Quoted Text

ROTTERDAM
Baseball field is focus of town’s latest partisan snit
BY MICHAEL LAMENDOLA Gazette Reporter
Reach Gazette reporter Michael Lamendola at 395-3114 or lamend@dailygazette.com.

    Woestina Park has become ground zero in a spat involving officials of the Rotterdam Little League, the town and the Challengers baseball league, a dispute that promises to spill into local politics.
    Earlier this week, town officials announced they had secured playing fields at Woestina Park for the Challengers, a league consisting of developmentally disabled youths and adults.
    Supervisor Steven Tommasone said the town’s purpose is to help the Challengers. The Challengers are currently leasing private land off Route 7 to play games. The property is considered prime for development and the Challengers are worried they may lose the site at some point.
    The problem is, Rotterdam Little League Vice President Randy Pascarella said the youth baseball league has a lease with the town to use the Woestina fields, and that the town took the fields away without notifying the league. He was not immediately able to produce the lease.
    The state Canal Corporation owns the Woestina land and is allowing the town to use it under permit.
    Carmella Mantello, director of the state Canal Corporation, said the town is not allowed to lease the land under its permit agreement with the state. “I would be curious to see what the paperwork looks like,” she said of the purported Little League lease.
    Tommasone said he had discussions with Little League offi cials about making one large field for everyone to use. “The Little League will be able to use the property. We may have to reconfigure the fields there,” he said.
    “There is a plan for the future if everyone wants to work together. They are public lands and there is room for everyone,” Tommasone said.
    Mantello said the town wants to lease the Woestina land at less than market value from the Canal Corporation to make it into a public park. A lease would allow the town to put up permanent structures. Tommasone said he wants to add bathrooms, improve roadway access and make other improvements.
    Joe Suhrada, a Republican running for Town Board, said he is committed to improving and expanding the park and adding more ball fields. He said he will work with the Canal Corporation to obtain additional land for more playing fields.
    Suhrada, in a letter to the editor published in The Daily Gazette, said the town gave the fields to the Challengers after being notifi ed by the Little League it no longer wants to use the fields.
    Pascarella disputes this. “Our board does not make a decision about buying a box of baseballs without the whole executive board agreeing to that,” he said. “We never sent a letter to the town, there was never any written, verbal or E-mail communications saying we were not interested in using the fields.”
    The affected parties said the spat involves politics.
    Pascarella said town Republicans are trying to punish the Schenectady County Conservative Committee through the Little League. Pascarella is chairman of the county Conservative Committee and several Little League board members are committee members.
    “My first thought was, ‘I hope to God that this was not political.’ But when I started to uncover what was going on, I found it was 100 percent political. This occurred when Tommasone lost the Conservative Party endorsement,” Pascarella said. “They could have made the announcement after the election, but they are trying to curry votes.”
    Conservatives are supporting Tommasone’s opponent for supervisor, Frank Del Gallo. Republican Tommasone had the Conservative Party endorsement but lost it to Del Gallo in a September primary.
    Suhrada did not receive the Conservative Party endorsement for his Town Board race. When he ran for county legislator four years ago, he had the endorsement.
    Del Gallo, who is endorsed by the Democrats, is an independent. He will become a Conservative after the election, however.
    Tommasone said Pascarella is “trying to make it appear we are doing something inappropriate, and we are not.” Suhrada agreed Pascarella is making the issue political, saying the Little League is not using the Woestina fields.
    Pascarella said the league does not play full games at Woestina but would if enrollment increased. The program has about 400 participants.
    Pascarella said the Little League and the Challengers maintain the same schedule, which makes it difficult for them to share Woestina.
    The Challengers, with about 130 participants, is caught in the middle. “It was never my intention to take fields from anyone,” said Challengers Commissioner Richard Dickershaid.
    He also believes the Little League is not using the Woestina fields, which should make them available for others to use. “They haven’t been used for three years,” he said. “I am trying to save my program, they are using it as a political case.”

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01200&AppName=1

Quoted Text

Del Gallo, who is endorsed by the Democrats, is an independent. He will become a Conservative after the election, however.

Does anyone join a party, based on philosophy, principles and standing - and stick with it anymore? (thinking Judy, Holly, etc etc).

