Letter to the Editor -- Carol Holley on Chambers Field Stadium Lights

To the Editor:

I firmly believe that our board of education must have unassailably strong reasons to even consider justifying radically changing the character of the village by placing permanent lighting on Chambers Field. 

These reasons need to be compelling and accepted by the full community. As it stands today, they are not. So let's get this proposal off of the table, as it has been a divisive issue within our small community.

While I believe that the burdens of such lighting seem obvious (irrevocable marring of village landscape; pollution in the form of traffic, light, and noise; as well as harm to the value of homes surrounding Chambers Field), the justification presented by light advocates for a need for significantly greater field time is just not that compelling.

Indeed, attendees at board of education meetings often hear the much-repeated statistic that since 2002 player participation in Bronxville athletics has increased by 54.3% (Field Usage Report presented in September 2013).  This increase in participation, the argument goes, has forced hardships on our student-athletes, such as sharing the turf field with other school teams and starting games earlier than is commonly accepted to compete in daylight.

But why measure the growth in field sports participation from 2002?  I would submit that 2005-2006 is a better starting point for analyzing this need. 

Village residents generously donated over $1.5 million to install artificial turf on Chambers Field in 2005-2006 (largely based on much of the same justification offered for installing lights today) with the understanding that student participation rates in athletics would grow.

In WBA Group's 2005 report presented to the board of education advocating for the turf installation, it was noted that a new turf field would support "nearly 4x the capacity of a well maintained natural turf field." The report further projected that in "2005-2006, student field sports participation would range from 326 to 346 depending on the season (on average 336 students)."  Thus, if we assume the realization of the projection in 2005-2006, the growth in student participation in field sports has risen 23.5%, from 336 to 415 over a period of eight years, or about 3% annually since 2005.

This 3% annual field-sport-participation growth rate since 2005-2006 should be easily absorbed in a facility that was built to provide a 400% increase in capacity, but advocates for the lights insist that it is not enough. This is troubling to me for two reasons.

First, this discrepancy does not appear to point to a capacity issue, but rather suggests a field management issue. Second, even if the proposed lighting scheme were in place, what assurances are there that this would be enough to solve for the perceived need? If a 400% increase in capacity is not enough, then what is there to suggest that the addition of nighttime hours would sufficiently suffice? 

Knowing that field space is always an issue for most schools that offer multiple field sports, one can easily foresee this perceived need for more playtime as a future excuse for expanding the lighted hours to 10:00 pm or 11:00 pm or spending additional dollars on other endeavors such as renovating and "turfing" other fields. 

Whether the professed need for more playtime is real or perceived, a better effort by the school, the board, and the village should be required before we blindly apply remedies to symptoms rather than assess the true problem. The approach thus far has unnecessarily and clumsily divided our community. Due diligence should be required before we even consider feasibility.       

To be clear, participation in athletics by our students is a good thing. Indeed, we--the village--created conditions to allow the growth in participation since 2005. However, I have seen no effort, analysis, or basis that would lead me to accept the inevitable consequences that permanent lighting would bring as an acceptable price to pay for more time at extracurricular activities.

Our school sports teams are currently competitive with the facilities the village offers, which I would submit is better than most. Addressing the "issue" of more playtime by materially and adversely affecting the character of our village and the quality of the lives of those who live in this area is simply not the right thing to do. The board of education can do all of us a service and put an end to this matter by taking the permanent-lighting option off of the table. 

Carol Holley
Bronxville, NY
November 10, 2013

Editor's Note: MyhometownBronxville does not fact-check statements in letters to the editor, and the opinions do not necessarily reflect the thinking of its staff. Its objective in publishing letters to the editor is to give air to diverse thoughts and opinions of residents in the community.