This guest post contributed by Justin Traxler, founder of Newton Athletic Fields Foundation (www.fixnewtonsfields.com)
Look no further than the public meeting this past Friday, January 15, 2022 held by the Athletic Field Committee (A sub-committee of the Park and Recreation Commission) for the most recent example. The meeting was set up to get feedback on a new tax on families of athletes for field maintenance. While the concept may be valid, the “proposal” itself was void of any detail. There is no plan on how to improve field quality, no financial analysis, no quality metrics (current, target), no review of how much each program already PAYS NOW for facilities (some private) and no plan to address the $90K programs paid on their own in 2021 to maintain public fields. Newton literally refuses to say how much money is needed to maintain fields at an appropriate quality. Finally and most importantly, there is no accountability.
EVERY SINGLE YOUTH ATHLETIC PROGRAM (excluding baseball) REJECTED THE PROPOSAL and provided countless valid reasons why it should not be implemented in its current form. Following over an hour of negative feedback, the committee unanimously voted to “recommend the proposal”. The only support for the proposal impacting every youth athletic program in Newton came exclusively from the people voting on it. These same people were hand picked by the Commissioner of PRC to be on this committee. The reason given for the approval (in essence) was: Park and Recreation needs more money, they will do what’s needed.
So ask yourself what does it actually mean when we’re told in a newsletter from City Hall: “We reached out to and heard from community members during Zoom public forums and listening sessions”
References: Letter to the committee rejecting the proposal signed by every youth program (except baseball). – https://tinyurl.com/xswzy8kz
Wait, you only realized this now…?
Washington st zoning, zoning rehaul, senior center, gath pool…
The city needs to be reminded who they work for.
Bugek. Not a realization as much a personal and “crystal clear” experience with the issue that’s really starting to negatively impact the thousands of residents who put such a high value on the concept that our city government should have a strong desire to “do what is best for residents”. If they push something down on our residents when there is NO support, it gets harder to actually see what the objective is. Or when they ignore the well defined needs of thousands of residents as has been the case with athletics.
Or as you said” The city needs to be reminded who they work for”.
This is one examples of many. ZAP and the School Committee are two other great examples of the bureaucracy deciding ahead of times what they want to do, conducting a check-the-box public meeting or hearing, ignoring the input, and continuing on their merry way to do what they wanted in the first place.
I’ve coached soccer for five years, three years of travel soccer. Newton youth soccer has great kids, parents, coaches and leadership. Our fields are embarrassing, and the people responsible for maintaining them don’t bother to listen to the people actually using them.
We need an independent audit of how many is spent; not just on this issue, but across the board. We pour money into city government, but results are only getting worse.
One reason there is less funds for the city side projects is that more and more monies are allocated to the schools. This realignment of funds occurred after the year 2000. Look at the city budgets from that time on. Each year funding for schools increased aggressively. Now the city side spends much less of the budget on Parks and Rec., garbage pick up, street repairs, fire and police etc.
The public hearings are still valid but there are few councilors to vote on city side policy. The reason for rezoning is to increase population density and the tax base. However, I believe this is a flawed policy.
Colleen. Regardless of the city budget, if you read the letter I attached to the article you will see a financial analysis I provided. The plan the city rejected had youth soccer PAYING MORE to maintain fields. That is not a typo. MORE. PRC rejected a proposal that would have put more money into maintenance. That has nothing to do with budgeting. It’s a simple business decision made on outcomes and maximizing ROI. As opposed to focusing solely on having more money so there can be increased control of how it is spent. Simple example. Who can report on where the money has been spent from the tens of thousands of dollars paid in the past years to PRC from field rentals? The report doesn’t exist.
How dare the city spend more on NPS when NPS was 60th in the state in teacher salaries and was trending downwards in MCAS and SAT scores?
Ignoring the moral argument, NPS is probably a net positive revenue generator compared to other cities, it drives property values, and in turn, property taxes, through the roof.
Jim, FYI, under prop 2.5 your property tax is somewhat divorced from your property value because the town can only increase revenue on the existing tax base by 2.5% per year.
So if your house was worth $100K and was taxed at 1% in year 1, you’d pay $1,000
Provided your house does not appreciate/depreciate faster than your neighbors, in year two you would owe $1025.
If your house was still assessed at $100k, congrats your tax rate is the expected 1.025%
All houses in Newton have doubled in value, yours is now $200k, your taxes remain $1025, and your tax rate had dropped to 0.512%
So while a great school system can drive up property values, it cannot increase your taxes unless you have voted for a general or debt-exclusion override benefitting the schools.
(This post has nothing to do with my employer, but as always, I don’t speak for them and this is a personal statement.)
There is so much wrong with this whole situation. Honestly it seems like yet another scenario we see repeatedly in our city where feedback of the stakeholders is ignored. Meetings are held to say that the City got feedback when in reality the government body in this case P&R is not listening to what is being said. They just proceed with their pre-conceived outcome. Parks and Recs should be presenting a comprehensive, detailed maintenance plan including a financial analysis. In creating this fee structure there should be a detailed analysis indicating how this structure was created… figuring in the needed expenses, considering the existing budget, and taking into the amounts the youth sports organizations already pay.
Our City the “Garden City” should have decent fields for youth sports to use. We have some of the worse fields out there. The City has not sufficiently maintained the fields and they are in horrible shape. Our youth sports organizations should not have been forced to spend enormous amounts of money that they have been spending to maintain the fields in order to have somewhat suitable facilities to run their programs. What they have donated should be considered a significant act of goodwill and should be appreciated. There is also complete disregard for the benefits our youth organizations bring to our kids and our city. How many kids and how many parents have connected through these programs. These social connections are incredibly important especially with our youngest participants. You don’t have to be the best athlete to gain from these programs. There are life lessons learned in being teammates. I was appalled at how no one considered our younger kids when school hours changed, and these organizations were shut out from the lighted fields that NGS/NYS were significant contributors to. In the end the money was returned but that completely misses the point. There was no attempt to even consider these organizations. Based on what occurred there, any youth sports org. should be cautious in supplying the city with any funds. They take your money and may or may not deliver the expected services. Steps need to be made to consider the input of our youth sports organizations leaders (it says a lot that ALL the major youth sports organizations are against the proposed plan). There also needs to be accountability regarding where the funds they are contributing are being used. The priority should not be charging our youth sports organizations, but it should be providing our youth with quality fields. After that appropriately rent fields to outside organizations considering the potential toll that their use takes on the fields. My recollection is that many youth organizations contributed to the revamping of the Highlands field which did not occur too long ago (I saw an article saying 2017). It took forever to open. I drive by there almost daily and it was trashed over the summer with huge bare spots in one end due to overuse by various outside organizations. Our fields should be an asset to the citizens of our city. Oversight including a detailed maintenance plan along with a financial analysis is needed. This is just good practice for managing of our field resources as well as from a fiscal perspective. The fields don’t need to be money makers, but money should be spent wisely. And please listen to the leaders of these youth organizations. Thank you Justin et al for continuing to fight for better fields!
