there is now a seasonal lake. To leave the natural area as is, an area where urban kids can easily get to that has a natural habitat, including frogs and tadpoles in the spring, costs nothing.

To create the three new soccer fields would require not only bulldozing and grading, but hauling in sediment to build up the areas to avoid flooding (remember the seasonal lake). However, this is only the beginning of the costs, fiscal and environmental. Not only will non-native grass have to be planted and regularly watered, insecticides will have to be sprayed in the area, along with herbicides to discourage weeds, and rodent poisons to keep out the gophers. Since the fields would be set up to be used at night as well as day, street lighting would also have to be installed, as well as paved parking areas. You can, effectively, kiss any wildlife in the area good-bye. Whatever isn't killed by toxins will be driven out. by the excess traffic, noise and nighttime lighting. Also, all this expense would be incurred by a city in a cash-strapped state.

At a public meeting held by the city council on the subject one of those supporting the building of soccer fields in the area was a weepy lady (the Pasadena city council specializes in bringing in weepy ladies to support its machinations) who, in a voice near to tears, bemoaned the fact that, "We're running out of soccer fields!" Well, yeah, lady, given that Southern California, like any other region, is finite, and given the relentless promotion of the sport by the American Soccer Association, you are running out of soccer fields and will do so whether these three are built or not.

It seems that the spin that was put on this push for the three soccer fields was that, if you oppose more soccer fields, you're an antisocial s.o.b., who's shortchanging our children. Given the comments made at that meeting, most of those in attendance were in that antisocial group. As readers can probably guess, Im dead set against the soccer fields. So, I was wondering:when and why did soccer fields become sacrosanct?
Click to expand...

The "weeping lady" has been a fixture in public hearings for the last thirty years at least - whatever the subject - and I suspect that there must be an acting school somewhere that turns out graduates to meet the demand.
 
I wonder if she's a mom on one of those teams in AYSO that are taught to throw themselves on the ground and pretend agony if they lose the ball to another player?
 
TimCallahan said:
Hikers, cyclists and, for the most part, equestrians are also not fat. Again, my objection is where they are proposing to build these fields.
Click to expand...

Did I disagree with the location objection? I said I don't know the area and couldn't possibly comment.

Hiking (at least in nature) requires transportation, cycling requires a bike, equestrian requires a damn horse. Soccer requires an open space and one in 22 people having a ball. Soccer's a team sport, which gives peer pressure to work hard where hiking, cycling and equestrian often don't. I would love to see the reaction from a poor parent when you suggest that they have their kids take up equestrian instead of soccer.
 
TjW said:
I wonder if she's a mom on one of those teams in AYSO that are taught to throw themselves on the ground and pretend agony if they lose the ball to another player?
Click to expand...
.
I saw one of those on truTV... a Russian lady got a traffic ticket, and the **** fit she threw was worthy of the best 3 year old!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom