I recently pointed out the March 20
deadline for neighbors filing suggestions for capital projects to be considered in the biennial budget process.   The suggestion form and instructions, along with departmental and district council contacts, are available at

http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/CIP_Project_Suggestion_Form.htm

Paper copies are available at the Citizen Service Bureau (684-2489) in City Hall and in the neighborhood service centers.

***********************************************************************************

I was considering suggesting that Miller Park Neighborhood Association propose that the playing surface on Miller Playfield be replaced with an artificial surface, similar to that recently installed at Bobby Morris playfield in Cal Anderson park on Broadway.

I admit a personal interest (I live across the street and "benefit" from the blowing dirt). Another neighbor [Andy Haas] fears that a new surface will bring even more games to the park, and offers below his reasons for not submitting the proposal.

Please let me know (__by March 16th___) how we should proceed here. I append below the PRO and CON arguments by the two Andrews.

Perhaps there will be a an obvious consensus. If not, I suggest that we meet in the lobby at Miller on Saturday AM and discuss the ideas.

In brief: SHOULD THE MILLER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUBMIT A CAPITAL PROJECT SUGGESTION FOR A NEW ARTIFICAL SURFACE ON MILLER PLAYFIELD?

Thanks
Andrew Taylor, tayles@jps.net

***********************************************************************************

 

ARGUMENTS FOR (BY ANDREW TAYLOR)

Miller field, with its lovely new field lights is tremendously popular, because of its central location and easy access. However the field surface [a light colored dirt material] is far from ideal. In the winter it easily gets waterlogged and is barely playable. In freezing weather it sets rock hard and is unusable. In the summer it gets very dried out (despite all the efforts of Parks staff to keep it watered) and blows around in tremendous clouds of dust which envelop the players and must be extremely bad for their health. The dust also invades the surrounding neighborhood and is a tremendous nuisance. A neighbor (a local builder) points out that OSHA rules would prevent him from keeping his job sites in such a state.

***********************************************************************************

 

ARGUMENTS AGAINST (BY A BALLFIELD NEIGHBOR: Andy Haas)
I live directly across from the field (much closer than Andrew Taylor), and
the relatively modest level of dust for a few weeks during the summer is not
a big deal. It is certainly a better situation than the artificial turf
Andrew proposes. Fake grass with its artificial glow will be an eyesore from
the beginning, and it will worsen over time. It will become ripped and worn
and there will be no money to replace it. Fake grass is made of silcone and
recycled tires. Over time it will break down into little pieces of
non-biodegradable material that will remain in the environment long after we
are gone.

In addition to being an eyesore, the installation of fake grass will make
Miller Playfield even busier than it is now. More games means more traffic
and parking problems, more noise and more garbage. The number of games has
been down this year, and I attribute this to artificial turf going in other
places, thus making this field less desirable relative to other fields.
Also, because the field is dirt rather than fake or real grass, it is
currently used mostly for practice and smaller games. If it has fake grass,
it will likely be used for more important league games, which have a bigger
impact on the neighborhood in terms of traffic and noise because they
attract a larger audience. Next thing we know, the game times will start
creeping past 10:00 pm again.

While the dirt field is not ideal from a players perspective, neither is
fake grass. It increases the number of foot and ankle injuries because feet
do not slide across it as they do on a natural surface. Artificial turf also
absorbs heat making for an unpleasant and potentially dangerous situation on
hot summer days. Finally it gets dirty and is not easy to clean. Dog crap,
blood and gum get trapped in the mesh of synthetic fibers. Check out the
fake grass at Memorial Stadium if you want to get a sense of what Miller
Field will look like in 5 years if the Parks department is allowed (or
encouraged to!) install silicone and rubber grass.

For these reasons other communities around the city are fighting the
installation of fake grass. As a result, we are likely to get it if we ask
for it. How about we push for a return to a real grass instead? With the
money for fake grass, the city could provide funding for traffic
improvements, increased social services, bike cops, and ceramic tiles to
spice up the fountain columns. Lets focus on addressing the neighborhoods
problems and improving amenities. Lets focus on the core issues that unite
us as a neighborhood rather than those that divide us.

Andy Haas

Neighbors' Comments on the proposal

I would much rather have real grass. As andy says, artificial turf causes more injuries, and is ugly too... I differ from Andy in that I
don't think the playfield should be kept dirt so that there are fewer games (i.e., I think use of the playfield should be encouraged), but
real grass would be much better than artificial turf.

OK.
So much for competing theories.
Perhaps we need objectively gathered scientific data.
Then we can make dispassionate evaluations upon a sound basis.

After reading the pros and cons below, I agree with Andy Haas who makes some excellent points against artificial grass.