Quoted Text

The problem is, Rotterdam Little League Vice President Randy Pascarella said the youth baseball league has a lease with the town to use the Woestina fields, and that the town took the fields away without notifying the league. He was not immediately able to produce the lease.

You'd kinda think this is something that they'd have readily available, if it in fact existed, right?

Quoted Text

Supervisor Steven Tommasone said the town’s purpose is to help the Challengers. The Challengers are currently leasing private land off Route 7 to play games. The property is considered prime for development and the Challengers are worried they may lose the site at some point.

Who owns the property they're leasing?

As I said, some people don't want this to happen. There is room there for all the kids to play. The Challengers and the Town are committed to making that a reality. Challengers is ready to spend their own money that they have from donations too. It would be nice if all could get along to make it a reality that all the kids of the town can use what is public land. To think that someone wants to hurt the Little League is foolish. From what I hear-They will not be shut out, nor will the child who's parents who haven't the money to be in a league and who wants to play a pick up game.

Joe Surhadra aka GB aka MT if we are asking questions let me ask a few>

This plan has been in the works for 5 or 6 months and allegedly it involves reconfiguring fields (used by Rotterdam LL for decades) and also involves the Challengers and RLL working together to figure out a schedule of who will use what fields and when they will be used.

Question 1-  If your plan was to have RLL and the Challengers work together on this "project"- why is it that the first time anyone from RLL heard of this was when they read it in the Gazette?

Question 2-  You have stated that a letter was sent to the town of Rotterdam indicating that RLL no longer wanted to use the Woestina fields.  If such a letter exists, why haven't you produced it.

Question 3-  Has someone informed you that the Rotterdam LL didn't use all three of the fields for three years, as Mr Dickershaid incorrectly stated?

Question 4-  Where is the letter written by a member of the Rotterdam LL advising you that RLL no longer planned on using the fields?  It is my understanding that you are stating publicly that such a letter exists.  You better begin back pedalling and twist your story into "um... someone from the league SAID that "because no such correspondence exists.

Question5-   Why the necessity all of a sudden two weeks before election to advocate so strongly for 100 Challengers from throughout the capital district who have 2 fields to play on and no imminent threat to the property they are on now -while at the same time the property RLL plays on (other than 1 field) is being actively marketed by the owner and was once sold?  Are the 400+ kids there and the 800+ parents all of whom reside in town somehow less deserving of a field?  So much so that you take it upon yourself to misinform Ms Mantello and falsely state to her that RLL hasn't used the fields in 3 years and that the league advised you that they have no use for the fields?



If you do not wish to directly answer all of these questions- you may simply copy and paste the correspondence that you claim exists between the Rotterdam Little League and the Town of Rotterdam indicating that they no longer desire to use the Woestina fields.  I wish you luck finding that document.  If it helps- I could FOIL it for you.  

Well GB this political candidate can attest to the fact that Supervisor Steve has been committed to finding suitable ball fields for kids for quite a few years. I attended a meeting that he had gathered parents of kids looking for soccer fields at the Senior Center.  He asked them to help the town locate property that could be used for ball fields.  It was at that meeting I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Dickershaid.  His objectives were to find fields for kids as well.  His commitment to this endeavor was extremely heartfelt.

Please do not lose focus on the objective.  It's about ball fields for kids. The dispute on whether it was timed for the silly season is not the most important issue.  It's a sidebar that should not derail the objective. I don't understand why a compromise cannot be reached on the usage of these fields. The Rotterdam Girls Softball league seems to be able to utilize that property quite well. It's seldom idle in the good weather months.

When Steve gathered these parents together, I stated at the time finding suitable property would be tough. They wanted to find 25 acres of contiguous property. Not to be a pessimist, I told them that because of lack of vision for these types of uses, that would be almost impossible.  I commend anyone that was able to accomplish such finds.

It's the silly season and always the season for the timing of positive accomplishments no matter what the political affiliation. It's a great motivator to bringing good things to fruition. If the Little League has a lease, then perhaps it could be renegotiated with the Canal Corps who doesn't seem to have knowledge of such a lease.  

This town had an opportunity to get great ball fields once before from the Rotterdam Republican Club.  We missed it and lets not lose this opportunity too. Work together to make it work for all. Focus on the kids and not the adults bickering. Maybe we should ask the kids to negotiate the deal and work out a schedule that will allow everyone to use it.

