Editor’s note: Following is an opinion essay submitted by Valerie Seiling Jacobs, submitted for publication by the Westport Journal.
_______________________________
I used to think that living near a golf course was a great thing — beautiful vistas and peaceful green space.
But that was before I discovered what was really going on at Longshore — before I realized that they are waking everyone up at 6 a.m. with their gas-powered leaf blowers or spraying chemicals all over the place — even when people are on the course. (I once saw them spray the Staples boys golf team as they walked across the greens.)
But here’s today’s issue: Tonight they will be asking the Representative Town Meeting to approve a four-year lease for almost $1 million dollars for 12 items, including new mowers and other maintenance equipment and — drum roll, please — they are all gas-powered.
Parks & Rec is trying to justify the lease by claiming that greener equipment is either unavailable or too pricey. While it may be true that not every piece of equipment on their wish list has a battery-powered counterpart, we DO KNOW that there are myriad battery-powered mowers on the market that are up to the task and that are available.
The Patterson Club, for example, is already using a fleet of battery-powered autonomous mowers, as are golf courses in Stratford and Farmington. In some cases, the robotic mowers are powered by solar panels strategically located around the golf course and are programmed to return to their charging stations when their batteries run low. (Each little robot can apparently cover 1.5 acres on a single charge.)
The point is that P&R has not done its homework — there IS greener equipment out there and golf courses ARE already using it. At the very least, P&R should be looking at more environmentally friendly mowers.
As for cost: It appears that P&R never put the acquisitions out to bid officially. Nor did they speak to experts on green equipment or even look at autonomous mowers, etc. Thus, it’s not clear what the real price difference would be. At the very least, P&R needs to do a thorough cost comparison with multiple vendors and for various types of equipment and provide that information to the public.
In addition, even if the greener equipment turns out to cost more, that should not be the end of the inquiry. As any responsible businessperson will tell you, purchase price is only one factor in assessing equipment. A savvy buyer also considers operating and maintenance costs and useful life.
In addition, a public municipality also has an obligation to consider health and environmental costs, as well as larger policy implications and goals. And experience shows that the operating costs of some types of battery-powered equipment (e.g., leaf blowers) can be much lower and the useful life much longer than their gas-powered counterparts. Whether that will be true for these 12 items remains to be seen.
The bottom line is that P&R failed to do a thorough analysis, and the RTM should not rubber-stamp this myopic and slipshod approach to decision making, especially in the midst of a climate crisis — and especially given the town’s commitment to becoming a Net Zero community.
Finally, it’s important to note that revenue from golf fees — even after the projected 2025 increase — will NOT be enough to pay for the equipment, which means that the taxpayers will wind up footing the bill. Parks & Rec is trying to justify the high cost by promising that we can buy the equipment at the end of the lease for $1 and then resell at a high price. But the idea that there will be a buyer in four years who is willing to pay top dollar for used gas-powered equipment is a dubious proposition — especially since some jurisdictions are already moving to outlaw that kind of equipment and because the golf industry is already moving away from fossil fuel equipment.
And if no buyer materializes, what happens next? Are we then stuck with this dirty, polluting equipment for some indefinite period? While four years of this dirty equipment would be terrible, a decade would be a travesty.
Westport has a reputation of being a leader when it comes to environmental matters. Let’s not make a mockery of that by approving this lease.
The ad hoc request to replace all P&R’s golf course grounds equipment at the same time points to the continued chaos at the department.
I do not blame the current staff for the department’s ongoing mismanagement; they are working hard to keep the ship afloat and I do believe they are trying to do the best they can with what they’ve got.
Oversight of the department is lacking and needs to be stepped up. The Administration isn’t providing leadership, and the Parks and Recreation Commission appears rudderless.
If there was leadership for the hugely important P&R department, artificial turf fields would not be on the table, and more sustainable golf course maintenance practices would be phased in starting now.
Valerie is right: this equipment decision should be more carefully thought through before committing resources and the next four years to a rushed purchase. Next up should be an accounting of the use or overuse of dangerous pesticides at Long Shore Golf,
Well said, Valerie. I hope and trust that, in light of the previous commitment the RTM made to Net Zero, this equipment lease will receive the scrutiny which it would seem to warrant.
Plus ! When buying this amount of equipment buy it from China ! With a 3 month delivery. All the crap you are buying has come in from China anyway and gets an American company tag put on it but it’s identical ! Just 10x
For what ?
Use your heads !
With our damn money !
I’m
Not pro China. I’m pro common sense. Korea even better. There’s no duty on it !!!!
Again the USA companies you buy this stuff from are getting it from the far east anyway.