Falmouth could certainly use a synthetic turf athletic field and the turf field committee deserves our gratefulness for its efforts, but from what I can gather from the Enterprise and the public meetings, I’m led to ask:
How could the voters watch the school committee nearly lay off 40 teachers to balance the budget and then be asked to raise taxes for the same amount to finance an athletic field?
Why do the less expensive needs of the field hockey teams, the boys’ and girls’ soccer teams, the boys’ and girls’ lacrosse teams, and the many youth teams for a turf field and lights have to wait for the more expensive needs of the football teams for a turf field with an extra practice field, bleachers, and locker room, particularly when the cost of the field alone (not sure about lights) is roughly available? All of the above teams could use the field, but unless football can play, the others cannot?
How did hockey build the new rink without a tax override and why can’t the combined efforts of football, soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse match hockey? Could the 2,300 voters in favor of a one-time tax hike pay the same amount privately? Would the same group be willing to pay more?
Why has the support of the selectmen, finance committee, and school committee seemed lukewarm at best?
Would a privately financed, scaled-back, or phased-in field be more appropriate?
I’m sure the turf field committee has discussed and answered these concerns, but not lately in a public forum and they may bear repeating.
William F. Armstrong III