Rebuttal to Dave
Manzer’s Compass
article in the Anchorage Daily News on 11/16/01
(Written by Cortland A. Broberg 11/19/01)
It is time for those who are against irresponsible use of public lands and funds to take a more aggressive stance in making their views known. Mr. Dave Manzer, in his Compass article in the Anchorage Daily News on 11/26/01, demands that 25 acres of prime wooded area in Far North Bicentennial Park be cut down and made into ball fields. Some feel that this article contains much misinformation about why SLL (Simonian Little League) should locate their ball fields on the East side of Abbott Loop Road between Jupiter Drive and East 80th Ave. It is a study of innuendos, half-truths, and questionable statements.
Anger and resentment is building in the community over the approach taken by SLL and MOA (Municipality of Anchorage) Planning and Zoning regarding this issue. Little League leaders as well as politicians must realize that Little League is really a minority special interest group. It appears that it would be wise to solicit community support and select a more appropriate site rather than alienate a majority of the community by forcing them to accept something they do not want at the location demanded.
Consider some of the statements from the compass article.
1) States that ball fields must be completed by 2004.
This time line is at best very deceitful.
During early 1980s SLL leaders were aware that it would be necessary to move their operation at some time in the future. Much discussion ensued over the following years with very little accomplished. As a result the schedule imposed is directly due to inaction of SLL to locate and move their operation in a timely manner.
The public, as well as a consultant study prepared for MOA, has presented many suitable areas for ball fields. Indeed most, if not all, of the proposed areas have been available over these past 20 years. SLL leaders apparently were unwilling to pursue or accept any of these sites.
All these suggested areas have currently been discarded. Now the time element suddenly becomes crucial. Since this time constraint is of SLL’s own doing it should not become a major factor to justify destruction of a prime wooded area used by thousands people throughout each year just to satisfy a minority of special users for 4 hours a day, 4 to 5 days a week, & sometimes on weekends, for 8 weeks each year plus one additional month of All Star play.
Do not allow the time element, dictated by inaction of SLL leaders, to cause decisions that will result in reckless and irresponsible use of the site in question.
2) States that others may use the fields when regular games and practices are not scheduled.
This is a most generous statement that creates a very false illusion.
Each year, from breakup until games begin the first part of May, no one will be allowed to use the fields for fear of destroying the turf. Historically, regular season games are played from about 6:00pm to 10:30pm Mondays thru Thursdays and possibly on Fridays from about May 1 thru July 1. Saturdays and Sundays during this period will see team practices. No one is allowed on the fields on game days from about 4:00pm to 6:00pm due to field maintenance. The month of July is usually used for All Star team practice and some years for Tournament play.
The public ends up with access to the fields during May & June from 11:00pm, all night long and thru the following day, until 4:00pm when field maintenance begins. Not many players are interested or available during those hours. The month of July can end up being unavailable under a somewhat different schedule. Most likely the public can obtain use of the fields during August and September but this is usually the rainy season and baseball/softball sort of phases out. After that you are playing on snowshoes.
These fields will essentially be unavailable to the public during the months of May, June and July. Fields might be available, but un-useable, in August/September and most certainly unusable during the winter months.
For all practical purposes Little League fields will see minor use by the public due to constraints that result from weather or due to scheduling of one special interest group, namely Little League.
3) States the only possible solution is to locate in the SW corner of Bicentennial Park.
The public as well as the Land Design North report, which was prepared for MOA, has suggested numerous suitable sites. There are at least four sites that exist on public land where the entire facility can be located. These have been dropped from consideration for seriously flawed reasons.
A) The area located east and North of a site, which was discussed in the Consultant proposal, near Service High School.
B) The area located along the south side of Abbott Road from Abbott Loop Road to the church near Lake Otis Pkwy. The Consultant proposal discussed only a small area located near the existing playground by the equestrian center.
C) The area located along the east side of Abbott Loop Road from East 80thAve. to Lore Road.
D) The area East of Abbott Loop Road running North from the BLM access road.
1) Existing trails can be relocated to be compatible with the new facility.
2) Class "A" wetlands, if any exist, are minor not major in size, and can be incorporated into the design.
2) Wetlands - Please note that alleged class "A" wetlands combined with the time line, imposed due to inaction of SLL leaders over the past twenty years, is the primary reason used to justify cutting down 25 acres of prime forested area to build ball fields
4) Regarding item "C" above look to the East from Abbott Loop Road. You will observe a mostly black spruce forest with a very small stream of water running through a culvert crossing the road.
Now look to the West. This area originally was the same as on the East side of the road. It has been filled in with waste material obtained from various projects around town. The banks of the small stream flowing to the West have been seeded to prevent erosion. This area is now used as a horse farm.
Astute reasoning would seem to indicate we can use a like approach to construct ball fields on the East side of Abbott Loop Road from 80th Ave. to Lore Road as was used to construct a horse farm on the West side of this same stretch of road.
