When we have our family reunions, we always play baseball. Fortunately we are
able to reserve LDS picnic areas that have fields. The city parks with baseball
fields are always busy, so we are unable to use them. I would like to have
access to at least one baseball field in the city park that could be rented out
for groups like ours.
Sounds like the town is serving its citizens with a passive park. I hope more
towns take notice and do the same. The whole youth sports movement is out of
hand. Kids need less time in adult run leagues and more time with family in
parks. Three cheers for Riverton !!!!!
We travel to Riverton to play on these fields. Living in the Millcreek area, I
frankly hate this drive, but we are part of this league so we do it. For
Riverton to say that they need to make this a passive park ignores two things:
1) the park presently has a significant amount of passive area that is being
used and there is plenty more room for expansion; and 2) we spend money in
Riverton when we come to play 2X a week. I'm sure we will find somewhere
else to play, but Riverton residents should be asking their elected officials
why they want to expand the area that costs more to maintain and why they would
want to send tax revenue elsewhere.
Do these Riverton Officials not realize that the "non" Riverton folks
most likely spend a fair amount of money in their great town? Regardless of lost
revenue, we complain how "kids nowadays" sit in front of the TV too
much. Well this should help. How many ball fields are being torn down this
year? I know of these and the one in Midvale.
The move by the city to eliminate these baseball fields makes no sense at all.
First of all Riverton already has a fair number of parks. They list over 30 on
the city's web page. That includes this facility which also has a fair
amount of passive park space in addition to the ball fields. There are pavilions
and a playground at this park. Being at this park twice a week I can tell you
that there are very few people beyond the families there for baseball that
utilize any of the park space. I also think as you drive around the city you
will see that there are not large numbers of people using the parks already in
existence.Also, there is a question of tax payer money. Currently the city
receives money from the league which should be going towards paying for
maintenance of the facility. A park will generate zero revenue and as such will
place all the cost on the taxpayers of Riverton.The park is very large and
so it seems the space should be able to be utilized for both purposes.
I took the Scouts to the city offices about 5 years ago. At the time, one of the
kids asked why the baseball fields were being moved.There is no
surprise -- this has been planned for years. UtahSelectbaseball has
misrepresented the facts to its members. The league was lucky to have the use of
the extra fields during the interim.Riverton still has the same
number of fields. Why isn't this group protesting the other cities to build
more baseball diamonds -- after all, 75% of its members live outside the city
boundaries -- why didn't the group protest years ago?Riverton's plan to make a passive park is more family friendly -- and I
won't have to keep taking my family out of the city enjoy a park.