This article is part of a PRO/CON opinion piece on Mira Costa’s athletic fields. To view the opposing side, see here.
By Danny Kelleher
Sports Editor
Money. That is what the Manhattan Beach Unified School District lacks in the current economic crisis. Athletic Plan A, regarding Mira Costa’s field space, is a solution that reserves more money for MBUSD schools, while the exorbitant Plan B needlessly takes advantage of funds raised from community donations to the Manhattan Beach Athletic Foundation.
Both Plan A and B resolve the issue of extra field space after the construction of a new science building and resulting parking lot starting in June as the result of Measure BB.
Although Plan B provides comfortable field space for all of Costa’s sports teams, Plan A is less costly and still manages to provide a sufficient amount of room. It is clearly a more appropriate choice for Costa and its needs.
In a district with underfunded programs, underpaid teachers and employee layoffs, it is ridiculous to think that funding should go toward new athletic facilities and not toward the school itself and the education it provides.
Plan B’s proponents say that the Manhattan Beach Athletic Foundation is paying for the new fields, not costing the school a dime. However, though new athletic space is an issue, it is without a doubt a minor one when compared to layoffs and underfunding in general.
According to MBAF President Gary Wayland, MBAF would need to raise even more money to complete Plan B, money that could instead be donated by the city’s patrons to fund academic programs, which impact all of Costa’s students, not just the athletes.
Additionally, the baseball program recently placed new astroturf on its field as an addition to the infield just a year ago. Undermining this expensive project to build a new field just a couple hundred feet away would be ridiculous as well as extremely and unnecessarily costly for all parties involved.
Another issue with Plan B is danger. The plan could potentially place the baseball and softball fields directly next to each other.
Such a small space between the two teams at practice and in games would clearly be a safety hazard. Many players are easily able to drive the ball far enough to interfere with the other team’s practice, potentially harming others or disrupting team drills.
Many say that Plan B is practical and accommodates all of the sports more sufficiently than Plan A. However, the general-use field proposed in Plan A can, in theory, accommodate multiple sports without interference.
Two hundred and eighty by 160 feet is more than enough to sustain a capacity of three differentteams.
Although Plan B seems to be more ideal, Plan A saves money, which should be a higher priority with greater budget cuts expected to come in the upcoming years.
Ultimately, Plan B probably has more ideal conditions for an athletic field. It has all the things that Plan A has and more. However, it is estimated to cost significantly more than Plan A, and in the current economic and educational crisis that both the state of California and the country is experiencing right now, it does not seem that paying extra money to better sports facilities that are already sufficient would be an adequate use of funding.
Leave a Reply