5. A Wetlands Determination should be requested from the Corps of Engineers for each location so it is positively known what size of Class "A" wetland areas we might be dealing with. To the best of my knowledge this has not been done for any of the above locations.
Flawed reasoning has been used to justify selection of the 25 acres in question. The time line combined with wetlands issues is not a valid argument to destroy 25 acres of prime forested land for ball fields.
4) States none of the proposed sites will be ready by the year 2004.
This statement depends on how vigorously SLL leaders actively pursue obtaining and moving into an appropriate alternate site. If they had actively pursued gaining access, and moving in to any one of the many other suggested locations two years ago they could be working on new ball fields today.
If new fields are not completed by 2004 then SLL will have to suffer the consequences and inconveniences, for a year or two, of using temporary fields wherever they may be located. This inconvenience will be directly due to inaction of SLL leaders over the past 20 years.
5) States the children will not have a place to play if not done by 2004.
If necessary, temporary use of other fields could be scheduled. Numerous options may be available including but not limited to the following. Full size fields are available on the east side of Lake Otis near 24th and at Lake Otis and O’Malley. Fields for Minor & Major league play can be found at local schools. Several Major league size fields are also located near O’Malley and Old Seward Highway and near Lake Otis and O’Malley.
The facts are that SLL has one full size field, one Major league field and one T-ball field available at their current location. They have successfully conducted their operation on these fields since early in the 1980s. The full size field may or may not be in use 5 days per week. Any overflow for Major league fields in past years has been scheduled on other existing fields in the surrounding area.
Visit their site east of Simonian Trailer Park. The park is located East of the intersection of Lake Otis and Pago Pago St. (a few blocks north of Dowling) and see for yourself. Compare what they have to what they say is needed.
Also note that part, if not all, of existing SLL fields and parking lot were constructed on what today would most likely be classified as Class "A" wetlands. They indeed know how to work on wetlands based on their past experience.
If necessity demands it after 2004 SLL will find a way to temporarily schedule games on existing fields. New fields can be completed at a new location and wetlands can even be incorporated into their design.
6) States we must preserve this national past time in our city.
This is ludicrous.
This issue is about SLL and exactly where their new ball fields should be located. It is not about preserving the national pastime in our city.
7) States that plan opponents argue new fields are not needed.
This statement combined with #5 above creates a false impression that if anyone is against this proposal then they are automatically against Little League and against children. This is absolutely untrue.
Just about everyone has testified that the prime concern with this proposal is the exact location of a site demanded by Mr. Manzer. People do not wish to be falsely portrayed as not liking children or Little League so they do not speak strongly against this very reckless and irresponsible proposal and amendment.
8) States that regarding facility requirements they plan 4 softball/baseball fields, a soccer field, a playground and a picnic area.
Over the past year the number of ball fields discussed has varied from 2 to 5. Mr. Gardner from MOA states that the consultant estimate shows 3 ball fields, a soccer field, a play area and a parking lot for 188 vehicles. The consultants sketch also indicated a sizeable building and surrounding area for little League use and for housing maintenance equipment, which one can assume, will be included in the plan. One sketch showed a 25 foot buffer between the back lot lines along Jupiter Drive, another sketch showed a 100 foot buffer.
The proposed amendment states that they "…should include the retention of a forested buffer between proposed active recreation areas, such as sports fields, and a residential neighborhood adjoining the park to the south …". The amendment fails to make a forested buffer mandatory, it does not specify a minimum size for the buffer and it does not provide for a buffer along Abbott Loop Road. Even 100 foot of forested buffer from residential lot lines is totally inadequate for this type of facility. Also a parking lot for 188 cars seems like over kill for this facility
This plan and amendment should not be passed. It needs considerably more work to define type and number of units to be included in the facility, exactly where each unit will be located and the size and location of buffers that consist of existing natural forest.
9) States that 25 acres represents only 0.6% of the park.
This statement is deceitful and misleading. This issue has never been one of how much land will be used.
This issue has always been "exactly where should the ball fields be located" not about amount of land to be used.
10) States that SLL will help to build and maintain these fields with volunteer effort.
Let’s take a look at Case # 2001-123 and find Planning and Zoning resolution
#2001-072.
The second WHEREAS states "…proposing to develop this site for Simonian Little League fields in addition to other community park facilities..".
The third WHEREAS states "this request has been primarily driven by the need to find replacement fields for the Simonian Little League, whose current site will be unavailable by 2004".
The fourth WHEREAS states "…conducted an extensive review of potential sites to relocate these fields.."
From MOA records they have recorded the following figures.
Preliminary costs and fees to date (approximate) $25,000
Design & construction costs $1,200,000
Annual maintenance costs $17,690
I have quizzed municipal employees about this. They state a precedent has been set in the past to use public funds for Little League. When I asked for details on exactly how much and for what items related to Little League there were no specifics available. These details need to be defined!
Also keep in mind that "family togetherness" is an integral part of the Little League experience. Their regulations and past actions seem to indicate that this includes volunteer labor from participants and their families for construction and maintenance of ball fields. Money spent is obtained from willing donations made by the public.
