Civic Alert: Park plan prompts thoughts of alternative sites

Despite the spending, parts of the field were frequently fenced off to allow grass to grow back. While unfortunate, this did not seem abnormal. In England, it had happened at school and in the local park as well.

With the forced mergers, Westmount’s staff was increasingly distracted by the needs of the mega-city and our three councillors became more-or-less full-time. I then heard more frequently of the problems to maintain the playing surface.

When an artificial surface was first mooted, I remember the look of horror that came over one councillor’s face. “It’s unthinkable in Westmount Park!”

From time to time, I wrote about the issue, including in the 2005 election period, which marked our reconstitution. Only now has it become the city-wide issue that perhaps it should have been for the last decade!

It is also the focal point of the shortage of facilities for children wanting to play soccer rather than baseball and football.

Too few people knew that this situation was developing. Now many are asking why is the solution to be found only in the Park and not in any of the other sites that the city owns.

The city has organized a public consultation in Victoria Hall next Wednesday evening. To allow citizens to prepare for it, the City’s proposal, reports from three consultants and 16 summaries are available on the westmount.org web site.

But there is no explanation why the Park is the only place considered when reconfiguring the sports facilities. These need to be known before the meeting begins.

Meantime, at least one concerned citizen is proposing that soccer fields be sited on unused mega-hospital land and using the old train station as its pavilion! At least it is creative!

The WMA’s newly elected board has become so concerned with the issue that it was meeting in an emergency session yesterday (Wednesday) evening, too late for the Examiner’s press time.

Consider a delay

But association president Henry Olders said that he had been in touch with several board members, who felt the city should consider delaying the public hearing.

“People want to know about other possibilities that exist in and around Westmount and if the city has fully considered them,” he said.

“If they have been considered and rejected, the facts should be documented and presented. If not, these other possibilities should be documented and presented.”

Olders believes that is fundamental information which should be made available before any definitive opinion about the artificial surface should be formed.

“Unfortunately, there might not be time to do it by 2 p.m. on Monday, when registrations closes for interveners,” he added. “Perhaps it would be worthwhile to delay the hearing until the other facts are known.”

The WMA is almost certain to make an intervention at next Wednesday’s meeting. “The issue of alternative sites should be resolved first, only then going on to the artificial turf.” Olders repeated.

Mayor receives support

Mayor Karin Marks continues to resolutely defend her proposals and says she has a lot of citizen support.

She challenged my assertion last week that “most citizens are concerned about putting artificial turf in Westmount Park.”

Marks said she has had at least 75 communications, nearly all of them in favour. “I’ve had calls and letters. A few are opposed, but there is a fair level who believe differently.

“A lot of people say we should have proper facilities, the same as communities across the country and North America. The information we have makes them comfortable and they feel that there is no environment problem or risk for kids. Therefore, it is something that we ought to do.”

While not wanting to dispute this with the mayor, it is the opposite of my experience. For every person who says “let’s get on with it,” there are a dozen or more whose opinion varies from concerned to horrified!

Nearly everyone — but not quite all — agree that there is a need for more facilities, however.

Several times, I have asked people to make a case for installing artificial turf and heard almost nothing from an advocate of it.

Where are those voices — even anonymously?

“The vast majority of citizens don’t want to be on a soapbox — but they have views,” responded the mayor. “They don’t want to be in this level of debate and are put off by the aggression shown by some of the letters in the paper and the interveners at council.”

The mayor also said I was wrong to say the lights could be shut off in the same way as those on the tennis courts.

“We have repeatedly said there won’t be any lights,” she said.

A player speaks up

I find it hard to believe that citizens are afraid to speak up for their beliefs and persuade others that their cause is just. The NIMBY neighbours of the Park have mounted a powerful campaign, marshalling all the facts they can find — whether relevant or not — to reinforce their case.

So I was pleased to hear from one young man who clearly thinks artificial turf should be installed and with a clear preference for the proposed Fieldturf as well — Brett Davis, of Lorraine Avenue, who is currently a student at Wilfrid Laurier University.

“I’ve played football on grass, Astroturf and Fieldturf and the latter is my favorite by far,” he told me.

“I know there are a lot of environmental concerns, but what really matters is the effect on players.

“Fieldturf is a lot softer even than actual grass. It’s also easier to run on and, because of the softness, it is not so hard on the knees.

“The turf in Westmount Park was hard and eventually it started to hurt. I think they should install Fieldturf,” Davis said.

I wondered how little kids who play soccer might be affected.

“They probably don’t notice it,” Davis replied, “but over time the jarring accumulates and they will notice it when they get older. There are also the shocks to the body, which are much less on Fieldturf.

“The same surface has just been installed at Wilfrid Laurier and I’ve played soccer on that. It was really nice,” he added.

Teachers list their concerns

One of the central considerations in the park debate concerns Westmount Park School which borders the southern side. The City accepts that the field is used as the school’s play area several times a day.

However, in a letter carried on the Examiner’s web site for the past week, the teachers’ council raises the kind of environmental health issues troubling many who have expressed concern.

Not surprisingly, their worries are for their young students. Has there been a toxicity analysis? What about the smoke from a possible fire? Will the run-off from rain and cleaning agents pollute?

There are also a few more concerns, better known to teachers. What about the infections associated with artificial turf? How will the school deal with them? Will the over-heating mean the school loses its use of the space at times? Will there be intolerable noise through the open windows in the summer?

These concerns and more have been sent to Mayor Marks and a written response was requested. The city should make these children-specific answers generally available.

In the end, there has to be a decision weighing all the drawbacks — known and presumed — against the probable advantages. Some council members appear to have made up their minds. They should be helping the rest of us come to a conclusion in a way that will not tear apart the community.



Community activist Don Wedge can be reached at calert@web.net. His columns are archived at www.westmountexaminer.com, go to Opinion.