To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
5 Comments
“…the 50-year deal could generate a total of nearly $91 million in community benefits, including payments to the San Carlos Education Foundation and for athletic field improvement.”
Will this additional revenue stream increase the chances of getting a sorely needed all-weather turf field (or two) in San Carlos? They shouldn’t be able to use “lack of funds” as an excuse any more…
Is it possible to do anything in this city without having to worry about athletic fields? I understand this was not the primary reason for the Planning Commission’s vote, but is looking beyond sports the worst thing in the world? What about using those funds for community music and art programs? Or creating a community garden or pool? I am okay with the decision to move ahead with PAMF, I just hope our council uses the revenue stream appropriately and does not bow down to the intimidating nature of many of our youth sports organizations.
Intimidating nature of our youth sports organizations??? Were you at the same meetings that I was at? I think all of the organizations who took the time and effort to lobby for improved field conditions did so in a pretty civilized manner, and used the appropriate channels to voice their opinions…i.e. City Council Meetings. Sure, the debate was heated but it was that way on BOTH sides. That’s politics.
A couple of weeks ago, a referee who was officiating a game at Heather school suffered a pretty serious leg injury when he stepped on what he thought was solid, level ground only to find out that the grass was covering a sizable hole in the field. Not a pretty sight.
Believe me, I would love to have a community pool or garden in San Carlos too. Anything to get the kids outside and active. But there are serious issues with the field conditions here, and there are 1500 or so San Carlos youths playing sports during any given season. That’s reality, and it’s not something we can keep sticking our heads in the gopher holes and hoping the problem will go away. Redwood City has solved this problem in their city. So has Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc… Why can’t we?
Sorry if anyone finds that intimidating.
Wow! Well, your email proves my point. From what I understand, if the fields were not used as much they would not be in such terrible shape. Also, you say that the user groups are not intimidating, but that is not the way the rest of San Carlos perceives their actions. Its not so much the kids, but some of the parents who are extremely vocal and aggressive about their child being able to play sports 24/7. I am not against youth sports, as I believe there are plenty positive benefits that go along with them. However, I worry about any parent who believes their child needs to play on multiple sports teams on a year-round basis. The problem is that many parents do not expose their children to science, the arts, etc. I would like to see the City of San Carlos exercise some thinking outside-of-the-box and possibly use some of the PAMF money for areas that may possible interest our youth, outside of the traditional sports programs.
What point did I prove? That because I simply disagree with you that makes me intimidating? That’s pretty funny.
Let me address the points you raised:
— aggressive and vocal parents. As I mentioned before, both sides pushed their respective agendas very hard. The anti-turf coalition was every bit as aggressive in their campaign as well. I have their misguided mailers to prove it.
— Playing sports 24/7. Sadly, you’re missing the entire point on this. Have you walked on Heather, Crestview, Stadium, or Highlands recently? If you had, you would have noticed that 100% of the problems stem from broken pipes, sink holes, gopher holes, and exposed sprinkler heads; not one of these problems is a function of overuse.
— Arts and music; Our youth already have phenomenal programs available to them, and they’re free. It’s called school. Central and Tierra Linda received a sizable grants last year for their music programs, and they have lots of new equipment and music to show for it. They have awesome programs at both schools that are very well supported. The elementary schools get a sizable infusion of cash each year from the SCEF. But does just ONE of our schools have a usable athletic field? Nope.
I’m not a “24/7 sports parent” as you like to lump everyone together as. My kids are musicians and artists just as much as they are athletes. And I could care less whether the city puts turf down, or grass. My point is that they City needs to do SOMETHING besides paying taxpayer’s money for yet another committee to tell them what’s already painfully obvious. Let’s fix the problem and move on.
Have an awesome day!