Dear Editor;

I am writing in response to the letter you published on October 5, 2006 written by Bill Costanzo of Babylon raising objections to the turf field. I am surprised by many of his statements however do agree with him that he is completely uninformed about the school's Athletic Facilities Bond. I find it interesting that I have been to all of the school board meetings over the last couple of months and listened to a couple of public presentations made by Peter Daly on behalf of the Babylon School Board of Education and do not recall seeing him present at any one of these presentations. These presentations described in detail all of the work and costs associated with this bond. I also find it strange that he is introducing figures and statements that have nothing to do with the Athletic Facilities Bond up for vote.

I am a member of the Babylon Village Turf Field Fund who is the group of people who he referred to as "zealous advocates." In fact, we are everybody's friends and neighbors who also have lived in Babylon for a long time, many of the members are also life long residents, and we feel so passionate about this field as the best solution to the field problems that we actually have been donating an enormous amount of our personal time and energy to do something about it. This is time sacrificed by our own families and jobs. We are doing this to help improve this beautiful community that we are raising our families in. We are trying to give something back to the community and to the people we love living with.

Bill is correct that we don't have every answer to every possible question that gets thrown at us as many of those questions are self serving to people who oppose the turf field. It is easy to backseat drive and punch holes through other people's efforts when you don't agree with their feelings and cause. The difficult thing is to stick your own neck out and try and to do something worthwhile when you know others are waiting to chop your head off. One thing that I do know is that we are trying to make a difference. Writing a letter to the Beacon doesn't make sense as the Beacon is not building the field. All these questions and spinning of information he put in this forum is self-serving only to garner "no" votes. He makes a lot of suggestions as to dealing with the field problems however I don't recall seeing him make any efforts to get involved to solve the problems. Our "zealous advocates" organization and the people comprising it are easy to find. Our website www.justturfit.org lists all of our names and a way we can be contacted for people who wish to invest their time to help solve

our field problems. When he requests committees to be made to study all these things, who are the people to be on all these committees? Where do they come from? The school board members like the Turf Fund people are individuals volunteering enormous amounts of their own time to improve our community. These volunteers, just like money, do not grow on trees. We are not paid for this. We do this to be good people.

In his letter, he makes reference that there is a high cost of replacement and maintenance to the turf field however in his same letter he references that one problem he has is that he doesn't know what these costs are because nobody has given them to him. How can he say they are expensive when he himself says he doesn't know what the costs are?

I want to be perfectly clear so that he is not further confused. When the school board decided to put this bond up for vote, this became a school project not a Turf Field Fund project. All his references about our past cost figures and representations have nothing to do with the school costs and bond now up for vote. People need to understand the school board's facts and figures as that is all that counts at this point. The school has professional consultants who have created a budget breaking down, in detail, all of the costs associated with both bonds. They have already presented these fact and figures a few times and plan to do it more times.

Yes, the turf committee has been trying to raise private funds to pay for the field but now with this bond up for vote our efforts are going to focus on obtaining "yes" votes and all the money we raise will go toward donating lighting someday.

I don't want to forget to point out that he makes a lot of reference to issues with the costs of use and repairs for the lights however the school's bond does not include any lighting. Oh yeah, he wouldn't know that because he obviously hasn't attended any of the school's presentations.

As far as the condition of the fields, I have four daughters who play sports on the fields and I, along with many others, am not ok with the fields. I think they are awful. If he is ok with letting his kids play on those fields then that is his choice. He makes mention of many costs using large scary numbers and terminology such as "long-term costs to taxpayers" however the bond and costs associated with it are really very simple. The school board has represented, in their presentations, the average assessed house of 4,265 will cost $23 per year. I don't see $23 per year as a "tax burden" as he refers. I see it as an inexpensive gift to our children of this community in appreciation for being good hard working kids. I beg him and anybody else who is confused to get informed, as I am afraid he will not vote "yes" for all the wrong reasons. I encourage him to instead of working against us to please join us and let's work together.

On one final note, myself and the members of the "zealous advocates" Turf Field committee are human beings trying to do something good. We are working hard with all sincere and honest intentions to accomplish something we feel is worthwhile. We do not deserve to have mud slung at us in a newspaper in this fashion as he chose. To spin up all these different costs and pull out representations out of context, where I am on the committee and have no idea where some of these are coming from only shows his intention is to insinuate we are incompetent and/or dishonest. We are trying the best we can. We respect that not everybody shares in our feeling about the field however we accept that we may never change his mind and that is fine. There is no reason why we all can't happily live in the same community while also sharing different opinions. The difference is that we treat each other with respect and be considerate with our comments.

Jerry Guerra, Babylon

DearEditor:

This is in response to the announcement for the Gala Dinner for the Athletic Field, printed in your September 14 edition of the Beacon. I am writing this letter in my individual capacity as a citizen of the Babylon School District.

In the September 14 announcement concerning the Athletic Field dinner, it was stated that the "state of the art field" would be available for use by all of the Babylon Village's young athletes. It is important to clarify this statement. The athletic facilities bond proposal entails only the installation of a multi-purpose synthetic turf field. It would simply replace the existing grass surface. Since it would be without lights, the installation of the new turf would not increase the availability of the field beyond the current use by the school district's athletic teams. Nor would it provide any additional playing time to our Village's youth leagues beyond the current schedule. If lights are ultimately installed through private donations, it does not guarantee increased usage by non-scholastic organizations. Obviously, the primary objective of any School District project is the benefit to its students which does not necessarily translate into additional access by youth leagues.

The other issue is the continued reference to the presumed installation of lights at the field. Again, the Athletic Facilities bond proposal does not include the installation of lights. Any promise of the increased usage because of the presence of the lights is flawed. The funding for the lights is not part of the proposal, so the community must examine the merits of the bond proposal without any expectation of the installation of the lights and possible benefits arising from them.

The voters are being asked by the school district to decide on two important bond proposals: one, a building facilities health and safety bond and the other, an athletic facilities bond. The information provided to the voters must be correct and unambiguous as was provided in Janine Logan's informative article in your September 21 edition. Only then can they make an informed decision on November 14.

Darrell J. Conway

Babylon