I like the artificial turf idea. Yes.

      Just a quick observation.


 The argument for letting the soccer fields remain in their sad state of disrepair so that there is less community use is sad.  When I purchased my home on 23rd , I realized that part my decision to live on that street would be having to put up with the traffic noise. The fact that it has become a much busier street (because of growth) increases that noise but it was my choice to live there. Now if the street developed dangerous potholes , I would want them repaired, instead of hoping that because of its condition perhaps it would be less used so as to lessen the street noise. You purchased a home near a "community" park, don't complain that it is being used too much or that if there are means to improve it, worry that it will become something the "community" is going to use more often.


I agree that the dirt field is totally unsatisfactory. My children have played on it for years and it is extremely unhealthy in the summer , running up and down sucking in dust, contaminated with god only knows what!

When it rains, since there is no discernible drainage system, they have to slog through small lakes, talk about knee and ankle injuries........I'll take my chances with turf, artificial or otherwise. The fact that there may be a minute amount of residual nonbiodegradable blades of turf left unheeded to populate our streets for all eternity, is far better than not using mountains of old tires" which you say the artificial grass is made of" to sit, possibly catch fire and fill the atmosphere with cancer causing product.


 I strongly believe that a large part of the "garbage or trash" problem arises from the fact that the field looks like a dump. Improve it, make it something the "community" will be proud of and I'll bet your trash problems will decrease significantly.

YES!

I am a mother of two small children on 18th Avenue East and I would love to see artifiical turf. I am a volunteer teacher for Miller Gymnastics and would like to see more programs for my children and their friends when
artificial turf is in place.

I know that the excellent Montlake kids soccer group league and the Montlake Kids Summer Camp would take advantage of the artificial turf. Now that Montlake is temporarily housed at the Miller Annex, and we are profiting from their youth programs, this is the time to improve the turf and form a longer lasting cooperative movement with Montlake. There is a potential for cooperation with Montlake's outstanding kids programs, and I think that could really happen if we had artifical turf at Miller Playing Field.

I think if we include some Montlake representatives in this discussion we may reap the benefits of sharing some of their wonderful programs! I would like to see some youth programs that are tailored to the immediate neighbors of Miller Playfield, like the kids along 18th Avenue East ( and there are a lot of kids!)

Please let me know if you need some support from the busy moms on 18th Avenue East about improving the playfield. I think there are many on our street that would support your proposition.

Count me as a vote in favor of resurfacing. With the irregularity of sand surface maintenance, we are stuck with water filled potholes all
winter long. And everytime I play on the synthetic turf fields, I appreciate them more.

Synthetic!
It allows a more diverse playfield option--less upkeep and will stay open all year long (vs. several grass fields which have to close for
extended periods of time during the winter).

I think that we should want more people in the neighborhood, I love having neighborhood games going on--and understand the concerns with synthetic, but compared to the city's grass fields, I find it hard on my body, but far fewer sprained ankles, etc.

I do sympathize with the lighting issues though.

Count me in the 'in favor of a synthetic surface like then one just off Broadway' group, please.

I can appreciate some of the concerns of the neighbors who are against such a plan, however, I think the surface itself was
mischaracterized. The new synthetic feilds are quite different than old-style "astro-turf" and I would encourage folks to go take a look
before forming an opinion.

I think increasing the use shared spaces like parks will have a positive impact on the neighborhood as a whole in terms of public
safety issues, which I think are more important than nuissance issues such as noise or parking.

As I understand our only choices are sportsturf or sand, natural grass not being an option?

If this is the case, I am in favor of sports turf. I don't worry about unnatural glow or increased use (it IS a park for petesakes). If you don't care for parks, then why buy a house next to one? And please nobody say you had the house before Miller was there. Meany/Miller has been there since the turn of last century. Wishing the park would go away or cease to be of use to the community is not realistic or practical.

I have children who attend Meany and also coach soccer for Capitol Hill Soccer Club. I can tell you that "sand" surface is very dangerous for soccer use and we absolutely refuse to assign to Miller because we are concerned with that play surface. Because Bobby Morris was out last year during renovations, there was increased pressure on Garfield. Next year when Garfield is out of circulation, where will we go? Not everyone can practice at Morris or Judkins. There is an appalling lack of usable fields in this affluent neighborhood. Something needs to be done about Miller. The condition of that field is nothing short of an embarrassment in a neighborhood full of million dollar homes and droves of people who claim to care about children.

My older son plays soccer for McGilvra, so he must practice at Washington field and it makes me nervous. When you fall on that field, your injury is most definitely more serious. Additionally, the dust kicked up cannot be healthy for those kids to breathe. Not a problem in winter or spring, just the other HALF of the YEAR!

