Are members of the new Squamish council contemplating re-opening the debate over Squamish's Legacy Fund that dragged on for eight months at the previous council's table? If recent comments posted online by one of our new councillors are any indication, maybe.
Two passages from Coun. Sue Chapelle's comment on Squamish Speaks give rise to our concern. Wrote the first-term councillor, "Every study done tells us that our children play [soccer] until they are approx. 12, then they do single user sports and use the trails. For the rest of their lives. We have a turf field at Quest. Turf means rug burns instead of scrapes. The argument that gravel is dangerous is not accurate. Quest costs $80.00 per game and has been used often."
Later, arguing against borrowing money to pay for the turf field if a B.C. government grant request fails, Chapelle wrote, "The [slopitch fields] lights are also affordable and provide greater benefit to more people. We have a turf field and perhaps time could be put into negotiations with Quest. We have fields and our kids are playing on them "
Certainly, councillors would be within their rights to re-open discussions over the $750,000 Sport Legacy Fund -money granted to Squamish by the organizers of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games - if they so choose. But should they?
Full disclosure: This writer is a committed soccer dad and a regular user of Squamish's trail system for running and biking. While it may be true that soccer numbers fall off after kids reach a certain age, does that mean we should abandon the younger players, or those who decide to stay with the game into adulthood? Also, the occasional "rug burn" from playing on turf is usually far less serious than injuries sustained while playing on gravel.
He also questions whether more people would be aided by having lights on the slopitch fields than would benefit from having a turf field - for lacrosse, football and field hockey in addition to soccer - as the starting point for a complex (including two turf fields and a proper track) which, built in stages over a 10-year period, would benefit the community for decades to come.
Last June, council decided to grant $500,000 to the turf field and $110,000 to the Nordic Legacy Park for all the right reasons. Since the money came from winter sports, it made sense to boost the Nordic park idea with a fraction of the cash needed to make that dream a reality. If, by the end of 2013, that project isn't coming together, the community should ask for the money back and consider it for something else.
If Squamish doesn't receive the grant, Coun. Chapelle and her colleagues can and should debate whether to borrow money to make the turf field happen sooner rather than later. But this writer thinks the time to debate the Legacy Fund has passed.
- David Burke