"Donations" may not be construed as a proper use of Public Funds for salaries of MOA employees, consultants, design, construction or maintenance of Little League fields by taxpayers and the general public. From the above it is obvious a great deal of Public Funds have been spent to date on things related to Little League and considerably more will be spent in the future on construction and maintenance related to Little League.
Exactly how much and what type of help is SLL going to provide for this project? Should MOA use Public Funds to directly benefit private groups or individuals in part or in the entirety of a project? There is no question that MOA has done so on this project and that they intend to continue to do so.
The Assembly, the Mayor and the Public should thoroughly discuss this issue. It should be determined if the use of Public Funds for benefit of private groups is acceptable and proper. If so just how much of our public funds do taxpayers want spent in this manner?
The following is a rebuttal by Cortland Broberg Janaury 9, 2002
Subject: Compass article by Art Geuss on 01/02/09
We seem to have an onslaught of pro ball field letters and articles hitting the paper recently without anything from those who oppose showing up in print. Hopefully I can assist in keeping them honest and offer you a more balanced perspective on the entire affair.
About two-thirds through the article Mr. Geuss refers to those who do not want the plan amended as "well organized and selfish folks". By now this is recognized as one of many clichés that raises a huge caution banner. One immediately questions the veracity of any arguments being set forth by whoever serves up such clichés.
Two points to consider.
1. Mr. Geuss is purported to have been a member of committees that formulated the Bicentennial Park Plan and later revised this plan. He lays out his reasons why ball fields were meant to be included in the park. He makes no mention why the following wording is included in the master plan.
A direct quote from the updated version of FNBP Master Plan, page 15, second paragraph is printed on page 11 of the
Information Packet printed for P & Z commissioner’s meeting on 09/12/01 and is shown below.
Consequently, the 30-acre area north of Zodiak Manor and east of Abbott Loop Road should be reserved for community park purposes. Rather than the intense development associated with some community parks, such as extensive sports field development, it is recommended that this "Abbott Loop Community Park" be characterized by "low key" activity areas. These would include a "play meadow" for limited activity pastimes, picnic sites and trail access. Campbell Park could serve as a prototype for the type of park recommended in this instance.
Quotation marks are included in the Plan’s text. Note, the reference to Campbell Park would be referring to whatever condition Campbell Park was in on the date the Plan was updated.
It would be interesting to hear an explanation from Mr. Geuss as to why he helped to author a Plan that included such explicit wording and identifies an area to which such wording applies. Now he promotes building ball fields in this exact same location.
Several hundred people who live adjacent to the area in question have signed a petition requesting that ball fields be located in one of many other possible locations that are available and request that the Master Plan not be amended.
Now, I am not an attorney, however it would be interesting to see what a good attorney could do for these people if the wording of this plan were changed based on such questionable premises as those surrounding this issue. More especially when it is a well publicizes fact that other locations are available for ball fields on private land that was offered for sale to MOA. Also, existing public lands are available such as section 16, which was designated long ago as being set aside for the purpose of sports fields.
Questions would have to be answered by a multitude of parties including Public Officials, MOA employees, Mr. Geuss, various writers of letters and articles, Anchorage Daily News staff, Voice of the Times staff and Mr. Manzer, including his small band of Manzerites. All mentioned have been contributing to polemical circumstances related to building ball fields in the SW corner of FNBP.
2. Mr. Geuss also fails to mention that Mr. Simonian at one time offered to lease land to MOA for Simonian Little League ball fields. MOA refused this offer. Mr. Simonian now has offered to sell land adequate not only for ball fields but for other park facilities. Accepting this offer would keep facilities in the same area where they have always been located. This area is far more centrally located for the population served than the SW corner of FNBP and it adds to park inventory.
No money available? Why don’t they go into a renewable five-year lease agreement with an option to purchase land when funds become available? If that is not suitable why not arrange to purchase land with payments spread over some acceptable time frame? I am sure there are also other more creative financial arrangements that can be made. Mr. Simonian sounds like a very reasonable man who may be interested in keeping the park near it’s present location. If MOA would make an honest effort to approach Mr. Simonian they could easily swing a deal amicable to all concerned and financially feasible.
To the best of my knowledge MOA is not working towards purchase of Mr. Simonian’s parcel of land. In fact Mayor Wuerch stated he still wanted an amendment to the plan that would allow ball fields in the SW corner of the park even if a bond issue were proposed for another location. Another major player for MOA, Mr. Jim Posey has stated he would build something in the SW corner of the park even if the park plan were not amended for ball fields. Such attitudes do not indicate an interest in finding an alternate solution for Simonian Little League.
Please select an alternate location for Simonian Little League. Do not allow the opposition to con you into an agreement where, should a bond issue not pass, we must then go ahead and build ball fields in the SW corner of FNBP.
Vote NO on amendment to the Park Plan regardless of which alternate site is used for ball fields or what date those ball fields will be completed.
Stay informed! Get on the FOBP maillist. email Sandra Talt.