Prior to the comp plan being altered to which I strongly objected, I thought the O'Hare property would have been a great addition to Mohonasen's campus.  The property had been agriculturally zoned and it was recommended in the comp plan to remain as such.  I was overruled and the property is now residential zoning.  I understood the O'Hare's desire to subdivide and I didn't want to cheat them out of money.  However, this property's best next use would be for ball fields.  Building homes along transportation corrdors is not the best use of theese types of areas.  Talk to the folks who live along I-890 or any other such corridor.  Somedays even shouting doesn't work in the backyard. I approached a school board member prior to the rezone and asked him to approach the school about purchasing with a fair price some of this acreage.  He did and the response was that the school was not interested in expansion at that time.  It's something they expressed interest in doing now.  

I'm not criticizing the school, I'm only trying to emphasize that long-term planning, whether it be ball fields and/or infrastructure are issues that we as a community need to focus on.  Stick to the issues and let's solve problems as a community.  Keep the politics in the clubhouse.

The big question is why can't some people share? The fields belong to the people, ALL the people. I don't care if the challengers only have 130 children, THEY are as entitled as anyone's children to have a place that won't be sold out from under them, putting the taxpayer and league into the position that the Little League was forced into. Who likes interacting with anyone who makes threats? I imagine Joe Suhrada would feel the same way. I've heard Suhrada has had many threats made to him in the course of his life. If he listened to all of them he would be timid. Does he seem timid?

In retrospect it is good this commitment was made now. If it waited longer it won't happen because if new people are elected, they may not have the same guts to do it. It obviously is a problem for a few select (or maybe just one) politicians to have to coexist with the Challengers. These politicians will be the ones giving the orders in the next administration, should they succeed. I myself wasn't sure this visceral reaction would be encited by the concept of sharing. But it has.

I know those Challenger kids don't have the advocacy group they should have. We all see that now. Some people need to take a lesson from the children and learn to share. There is room there with possible reconfiguration and expansion of the playing diamonds. This is not rocket science and Supreme Court law. This is having a publicly owned property that cannot be for the exclusive use of one entity, but for ALL. The town will make sure coordination and oversight is there to allow all the kids to play in there. I don't know why that has to be repeated over and over and over. Not one Little Leaguer will be shut out. If Steve and his side of this argument is willing and wanting to put all the kids in there and make sure no one is shut out, then why isn't the one politician on that side willing?.

I am not so sure it is the whole league that feels this way, perhaps just one member who all of a sudden wants to be a fly in the ointment and put on a spectacle, and halt this simple concept. Truthfully, you should have more trust that the people in office wouldn't hurt the kids. Working together works. NO ONE WILL SHUT ANY ONE OUT.

Quoted from 215

This plan has been in the works for 5 or 6 months and allegedly it involves reconfiguring fields (used by Rotterdam LL for decades) and also involves the Challengers and RLL working together to figure out a schedule of who will use what fields and when they will be used.

Question 1-  If your plan was to have RLL and the Challengers work together on this "project"- why is it that the first time anyone from RLL heard of this was when they read it in the Gazette?

Question 2-  You have stated that a letter was sent to the town of Rotterdam indicating that RLL no longer wanted to use the Woestina fields.  If such a letter exists, why haven't you produced it.

Question 3-  Has someone informed you that the Rotterdam LL didn't use all three of the fields for three years, as Mr Dickershaid incorrectly stated?

Question 4-  Where is the letter written by a member of the Rotterdam LL advising you that RLL no longer planned on using the fields?  It is my understanding that you are stating publicly that such a letter exists.  You better begin back pedalling and twist your story into "um... someone from the league SAID that "because no such correspondence exists.

Question5-   Why the necessity all of a sudden two weeks before election to advocate so strongly for 100 Challengers from throughout the capital district who have 2 fields to play on and no imminent threat to the property they are on now -while at the same time the property RLL plays on (other than 1 field) is being actively marketed by the owner and was once sold?  Are the 400+ kids there and the 800+ parents all of whom reside in town somehow less deserving of a field?  So much so that you take it upon yourself to misinform Ms Mantello and falsely state to her that RLL hasn't used the fields in 3 years and that the league advised you that they have no use for the fields?

If you do not wish to directly answer all of these questions- you may simply copy and paste the correspondence that you claim exists between the Rotterdam Little League and the Town of Rotterdam indicating that they no longer desire to use the Woestina fields.  I wish you luck finding that document.  If it helps- I could FOIL it for you.  