I happen to share a phobia for faux “input” meetings when a solution for the problem supposedly in question has already been determined in advance by the powers-that-be. I despised them when still a teacher and wished only to be allowed to skip such meetings so that I could work on lessons and read student assignments.
How better to proceed? As for public projects, stage one might involve generating draft plans in city departments. Plans should next come under scrutiny by small, duly constituted committees of public servants, office holders, and informed private citizens. After a focused process, the revised plans could be distributed to the public, who would then be invited to raise points online or at a meeting. The ultimate multi-year plan to, say, maintain and renew courts and fields or to develop bicycle infrastructure or to improve public pathways in parks would truly represent the public’s best interest.
I hope this process doesn’t sound too lengthy or bureaucratic. But at least it is truly open.
Could not agree more.. There is still no master plan for athletic facilities.
PRC actually says they have a “strategic plan”.
They do not. The “plan” has no timeline, scope, current state or future state.
The “Strategic plan” is literally a list of sites and a desire to “do something” at each site.
For your amusement.
Presentation to the PR Commission in 2019 asking for a “master plan”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RtpcmBESuB0MYp0sTOBzcMbk8YFm9Tme/view?usp=sharing
Petition signed by 1,000 residents asking for a plan
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z6VfFMCdbW-hogxeWgWMn62VzcJoGesL/view?usp=sharing
Presentation to the Program and Services Committee asking for a plan.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K13JMJNj5UGbC72W2BTPqkI8iwOyLw6o/view?usp=sharing
Skeleton of a “Current state analysis” I shared with PRC
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15XGr6hmeX7MR247k3GTWmYup-HC6Hr8u/view?usp=sharing
At this point, one may conclude the city has no intention of creating a real plan.
Yawn. Someone did not get their way and is having a bit of a fit on V14. Par for the course.
This is silly: If you do not like the way the city operates, the election process is there for you to vote in folks more to your liking. Newton has a rather robust election season once every couple of years. Plenty of people putting forth plenty of ideas. Looks like Mx. Traxler’s did not make it through the gauntlet. That means, almost, if not completely, by definition that the system which is in place, the one that is so deficient, is the one that Newtonians actually want. That is how it works Mx. Traxler. Better luck next time.
So robust that not a single incumbent lost. Sorry but I see his point. You cant change things in a city where those in power are impossible to remove.
Frank, so are you suggesting we make a rule that incumbents must be removed, even if the voters want them to stay?
of course not! Im just saying its not that easy to have your voice heard in newton if you disagree with the majority and/or those in power.
Dear Elmo,
Have you been walking over our athletic fields lately?
It is a disgrace what Newton has to offer. Every city around Newton is in a much better place .
When practice soccer with my team I have to warn them about holes in the field and to play around them. The city does not care and has not acted for years.
This is it – plain and simple.
For a city which advertises as being a great a city for kids to grow up – something to think about a new motto – maybe great for kids to grow up as long as they do not play any sports.
Newton received $63 million in ARPA funding. From the mayor’s June 24 newsletter:
“I have a number of goals for how we invest these one-time ARPA funds. We should
seed those initiatives that will help Newtonians and our city not just stabilize and
recover but permanently be more resilient, more livable, more vibrant, more
inclusive, and more sustainable. We should invest the funds using the lens of equity,
ensuring all geographic areas of Newton, all ages, all ethnicities, and all people are
supported while we help those hurt by the pandemic. Our ARPA investments should
be strategic so as to complement those of State and Federal programs”
Rather than imposing a tax on members of the community, many of whom have in fact been hurt by the pandemic whether through job loss, inflation, etc. this is a situation that fits the goals that the mayor outlined above.
I’ve had excellent opportunity to provide feedback in public meetings in Newton regarding our parks with athletic fields. For example, a few months ago the City held a public meeting regarding improving pedestrian and bike access to Lyons Field as part of an improved Commonwealth Avenue Greenway. A lively discussion on the zoom and in the chat developed around how large the need for parking would be at Lyons field for ball games, and whether there were good ways to manage game day parking/congestion along with safe and enjoyable pedestrian and bike passage. City staff kept the comment period open until everyone had a chance to comment, and made thoughtful responses and offers to follow up on suggestions.
Similarly, the process around the Parker Street bike lanes, which provide students access to athletic fields, was managed excellently. Same with Beacon Street. with access to athletic fields at Cold Spring Park.
Another great example is the work of our conservation commission, which has well represented Newton’s interests in public meetings with Mass DCR and Mass DOT, which I’ve attended regarding our riverside parks. I have found it easy to provide feedback and to have felt listened to.
Thank you for sharing your experience. My concern is not with the meeting itself or what information is collected at the meeting. The question to ask is how does that information make its way into the actual plan? In the sad case of youth athletics, the leaders of our programs (who are all volunteers) attended meetings for well over a year to discuss fees and no matter what was said and how we said it, there were no changes made and no justification for ignoring our feedback. When we asked how the reporting would be done on the use of funds we were simply told “We are always transparent.”
I guess this may be like the tree falling in the woods. If you go to a public meeting and speak, but no one actually listens…..
As one who has commented at public meetings frequently over the years, I agree with Nathan. The process has improved over the years and the response from sitting members is most often respectful and courteous. However, that doesn’t mean that my position won the day when it came time for a vote.