Back to Miller. It would be nice for the children at Meany to be able to have a safe field to use during the school day and afterward. As it is, it is far too unsafe for children to be playing on it during winter months. The surface is not dissimilar to cement. Nobody would advocate children playing on blacktop.

Also, resurfacing Miller would have the added benefit of improving the park overall. That cannot hurt the neighborhood and can only increase the value of our own private properties. Whining that a park may have increased use is sort of odd and selfish logic.


If we don't fight for real grass, we shall never get real grass. I don't buy the argument from the resident on 23rd that a field with fake grass and consequently, non-stop league games, is a community benefit. Having additional field use is only a benefit to those that pay to play in private leagues. Most of the people that play in the leagues do not live in the neighborhood. The constant league games deprive neighborhood kids of lower socioeconomic status from being able to use their park.

Andy Haas

(For informational purposes only: not counted in our decision-making)

From: Edward D'Alessandro <ragtime@msn.com>

Edward D'Alessandro
Seattle Youth Soccer Association
Fields Advocate

Hi Andrew. Thanks for contacting me. Here are some points to consider in this discussion.
 
I appreciate the difficulties that people living next to a park like Miller experience. Thanks to all of you for being concerned citizens of
Seattle's parks. This sharing of opinions is a great way to create a dialogue and find some middle ground on issues like this.
 
The Seattle Youth Soccer Association, which had over 12,000 registered youth soccer players last year, recommends the installation of
synthetic turf where appropriate. Miller is high on our recommendation list. It will provide many more hours of quality playing time for the kids on Capitol Hill.
 
Miller is already the most highly used field in Seattle, according to Parks sources. Synthetic installation would not increase use. It would
also not change the types of users, since historical use of a facility is usually the first priority of Parks scheduling.
 
Putting in grass at Miller would make the recent installation of new lights there a waste of taxpayer funds. Grass fields get less than half
the hours of use that synthetic fields do, and thus the return on the investment of lights would be very low.
 
There is a great deal of misinformation floating around about the health and safety hazards of synthetic turf. Consider this point: King
County recently allowed the city of Redmond to install synthetic turf next to a class II stream after considering the environmental
impacts. Synthetic is an improvement in fact over grass: no fertilizer, no watering, cleaner runoff. Also, there are no proven serious safety
issue with synthetic turf, other than a slight increase in abrasions compared to a HIGH QUALITY grass field. And there are few quality grass fields in Seattle right now. Last point: go looks at other synthetic fields in the city. You'll find them clean, and easily maintained.
Recall that dogs are NOT ALLOWED on any playing field in Seattle.
 
Finally, neighbors have a right to love their local parks, and to be protective of them. But they also must realize that the parks belong to
everyone in the city, not just them. They are community assets that need to be shared by all. The common good needs to be considered. The easy access, beauty, and other benefits of living near a park often carries with it the inconveniences of more cars, people, and noise.
 

Edward D'Alessandro
Seattle Youth Soccer Association
Fields Advocate
206-524-6621

I understand the pros and cons of sand, turf and grass. I wish there was a better non-synthetic option, perhaps some vegetation more durable than grass. However, I can't add to the surface material conversation. My two cents are about the community part of the
dialogue. What can we do to incent community use to build community? How about Saturday afternoon pick up games. I'd be nice to be able to play in one's neighborhood without having to be on a team. Give prime time to the community. This may not be a long shot. We've got lots of soccer players living on east capitol hill/cd/madison valley. Let's make it a community asset and an asset to community.

Of course you will get support if you contact the Youth Soccer Association. I don't have time to play this game, but I am sure if I contact groups that are fighting to take back their neighborhoods from the pay-to-play leagues that have hijacked their neighborhood parks, I could get you some more emails.

Andy Haas


I need to throw my 2 cents in regarding the re-surfacing of Miller Playfield. I believe that astro-turf will be an eye sore for our neighborhood. I have seen similar fields with artificial turf put down in parks on the east coast. In a very short time, they deteriorated and weren't quickly repaired. I would much rather see natural grass or sand.
Additionally, I don't think it is fair for soccer teams from outside of our community to contribute to our neighborhood's decision/discussion. The citizens of Seattle get ample time at Miller Park and they will continue to enjoy the field with or without a plastic covering. It is Miller Park's direct neighbors that will have to constantly look at the park. And, the state of the park will affect our real estate investments.
Please do not send your proposal for plastic turf from the Miller Park Neighborhood Association. I don't believe we are all in agreement. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

(Note: this correspondent, unlike all the others, was not in the Miller E-mail database. Update: he's a neighbor living on 21st Ave E.)


I ride my bike across the dirt to work. They probably won't like people riding their bikes across the grass or fake grass, so my personal preference is leave as is. I like dirt! I grew up playing in dirt.