Great post Papa! I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for GB to directly answer any of those questions
because Joe/He cannot answer any of those questions truthfully. It'll be interesting to see what the parents of the LL are going to think of all of this and their extended families.  

So the paper is lying?

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

So the paper is lying?

Of course not, everyone knows the Gazette is always right.... LOL. I'd like to see Papa's questions answered. Until then, I think Surhada and Tommasone have been caught lying. Please show me proof otherwise.

I don't know that Steve Tommasone will be publishing private emails he had with officials of the league. But you can ask Steve. His word is good as far as I am concerned. But I do have to ask if there is an official position that the league is taking in making these political attacks, or is it just a few members who are also Conservative party officials? Now lay out a good argument why the Little League can't share the fields, in cooperation with the town, and the Challengers? Do that, and you might win the case. I am not sure there is one. Honestly, to try to have exclusive use of the park seems to me like it is in violation of the state's rules, at least according to Ms. Mantello.

But if you want to get Chris Gardner to have one of his Democrat lawyers sue to stop the Challengers from playing in there, then I guess that is the prerogative you have. But I would think the entire league leadership ought to be on the same page before you proceed. Otherwise, the rhetoric serves no purpose other than trying to distract from the goal of all here- to provide public lands for the use of the kids: Little League kids, Challenger kids, and kids who don't have the league, but just want a park they can play in, without having to have padlocks on the gates.

Why not answer my question first

Quoted Text

    The problem is, Rotterdam Little League Vice President Randy Pascarella said the youth baseball league has a lease with the town to use the Woestina fields, and that the town took the fields away without notifying the league. He was not immediately able to produce the lease.

You'd kinda think this is something that they'd have readily available, if it in fact existed, right?

Where's the lease?

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

I don't know that Steve Tommasone will be publishing private emails he had with officials of the league. But you can ask Steve.

GB - would those be available via FOIL?

Quoted Text

Let Rotterdam Challengers use Woestina Park fields

    There’s special group of young people in Rotterdam close to all our hearts. They deserve recognition and assistance.
    Richard Dickershaid’s Rotterdam Challengers is a sports league for kids with special needs. This great organization lets these kids have their own sport. On their opening day next May, you will see the joy on their faces as they are able to get out on their own field, some in wheelchairs and braces, to participate like their brothers, sisters and pals in baseball.
    Thankfully, the generosity of countless great organizations, businesses and individuals has allowed them to thrive, but they’ve never had a field to call their own. They’ve paid to lease private property behind Five Corners.
    That is about to change. Recently, Rotterdam Little League notified Rotterdam that it will no longer use the fields at the Woestina Park in Rotterdam Junction. Supervisor Steve Tommasone and myself, with the support of many other officials, know this would be the perfect home for the Challengers — one that couldn’t be taken away or lost to development.
    The town is committed to making the park a permanent home for them, and the Challengers agree. It’s time to do this and prevent them from losing their fields like the Little League that sadly lost its privately owned fields once. Solve a problem before it becomes one. The town and Challengers agree that the fields will remain open to all the community — no child will be locked out.
    To the Rotterdam Challengers: The community’s best wishes go out to you. May you enjoy many decades of ball games at your new home. Everyone is behind you all the way!

    JOSEPH J. SUHRADA
    Rotterdam
The writer is a county legislator.

Why do the Challengers have to share with Little League?  Joe Suhrada said Rotterdam Little League wasn't using Woestina.  From what I'm reading, Woestina was going to be shared by Challengers and the public.  

As long as Suhrada and Tommasone provide the documentation stating Little League was no longer using Woestina, it should be a slam dunk.  We will see.

It looks like Steve was more interested in a press release-desperate for some positive news- than doing this properly. When both the Little League and the State Canal Corp are yelling foul-something is foul. The CONS leaders endorsed Steve-it isn't their fault he is a very weak candidate and got crushed by Fran Del Gallo.

  This whole issue reeks. Steve should have been looking for alternative sites or protecting the current fields-YEARS AGO. As usual he did nothing and than released a stunad press release that none of the concerned parties agreed to. Another revolting development. It's time for a business leader instead of this failed bureaucrat.

Once again, nothing but pearls coming out of the mouth of Benny the Great!