Those who attend a hearing typically have a personal investment in the issue up for discussion and provide knowledge from their experiences, which I also value and respect. However, the larger picture remains a problem: city funds, even with ARPA added, are limited, with many competing worthy projects that also deserve funding. These are very tough decisions, with all demographics pulling and tugging at city leaders’ sleeves.
Thank you for sharing Jane. I’ll refer you to my comment to Colleen. In this specific case, we already had programs run by and for residents putting in nearly $90K towards field maintenance. We simply asked PRC to enable a model for us to continue this work in a way that also provided more funding overall to the city. I kindly request you read the financial analysis at the end of the letter from the youth programs and ask yourself how the “lose-lose” model is better for our community. The only justification for picking a model that put less money into fields appears to be the desire for PRC to control the funding 100%. It could be a valid request if they had shown a demonstrated record of success and a plan for how to use the funds. They have neither.
Thanks for raising the issue.
As a parent and a volunteer coach for 2 youth athletes, I’ve been disappointed over the years in the quality of our fields and facilities compared to other towns. I understand that creating high quality facilities and establishing an excellent maintenance system requires additional funds. To that end, I would understand if Newton required leagues to ask families to support this additional cost directly. What I don’t understand is the lack of transparency of how the existing costs being charged to leagues are being used today, and the lack of a public plan going forward. Why is that too much to ask of our city government?
Mr Traxler is a remarkably dedicated Newton parent with a long-standing interest in this issue. He brings passion and deep knowledge to this conversation, and his fundamental concern that Newton’s fields are subpar with a lack of transparency in terms of how this scenario will be remediated in the future is – of course – correct. The Athletic Field Committee would be well-served to address the issues highlighted in his recent letter to the Committee – as would the parents and citizens of this city.
It’s people like Mr. Traxler who make Newton a great place to live and raise a family. He obviously dedicates countless hours to the benefit of hundreds of Newton kids. We should all be supporting his effort for better playing fields.
No one disputes Mr. Traxler’s assessment of field conditions. So why do some commenters feel the need to make excuses for city government’s poor performance in that regard? Fair or not, the system that Mr. Traxler is complaining about has obviously failed to deliver acceptable playing fields, a perpetual problem in Newton.
I think it’s absurd that the city charges non-profit youth-sports organizations to use the playing fields. It’s ridiculous that we allow for-profit companies to run their businesses on city property. And the Newton City Council should be ashamed of themselves for not finding a long term solution to the condition of playing fields throughout Newton.
I think sadly for whatever reason.. Newton city government is simply not competent compared to neighboring towns. Needham, Wellesley, and Brookline all succeeded in opening schools to a degree where Newton failed. The fields are a similar story — the city rents fields to commercial soccer clubs, rather than prioritizing some of the largest and most successful town youth athletic programs in MA. The city asks the youth sports organizations to donate to the Newton South field lights — only to kick the youth teams off the lit fields as the result of an ill conceived plan to change school starting times (which no other town has or will adopt).
Our fields are a complete and utter joke compared to every neighboring town–even Brookline, which has prioritized turf fields, but especially our more suburban peers like Framingham Natick and Wellesley who have spectacular grass and turf field options, partnering with the local youth sports organizations to raise money.
I know firsthand the work Mr. Traxler has done to help work hand in hand with the city to revitalize our subpar fields and come up with a first hand turf complex — Park & Rec are frankly a clown show and have shot down every opportunity to partner with local youth sports. And so what you get is Newton Highlands field being utterly destroyed by overuse from a private club rendering it unusable for everyone in the coming year.
Unfortunately it appears Newtonians largely don’t care — how every incumbent in Newton could win re-election after the disastrous school episode is a mystery. But this episode recounted by JT is yet another example of the same dynamic we see in Newton over and over again. Our family chose Newton for many reasons 10 years ago but at this point if I were doing it again I am sad to say we probably would have chosen Needham or Wellesley because of the level of Newtonian dysfunction.
Thank you JT for fighting for the health and safety of our Newton kids – who deserve improved access to safe fields and not higher usage fees without any return whatsoever. The mayor assured me, and my wife, that safe playing fields would be a priority for her and her administration. That was during election season – and I voted for the Mayor in part because I believed her – I am still waiting for some concrete action, not yet another commission, committee or panel that kicks the can down the road. We know that the planning group which was erected will delay things for years when we already know precisely both the problem and how to address it. JT and his group have done a massive amount of legwork with the help of retained professionals and private non profit funds supplied by the youth sports programs – something the city should have done on its own years ago. There is a sound plan. There is a viable solution. The City just needs to really listen and act. It is easy to agree that we need more playable fields – that is fields that are well maintained so our kids can safely play. However, in a city as wealthy and purportedly progressive as Newton it is perplexing that the city has not committed real resources to this effort. Each and every similarly situated town around us has better quality and more abundant safe fields. Its a disgrace. I have observed children get severely injured, requiring surgery, due to the poor and overcrowded Newton field conditions. Covid has reminded us just how important youth sports are to our kids’ mental health and happiness. When it rains, snows, is muddy, is wet – all the private clubs play on the Fessenden and Mt. Ida synthetic turf fields while the city kids sit at home on their X-boxes as the grass fields are shuttered by a Parks and Rec department that is attempting to preserve those overused fields we have left. This is not only an equity issue, it is a quality of life issue. Our kids need and deserve decent fields – and I for one thank JT for working so hard to get something done despite political resistance and apathy. If we all stand up, even between elections, maybe we will be heard and hopefully our representatives in government will ACT to get something done.
Hi Justin,
Thank you for your courteous reply in a space where civility is often lacking. I’m not up to speed on this particular issue and in no way meant to undermine your efforts on behalf of Newton’s youth athletes and their programs. As several longtime V14 posters know, I’ve been advocating (doggedly) for new/renovated elementary schools since 2007 so I understand your frustration.
Jane
As someone who serves on a city board, I am offended by the title of this post, the first two paragraphs and the closing statement. Clearly, Mr. Traxler had a bad experience with one decision and one hearing in the City. That should not be extrapolated to all public meetings in the City.