But my broader concern is this: every day I see them spending up to two hours maintaining the dirt. Also, they use lots of water to keep the field moist in the summer. This money and resource could be better used by the parks to maintain green spaces that are now abandonned by parks.

For example Louisa Boren Park where I have worked as a volunteer. If the fake grass is lower maintenance (and I don't know for a fact that it is) and parks uses the saved resources to work on these green spaces, then I'm in favor of fake grass (although admittedly it's never easy to determine how such savings are actually redirected).


Notes from Andrew Taylor

I propose to add a condition to the proposal:

"This proposal is contingent upon:

Setting aside, as a renewable one year test, 5% of scheduled play time for unscheduled neighborhood use, with rules like those at the Queen Anne Bowl

Signage and team/player outreach to encourage use of the lower Miller/Meany parking lot"

Artifical turf appearance and durability:

I visited the Queen Anne Bowl [artificial turf] on Friday 3/17/06. I had been struck by its natural appearance when I first visited it: in 2001 I did not believe it was NOT grass until I tried to pull out a blade! It's been there since ~ 1998, so it will be a reasonable test of wear.

Impressions: the field shows no signs of uneven wear. It's an even slightly dull green color. There is no tearing or fraying visible.

I noted that the REAL grass at the end of the field is in terrible shape: worn out with bare patches of dirt showing through.

Note that the Queen Anne Bowl neighbors have reported that "unscheduled use" can be (and is) used by teams for "informal" practise sessions. They have rules limiting practice to half the field if another team is there.

History of Miller Playfield and the struggle for grass

by Andrew Taylor

 

Since its birth in 1989 the Miller Park Neighborhood Association (MPNA) has been advocating for a better field surface on Miller playfield.

In the early 90's, the field surface was changed to the present brown dirt (known to parks as "sand"). There were, of course, public hearings on the change, and we lobbied long and hard for a real grass surface, but to no avail. The rallying cry of then MPNA co-chair Julie Renick was (and remains?) "Grass in my lifetime". We noted what a good base for grass the present "sand" would make: there was a threatened scheme to march down the field with a bunch of kids equipped with broadcast spreaders to seed the grass ourselves.

Parks Department insisted on "sand" because the field is an established and heavily used lighted field. Indeed Miller was then the most heavily scheduled field in the Seattle Parks system. Genuine grass cannot withstand the degree of use it gets at Miller, and would just degenerate into a muddy mess. You'll note that the grass fields in the region (eg along the Burke Gilman Trail, or at Seattle University) are frequently lying idle (and locked and with warning signs on them) for that very reason.

There was a compromise type of field popular in the early 90's. It was real grass but grown through a plastic mesh in the ground, which was supposed to make it more durable. Seattle Parks installed such a field at Bobby Morris playfield (off Broadway) in the early 90's. It was supposed to withstand heavy use and to thrive under the fieldlights there. It was not a success: soon turned into the aforementioned muddy unusable mess. Parks Department quietly blushed at their waste of money, and replaced it with artificial "SportsTurf" during the recent Cal Anderson Park renovations.

During the Miller resurfacing hearings, and (more recently) as part of a ballfield advisory committee I sat on (and the subsequent public hearings), I became very familiar with the ballplayers and their advocacy groups. All the sports, both youth and adult, of course have their advocacy groups, as well as umbrella pro-ballfield organizations. The adult soccer groups are particularly large and well organized. On ballfield issues they can pack public meetings with hundreds of people, and can deluge Parks, City Council and the Mayor with many hundreds of E-mails. At said public hearings neighborhood voices were limited to a dozen or so people, typically only Andy Haas and myself from the Miller area.

Recall also that the City recently installed new field lights at Miller playfield. They are worlds better than the old-fashioned glaring lights that we grew up with and do, as best as I can tell, do everything that was promised of them, and are really very gentle on the neighborhood.

For all those reasons (new lighting investment, powerful pro-ballfield advocates), it appears that the City is NEVER going to agree to REAL grass at Miller playfield. HENCE OUR CHOICES ARE LIMITED TO "SAND" OR "SPORTSTURF" (the new type of plastic grass). Andy Haas and I have enumerated the advantages and disadvantages of plastic grass at Miller Playfield.

I again invite you to send me your comments on whether we should or should not advocate for a plastic grass surface at Miller. To see such a surface in a neighborhood context I suggest that you visit the Queen Anne Bowl, ( aerial view ) which has had such a surface for several years. I worked with that neighborhood during the Parks field lighting hearings, and was impressed at their political clout: they managed to prevent Parks from installing ballfield lights there. I'm afraid we just don't have the money or the connections they do!