Serving on a board we spend hours listening to the professional staff of the city, listening to public comment, reading messages from the public, listening the arguments of applicants, and consulting our powers under the applicable City ordinances. The result may not always be the result you want. That doesn’t mean the volunteer board members didn’t listen.
If Mr. Traxler thinks the decision was wrong, he should have his post focused on the decision. He should not cast aspersions across the many boards and commissions across the city, staffed by residents volunteering their time and energy.
I’m stunned the editors allowed such a headline and negative statements to be cast so broadly, based on one hearing and one decision.
I agree with you. This post is well beneath the standard we have come to expect from V14.
I agree that the post does unfairly tar all Newton boards based on the authors experience with (mainly) one.
As for the “V14 editors”, there are none. We either (usually) accept or (occasionally) reject submitted Guest Posts as they come in. There are no editors who work with the authors on these posts.
In this case, I did OK that post because I thought it dealt with an important issue that hadn’t been previously discussed – i.e. the state of the city’s fields and the Park & Rec Commission’s planning for those fields’ maintenance.
My apologies if you, your fellow commissioners, and likely members of other Newton boards were unwittingly insulted by the overly-broad headline and some of the content.
Doug, on further review of my post, I agree that in my effort to “make a point”, I painted too broad a stroke. I apologize if you took this as a personal offense.
My experience has been predominately with PRC, PR Commission and Programs and Services. I have made presentations to every one of these groups. I think the most notable is to look at my presentation to the PR Commission in 2019. I provided a review of the major challenges faced by youth athletics and the need for both a plan and funding to address these challenges.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RtpcmBESuB0MYp0sTOBzcMbk8YFm9Tme/view?usp=sharing
Sadly, my concerns and requests were ignored for two years. The first mention of any program (and budget) to improve fields came at the end of 2021. There is still no master plan for Athletic Facilities. What PRC has referred to as a “Strategic Plan” has no scope, timeline, budget, demand/capacity analysis or target future state. It is literally just a list of facilities that “need work of some kind”.
My frustration with this process and the way our youth athletic programs (who represent thousands of residents and hundreds of volunteers) have been shut out of any decision making has been beyond frustrating. Residents simply don’t deserve to be treated this way by public committees. I have a strong bias to youth athletics obviously. Newton’s leaders do not appear to appreciate that volunteers are running businesses exclusively for residents. We do this at a cost and scale that the City could never achieve. In a way, we are an extension of PRC. Except we are a client of theirs and they are a monopoly so we have no other options. We do actually rent some privately owned fields and have started to look at renting Daley Field (Managed by DCR).
As someone who has run a large non-profit for over five years I have a great appreciation for the commitment required. In the case of youth athletics, I have given hundreds of hours in a quest to “Fix Newton’s Fields”. I’ve also promoted financial support from both youth soccer programs. Sadly, our two biggest efforts (lights at NSHS and turf maintenance) were both unwound this past six months because we could not get support from City Hall.
Happy to meet you in person to discuss further. Jerry R. has my contact info.
Is this something that needs to be lobbied to the mayor?
The optics of several hundred athletic students asking for decent fields infront of city hall would surely get her attention.
Justin – By taking a shotgun approach and blasting all of the Newton boards and commissions, you did a disservice to your cause. You missed calling attention to your issue with the headline and the opening paragraphs. Anyone scanning headlines are going to miss the point of the story which is the problem with the fields and the governance of the fields. Instead you lead out sounding disgruntled, confusing “not deciding in your favor” with “not listening to your comment.”
What a poor excuse for not addressing his concerns. If the people that run this city are gonna hide behind their hurt feelings then there is little hope for participation by the public
Doug, I can see how you made it on to a “board”. Your use of a typical deflection tactic is spot on for this role. As you can tell by the multiple engaged posts, JT did not do a dis-service to his cause. Newton parents are angry with the YEARS of mismanagement of the fields and showing it on this site. You seem to be the one who missed the mark with your complaining about the headline. It really does make you sound disgruntled and confused. Perhaps you care more for your precious board seat than the youth athletes in Newton.
Accurately portrayed, JT. This is Clifford Slater, President of Newton Youth Soccer and I was at that meeting. I asked for a delay in implementing the fees until an accounting of the current state of Newton’s athletic fields could be made. One would think it would be fundamental for good field management to understand the state of each field, develop an inventory of permittable hours (goven a field’s quality level, how many hours is it appropriate to permit that field?) and attribute the necessary budget $$$ required to maintain. It’s actually very straightforward.
That survey would at least provide a foundation on which to build a PLAN.
The answer back was literally, “we are not interested in understanding our field status. It’s too much work. We just want the money. Trust us.”
Unfortunately this is the same group that spent millions of our taxpayer dollars to re-develop Newton Highlands. While much of that project turned out well, the athletic field has already been rendered inoperable due to over permitting and poor management (on top of poor construction). I think we got 3 years out of it before it was trashed.
Maybe expert public input ought to be weighted more heavily.
I am proud to live in a city alongside a neighbor like Justin Traxler who cares deeply about our children & their ability to enjoy sports. He gets how important it can be for Newton kids to have the opportunity to be on a team – and one that plays on a decent field. I am grateful for his voice & passion. And terribly disappointed & frustrated that his hard work has been met with a brick wall – it’s offensive & makes me sad as long-time Newton Resident.
I agree that there should be crystal clear transparency with how P&R funds are used and decisions should require a plan
as to why and how a change is needed. This should be 101 of managing a municipal entity.
Our residents want our City clearly want to maintain and invest in our Parks and recreation assets, I would hope this is loud and clear.
This pandemic has shown the value of keeping active and I think interest in our recreation infrastructure is at an all time high . We should have well developed plans in place and maintain what we have as we look to invest in well though new projects.
There is no money available for our parks because we need to put it all into our schools with these huge number of people moving into Newton with so many condominiums being built in our city. It will get worse and worse.
There is $8M in the “Athletic Facility Budget” (officially known as Community Preservation Act, CPA). The CPA is (among other things) intended to be used for capital improvements to athletic facilities. The funds can only be used for projects on City Land if Park & Recreation requests them. In the past 20 years, only one project for athletic facilities has been done using these funds, Two fields at Highlands Playground. $1.5M out of $77M.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JQpDWzdor2Ha4pHC-kU7spbj5VcDdk8v/view?usp=sharing
I thought living in Newton, and paying a lot of taxes, would at least mean the fields would be in good shape.
Right now, that’s not the case.
How many kids play youth sports in this town? Tons, I figure.
And with so many kids preferring to be inside on electronics vs. fresh air & exercise outdoors, feel like sports fields are even more important than years ago.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. It is frustrating. I did not know that Newton rents fields to for-profit uses and charges the non-profit kids’ leagues. I do know that our fields are an embarrassment compared to neighboring towns we have visited for my girls’ travel team soccer, and that our fees have gone up and our practice times have gotten worse with the new school times. We moved here thinking Newton had better amenities than neighboring towns and keep getting surprised.
We need more transparency and we need better fields. Traveling to games in nearby communities really shows how bad our fields are.
Families might support a “tax” but we need to know that it is going to improve our fields.
The Newton Patch published this story todayabout the City’s fields and the youth athletic groups’ frustrations
Why did the Baseball leagues not endorse this plan that the other youth groups proposed?
Bruce, I do not have a specific answer to your question unfortunately. I can provide some more information on the differences among programs and the challenges we have faced getting Newton to properly fund field maintenance.
One dynamic that has challenged a full consensus across the programs that use “diamonds” and those that use “rectangles” is that they use completely different facilities. In some cases such as Lincoln-Waban field, the outfield of a baseball field is also part of a multi-purpose field. Little league programs have fields that only they generally use (Lyons, Highlands, Richardson, Murphy, etc.) because they are fenced in, there are no NPS little league teams and the outfield is too small (and not really viable for) use by other sports. They have been maintaining the “fenced fields” longer than any program in Newton. This enables them to offer a higher quality field for their players than Newton can/will/could provide. It’s another example of how our youth programs have adapted to meet the needs of their members. Softball also invests in maintenance and does a great deal of their own work with volunteers. Soccer had done maintenance at Weeks for the past few years, but we’ve cancelled that contract since we could not justify spending money on a public field that should be maintained by the city and then pay an additional $50K to the City for field maintenance (details are in the letter).
With funding so scarce the youth programs have sadly been struggling to collaborate “across the line” (sorry for the pun). The only project for youth athletics in the past decade was the construction of a football field and little league field at Highlands. While PRC has been excited that there is now more funding for maintenance, it is still less than is required. More importantly, PRC refuses to even provide a “maintenance plan” showing how much money they need to do the job. Speaking for the rectangle fields, the industry standard is $5K – $10K per acre. Up until last year, the city spent $1K per acre. About 1/5 of the bare minimum. So it’s no wonder the fields were in poor shape. With the new budget, we think the spending will be about $3K per acre. Again, PRC refuses to provide any details so we do not know.
Here is Mayor Fuller’s reason for denying the request for funds back in 2019. Note the mention of the $45K increase. This is how much soccer privately funded for the maintenance of Weeks field in 2021. Note the promotion of “partnering” with youth programs. That approach has since been abandoned.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lmm-ZvP2coyTGII2t_M-_H-R-7UXhW0l/view?usp=sharing
As the father of two girls, my advocacy has mostly been focused on those sports played by girls/women where there has been exponential growth in participation over the past few decades. That growth in female participation has never been matched by Newton’s facilities.
https://village14.com/2020/09/30/when-it-comes-to-gender-equity-in-athletics-newton-needs-to-get-on-the-field/
Youth Athletics is another area for Newton to “walk the walk” on equity and inclusion. For many residents, their “in town” programs are the only opportunity they may ever have to participate in a sport. While NPS provides financial aid, they do not guarantee a spot (Fall Freshmen HS sports are the one exception) or playing time (“bench warming” is still common). Club programs like those renting Highlands charge thousands of dollars and provide limited financial aid. Every youth program in Newton provides full scholarships.
The lack of well maintained and quality recreational facilities in Newton is frustrating. Particularly when many of the towns surrounding us have made more of an effort to prioritize their fields and parks, including adding top-notch facilities for their residents to enjoy recreational activities. Wellesley’s recently built sports facility and Needham’s summer pool with a separate lap pool specifically for their recreational swim program are just two examples that come to mind. This neglect is evident by many examples including: a short-sighted plan to replace Gath with an essentially exact replica of the current facility. Particularly after many suggestions, feedback, and input for ways to make it a top-notch aquatics facility was provided. Seems like that was all simply ignored. The visionless plan put forth is unacceptable for a facility that has served thousands of residents, supports an outstanding 35+ year swim program that has benefitted children far beyond simply sports. The Newton Bluefish program currently must share winter pool time with both the HS swim teams. Newton residents deserve more; another example of a lack of value they give to sports and recreation is not fully recognizing the impact that the HS start/finish times have on after-school activities, including recreation and sports. And the fact that there is not one single public turf field in the entire city, not to mention even a hockey rink is a joke. Newton South only just recently finally able to install stadium lights with money completely fund raised. This is a field that is owned by the city which will now most likely turn around and charge exorbitant fees under this new structure. Our poorly maintained fields and lack of facilities is an embarrassment compared to many surrounding MetroWest communities. The City has failed its residents. It is time for them to recognize the importance of accessible and reasonably maintained recreational facilities to its community and do something about it!
Could someone please expand on why they’re unhappy with the playing fields at Newton Highlands Playground? I’ve seen youth soccer played there as recently as last fall, and to my (untrained) eyes it seems to be in good shape.
Highlands Playground Challenges
– The football field was built too small (narrow) to accommodate regulation soccer and/or lacrosse
– The opportunity to install synthetic turf that can handle high levels of usage was missed. Reasons unknown.
– PRC rented the field on/off all summer including to private (non-Newton) soccer clubs and adult lacrosse
– Entering the Fall, the field was already in poor condition from being over-used during summer. See photos here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Fdr3PBs2mbPHKTAQeyR23VwETxknZy9P/view?usp=sharing
– The field was closed before end of Fall season because of deteriorating conditions
– The insufficient capacity of multi-purpose fields and over reliance on grass fields results in over-use. A grass field has a limited use capacity. Natural turf (grass) cannot be used more than 15-20 hours a week depending on maintenance levels which have been at about 20% of industry standards in Newton. The maintenance budget has increased, but PRC has never published a plan so it’s unclear what is actually required to maintain fields at a reasonable quality.
– There have also been issues with the Little League Field because of poor drainage. I cannot comment further on that field since it is only used by the Little League programs.
I have come to the conclusion that, while Newton can and should make significant investment in improving its parks and recreational facilities for all, the existing sport facilities will never be enough to meet the needs aspirations of dedicated athletes, coaches, parents, and organizers.
All the facilities we currently have really only work well as neighborhood, school, or city-regional fields. They don’t work for city-wide or tournament scale events. They are fundamentally limited by the facility itself, or by access, or by parking. By shoehorning larger events and high demand into these facilities, we overuse them and negatively impact their surrounds. At some point, for example, the shear number of people driving to these destinations quickly risks the safety of athletes biking or walking there.
We can limp along with our existing facilities, possibly for a reasonably long time, but we won’t be able to do what Needham or Wellesley can do without thinking “beyond.”
“Beyond” is building a new, comprehensive, first class sports and fitness facility.
“Beyond” being prepared to exercise the city’s legal “right of first refusal” if one of Newton’s three private golf courses goes on the market. Comprising over 540 acres of land, these golf courses represent the only viable properties that I can see for a large new sports complex. Two of them are close to public transportation, I-95, and current and future bike/ped connections.
I don’t want to preemptively get into the relative merits of golf courses vs. athletic centers vs. other uses for the land. All I know is that a whole lot of athletes from Newton and the region would be well-served by a first class facility that was drivable, accessible by transit, and walkable/bikeable.
Sometimes we need to dream of things that aren’t and ask “why not”.
The Northland property would have been prime for such an application, but alas… Newton has chosen instead to further its toney image by allowing many hundreds of toney luxury apartments to be built on that plot.
Ahh… what if?
In some abstract sense, maybe the Northland site would have been a good home for a recreational facility. However, it wasn’t Newton’s to do what they want with. It is valuable, privately owned commercial property. Again in the abstract, maybe Newton could have negotiated land for such a facility as part of development, but I don’t remember it ever coming up in discussions, and the concessions to the developer for a big hunk of land would have been significant.
We need to look forward, not back. The first step is to have the idea and get community buy-in. The next step is to find potential suitable locations, which is very hard in this case, and be prepared to get any of them when available. In the case of the private golf courses, which are more than 20 times bigger than Northland, the city is granted right of first refusal for any sale that involves conversion of use (source: Newton’s open space plan). That’s something that would have to be jumped on immediately should it happen.
Imagine half of Woodland, for instance, with access to both Riverside and Woodland MBTA stops, Grove and Washington St, with an added ped/bike access connecting Grove St to Washington St. The number of people regularly using the land in a year would probably go up 100x, and that’s ignoring any other additional uses of the property.
Unfortunately, the city passed on acquiring all of the Walker Center in Auburndale which owned three lots and instead just took just one part through eminent domain. They left the balance to be acquired through the city’s new favorite developer, CIVCO, who plans to develop marker rate housing with 15% affordable per their presentable to the Auburndale Historical District Commission last week.
Asked by a few Councilors is a recent Programs and Service meeting why they didn’t acquire all of it the response was that it would to be too complex
Yeah, I hate it when people have a place to live.
MaryLee: I’m confused. Are you suggesting that the City should have purchased the entire Walker Center property and razed the structures to make a field? Demolition of significant buildings within a historic area is rarely considered to be an appropriate option, so I’m not sure how that could have happened. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your comment….
@Mike
The City’s ROFR on the golf courses (or any Chapter 61 open space) would be exercised at the price negotiated between the Club and a third party buyer. Given the size of the parcels and their highly valuable locations, that price would likely be several hundred million dollars.
There are probably more reasonably suitable targets than these two (I would propose the Newton Marriott site). But that’s not as much fun as targeting something private golf. To the barricades!
Donald Ross, I am aware that you comment in defense of Newton’s private golf courses whenever the topic comes up, as befits your name. I purposefully stayed away from the topic of, say, imminent domain to take the golf courses as others have suggested.
My goal is to make the case for widespread agreement that we have a chronic need for a new first-class sports and recreational facility. It is my belief that existing athletic facilities in Newton simply cannot be improved to the point that they meet the needs and aspirations of the Newton community. Therefore, we should have a plan in place to site and develop one when the opportunity presents itself. The city should be prepared to move on any property that becomes available for this purpose.
However, the fact is that land in Newton is expensive, wherever it is located. There’s not much space for a large sports facility, and much of the existing public open space is protected by conservation restrictions. It just happens the golf course aren’t built up, represent a heck of a lot of land, are currently disadvantageous to the city from a tax point of view, and offer the city unique mechanisms for acquisition.
As stated in the Newton’s open space documents, the city already has an interest in the future of the golf course properties from an open space perspective. As you state, the city would have right of first refusal only after negotiation between a club and a third party.
However, that still allows the city many options. The city could purchase the property and work to develop it though its own master plan, for instance. Far more likely, it could use its permitting, leverage and other mechanisms to forge a public-private partnership and gain important new civic infrastructure.
I believe a sports and recreation facility with additional conservation land restrictions would be a natural and mutually appealing element of such a development process. The city has an enormous amount of leverage in shaping this kind of development. A visionary strategic plan on the city’s part may well provide any prospective purchaser with more certainty that their own development plans would get approved. That makes the property more valuable.
Everybody wins.
@Mike
I would also happily defend Newton’s public golf courses, but for some reason nobody finds them as interesting to target.
We are in full agreement that the City would benefit from a first class sports and recreation facility. It is worth noting that our neighbors in Wellesley created a first-rate complex *at no cost* (other than user fees) to the town through a public-private partnership, and it would be amazing to see a similar effort here. I’m fully bought in on such a proposal, I just don’t see the golf courses as particularly viable projects given their cost. Only Woodland would be usable for such a purpose – Brae Burn, Charles River and Newton Commonwealth (to their credit) have almost no flat land of the scale necessary to build athletic fields.
I would argue that the City should seriously consider the Marriott site – the hotel is a tired shell of itself, and the site provides access to the Charles River and is adjacent to an existing City park. We could really do something spectacular there.
Mike, that is a big idea, but as Eisenhower said “Whenever I run into a problem I can’t solve, I always make it bigger. I can never solve it by trying to make it smaller, but if I make it big enough, I can begin to see the outlines of a solution.”
Newton is no longer a comparable community to either Wellesley or Needham. Wellesley has had about 40 overrides and Needham has had over 30 in the same period of time that Newton has had three. If the community wants improved athletic fields, a debt exclusion override is the one possible way to pay for them. It appears to be community support and a DE could be one solution to the problem.
The OP is simply asking for full accounting of funds. Apparently, that is too much to ask.
As far as Newton’s need for a first-class sports facility, I wonder if this approach provides the solution that JT Traxler and his coalition seek. As a parent of two children who played, between them, Newton soccer, softball, baseball, tennis, and basketball, I assure you that the Garden City needs a multiplicity of fields and courts. Presumably, we have indoor basketball covered. The city’s soccer, baseball, and softball programs, on the other hand, require dozens of sites, and herein lies the problem: how can the city manage to maintain a sufficient number of them?
It takes lots of money and a solid plan going forward. What is to be done?
@Mike Halle– I love big ideas. I’m a big idea kinda guy. But since the City has historically done such a poor job maintaining our athletic fields, why do you think they’d do a good job managing a world-class athletic facility?
Mike, First, I don’t think “the city” is a static or monolithic thing. Second, the city’s investment in a facility like NNHS or our new elementary schools has shown that the end product of our sometimes crazy process can be good. Third, maintaining a well built central facility is often easier than bringing a bunch of neglected smaller ones up to standard simply because it’s centralized and upkeep can be planned from the start.
And, finally, such a level of pessimism is self defeating. It’s an attitude that is too common here. It is why we don’t have nice things. “You’ll just break it anyway.” We need more reasons why people love to live here. We need more ways for our community to improve the lives of its citizens. We have lost a lot of that, and fixing it piece be piece is hard. Let’s make a bang.
And let’s not stop. Site a public performance arts space near it. And a great playground. With splash pads. For one of the most affluent communities in the US, we sure spend a whole lot of time talking about what we can’t do.
Mike, While NNHS could be considered a success (easy to do with $200M) the athletic fields at NNHS are absolutely NOT as success. The football/soccer field was built without lights. NNHS is now fund raising from parents and local businesses to cover this miss. The baseball field has had to be adjusted for safety several times. New higher netting has been put in so residents on Hull street don’t continue to have batted balls hit the front of their house. The Softball field floods with the slightest bit of rain. Just one more example of Newton not knowing how to design, build, or maintain athletic fields.
@Mike–
Great response, but I’m not at all convinced the City of Newton should build a large scale athletic facility. If you want to talk about a public-private partnership for that purpose, I’d be in support of exploring those opportunities. I’d suggest that conversation should start with Boston College, which resides mostly within city limits and already has the type of facilities you are suggesting.
First, I’d like to see the City Council put forward a long-term solution for maintaining the athletic fields we already have. I believe we should be installing more artificial playing surfaces to reduce maintenance. I also believe the city should solicit help maintaining our playing fields from Newton’s private golf courses, at least in an advisory capacity. Professional greenskeepers have a much larger knowledge base about turf than anyone who works for the city.
In my general opinion however, the people of Newton are best served when our city government sticks to what it was designed for and what it does best… schools, parks, public safety, and infrastructure.
Mike, respectfully, I believe your line of thought is taking us down the well-worn Newton path, fixating on why we can’t or shouldn’t do something in a particular way, to the point that itleads us to inaction and to perpetuating a status quo that no one likes.
I would suggest flipping things around. With some leadership and vision, I bet we can build fairly wide consensus that we should have high quality neighborhood parks and athletic facilities, beyond where we are today. We can also make the case that kids and adults would benefit greatly from facilities that serve more or all of the city, such as a four season pool or athletic fields that could host tournaments and larger crowds in ways that none of our existing facilities can, now or in the future. And if we can focus on this second point, we can prove or disprove whether it can be done by improving existing facilities. I think it becomes quickly evident that’s true, but only when we free ourselves to express what we actually really want.
If we get that far, we have already done something, something new: built consensus around a plan for the future.
The next step is asking how to make it happen. It won’t be fast. And honestly, the how is less important than having an agreement on what success would mean. City built? Development partner? Institutional partner? Those are (very large) implementation details we will never explore if we don’t say, “this is what we want”.
Yes, the original post might be about accountability/responsiveness/communication, and that stuff is important. But they are means to an end, and we should be talking a lot more about that end, the one we really want rather the one we think we have to settle for. Right now, I think there is widespread discontent about where we are settling with regard to the future of our fields, and even that might not be viable. For example, Albemarle should definitely be improved because so many teams play there. But better fields and a better pool mean higher capacity, which means more parking demand for a single lane “parking lot” with one entrance, reducing pedestrian and bike safety, and built next to a brook that floods enough to wash cars away.
My case is that we can only put so much pressure on these fields and facilities. Then we have to look beyond.
I like the way you think, Mike. And I love your optimism. Personally, I do tend to temper my expectations of local government. But that’s a perspective born of experience as opposed to simply pessimism. In the past I have enthusiastically supported many big ideas in Newton, from building a new NNHS to developing Mass Pike air-rights. I embrace change!
In the case of Mr Traxler, I don’t believe the issue is one of communication with either the Athletic Field Committee or Parks and Rec. He has made his position clear, and they have heard him. The problem is that they’ve chosen to ignore him.
Digging a little deeper, the reality is that the condition of Newton’s athletic fields has been a problem for two decades. Maintaining these fields is part of the fundamental mission we assign to our elected officials. In my opinion, the poor condition of our playing fields falls squarely on the City Council, and the real issue is that Council members often focus on personal agenda items at the expense of their core mission.
Mike, I am actually not sure what if any power the City Council has over the “Executive office” with regards to this issue. The City Council can only vote no on projects and vote no on the City budget in its entirety. The CC even unanimously passed a non-binding resolution last year. It calls for a plan among other things that have not been committed to.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13iAve7TjAJjs8kC5iNAIunKngd1v6BAF/view?usp=sharing
Meryl, I can’t seem to reply to your comment so I will paste here:
MaryLee: I’m confused. Are you suggesting that the City should have purchased the entire Walker Center property and razed the structures to make a field? Demolition of significant buildings within a historic area is rarely considered to be an appropriate option, so I’m not sure how that could have happened. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your comment….
Not sure where you got that. No. I am not proposing that the city acquire the property and demo the existing building for a field. I am suggesting that they acquire the whole property and figure out how to maximize their goal for affordable housing while saving the historic structures.
Lets be clear. While thankfully most of those structures must remain, CIVCO can and will demo the interiors as those have no protection and their goal is to maximize profit, not affordable housing. Their stated commitment is 15% affordable.
If the city acquired it, they don’t have that profit motive and might actually figure out how to repurpose those “dormatory” type interiors as some sort of transitional housing.
Let’s be clear. CIVCO will demo those interiors and no one can stop that
MaryLee,
How much will property taxes increase for the city to build 5000 affordable units and subsidize them in perpetuity?
Would be interesting to see the existing costs(loss of property tax + lost Opportunity cost) to the city for the units they already subsidize.. which were purchased when land/construction costs wereva mere fraction of today.
Once we have those numbers, it makes sense to start the debate
I think we may have reached a state I’ve seen on V14 a few times.
A discussion on just about anything can turn into a discussion on one of many Newton “hot topics”
Can I respectfully request we remain focused on athletics in Newton
For me, that is a topic that deserves attention from our City Leaders, but gets none.
Great thoughts Mike.
Justin – Have you considered lobbying for a DE dedicated to improving the city’s athletic fields?
What’s a DE?
Debt exclusion override – one where the funds must be used for a particular project.
Jane
What happened with the asst superintendent at NPS who shredded important special education docs? Heard she quietly walked away b4 being cut loose. I know many parents who have kids in spec Ed and they aren’t happy.
I’m not sure why this question is directed to me or why it’s included in a thread about the condition of the city’s athletic fields. As an aside and an FYI, personnel information is completely confidential.
Jane,
I have personally made multiple attempts to work with City Hall on funding for the past three years. This includes the youth programs offering to help finance projects. We’ve never been able to get any discussions to take place. As with the Gath Pool, the administration restricts the solutions based on “budget available”. We are now begging for a comprehensive plan so decisions can be made based on what funding is available in CPA, CIP, Private, etc. There is no plan and there is no indication there will be a plan. Thus far, the most successful project youth soccer has completed was with the Fessenden School where we now pay to rent turf field space with lights. Something unavailable to us with Newton’s facilities.
The last attempt that was made to help fund projects was the $100K soccer provided NSHS Boosters(in exchange for future rental credits on the same field) to buy new Stadium lights. After the HS schedule changed, the field became unavailable to youth programs and rather than working with us on a solution, a decision was made return our funds (reduced by the rentals we had already made).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B_ci_0ZHABXtratCAwrYMFnFGqHb39RG/view?usp=sharing
Here is a report from the Dec 8, 2021 Prog and Services Committee on the program to improve athletic fields.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newtonma.gov%2Fhome%2Fshowpublisheddocument%2F78642%2F637753487410100000&clen=2841332
Notable Discussion on Lack of Any Plan:
City Councilors asked for a plan:
The Council needs to know so it can determine how to meet the Newton specific challenges and close this gap. The plan should be shown even if not fully complete yet.
Ms. Banks responded
That PRC is at a point with a strategic plan for the next five years and is helped with resources such as the Open Space & Recreation Plan, the CIP, and the Fields Committee meetings. There is no shortage of projects and there is a push to move them forward.
Justin,
I was involved with NGS about 15 years ago. I am shocked to read about the dishonest way that this has been handled but not really surprised given the lack of support NGS received back then,. Newton has a long tradition of undervaluing youth sports and placing a greater priority on adult activities. Thanks to your efforts the shabby treatment of youth sports is getting exposed.
According to a google search there are 3 billionaires in Newton with a combined worth of $13.6 billion. Could be fake news – but there are some seriously wealthy people in Newton.
In my home town – liberal Madison Wisconsin – the City encourages rich people to donate in exchange for their names on public parks, buildings, etc.
Whenever I’ve suggested it in Newton, for example, improving high school sports facilities, I’ve always been told it’s unfair, inequitable, etc. Never understood why, there is so much that could be improved with a grand donation – senior center, commuter rail stations, parks, pools…. Who cares if a rich person’s name is slapped on top of it.
https://patch.com/massachusetts/boston/forbes-ranks-all-18-billionaires-ma
This idea of private sponsors has been presented multiple times. No one in the Administration ever brings it up for a discussion. Using “equity” as the reason is an easy excuse for not trying to solve a problem. In addition, there is a circular argument used for not doing capital projects. The city says they do not have the funds before they even explore how to get them. This is the excuse being used now for building new synthetic turf fields which every other municipality near us has except Newton.
Many other cities lease land to their community athletic programs. They see the value that these programs provide the community. Newton refuses to consider this. The reason is that “we cannot allocate public land to a specific organization”. That is a false statement. The City does this all the time. Look no further than the brand new Little League field at Highlands park used by one program.
What is the downside of at least exploring how to solve these challenges?
I understand Mr. Traxler’s frustration. While of course, every person who speaks up at a public meeting can’t always get her or his way — as pointed out by some posters in this thread — here is a situation where his experience mirrors a long history of slow-walking change on the issue of improving Newton’s athletics fields for our children. I’ve had numerous conversations with Newton officials and candidates for office. There’s always sympathy but clearly no action.
What then? Newton residents who want to see our city up our game to the level of peer communities need to organize in ways that elected officials understand that votes are at stake. Improving our Newton’s fields must rise to a “voting issue” on which the ambitions of this or future mayors and councilors rest. Seems like that’s exactly with Mr. Traxler is working toward.