The Playoffs: A view from Los Angeles

Always interesting to see what the papers from the otherside have to say. Here we have the Los Angeles Times focusing on the failures of the Dodgers to hit in the clutch or get the job done in the field.

What it doesn’t say, however, is that the Mets have managed to take advantage of the miscues and turn them into runs. The sixth inning is an example.

David Wright and Cliff Floyd led off the Mets’ sixth with back-to-back singles, and Jose Valentin dropped a bunt down the third-base line.

Garciaparra had just left the game, remember, and Little scrambled his infield by inserting Wilson Betemit at third base, moving Julio Lugo from third base to second and Kent from second base to first. Betemit took a step toward the ball, then retreated to cover third base. Reliever Brett Tomko took a step toward first base, then reversed direction to retrieve the ball. By that time, he had no chance to throw out Wright at third, and his throw to first appeared to pull Lugo off the bag.

Little said Lugo should have been charged with the error, not Tomko, because Lugo got the ball in time and dropped it. But he also said Betemit and Tomko initially broke the wrong way on the ball, costing the Dodgers a chance at forcing the lead runner.”

It was just a botched-up play,” Little said.

Endy Chavez bounced into a force play at home plate against Mark Hendrickson, so the Mets had the bases loaded and one out. Julio Franco then grounded into an apparent 6-4-3 double play, but the 48-year-old Franco somehow beat the relay.

“We thought we had a good shot to get Franco,” Little said. “The ball was hit just slowly enough.”

Forgotten in this account — or missed, at any rate — was the lack of aggression that Rafael Furcal showed on the grounder (or Lugo’s inexperience at the position), holding back and letting it play him. If he had charged it, it is likely that the Dodgers would have gotten Franco, ending the inning. Instead, the Mets followed the failed DP with a two-out Reyes hit and the game was won for the Mets.

Stay tuned for game three.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

Towering questions

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the questions surrounding a proposed Sprint cell phone tower that would be built on a parcel owned by Christ the King Lutheran Church in Kendall Park.

The tower, which would be 112 foot tall and built in a “flagpole style,” has neighbors along Cardinal Court up in arms and has generated some opposition in other parts of the community. Sprint has a lease with the church, which says it is only interested in the tower if the community supports it.

The community very definitely does not.

Several residents — most of whom, inexplicably, refused to give us their name — were livid over the proposal, saying there were better locations for a tower that already are zoned for commercial or industrial use.

The zoning issue is an important one. Sprint needs variances to build in a residential zone and to exceed the height limits in place — but it has a leg up in this fight that other applicants might not have:

Sprint will bear a slightly lower burden of proof in this case because the Federal Communications Commission states cell-phone towers to be inherently beneficial to the public good, Zoning Board attorney Patrick Foley said. He said that the FCC believes that better cell-phone reception means better safety because it allows the public easier access to 911 and results in fewer dropped calls.

That puts the onus on opponents to prove their point. My initial reaction was to view this as purely NIMBY — it is, at least on some level. This is, after all, about residents protecting their backyards.

But then I had to step back. I have no problem with the NIMBY argument so long as it is connected to the larger interests of the community (see my positions on Route 92, the MOM line and warehouse growth east of Route 130).

More importantly, there does seem to be a slew of alternatives to the church site that would be better than siting it in a residential zone.

I want to offer this letter to the editor from Paul Murray, who lives off Raymond Road, nowhere near the towere site, as a way of closing this out. Dr. Murray offers a rather cogent argument against the tower, one that acknowledges the larger issues and that deserves to be heard:

Sprint Spectrum has applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for variances to construct a 112-foot cell tower behind Christ the King Lutheran Church on Route 27 in Kendall Park. If granted, the tower will create a visual blight throughout most of Kendall Park, Highgate and Brunswick Acres. The cell tower is not required. Adequate Sprint-Nextel cell phone service will already exist in these areas.

According to Sprint’s “Nationwide Coverage” map, the area surrounding the tower will have “Sprint-Nextel Hybrid Network Coverage” and “enjoy voice, data and walkie-talkie services seamlessly.”

“Public good” for cell phone users includes having “good” cell phone service. Public good does not include having cell phone towers dotting the horizon for every available cell phone company. Enough is Enough.

Township zoning laws are in place to protect its citizens from outsiders coming into the township with little or no concern for their projects’ looks or effects on the township and its residents. Everyone in the township should be concerned. If a variance for this redundant cell tower is granted, it will set a precedent for more redundant cell towers to rise throughout the township.

Sprint Spectrum’s application is scheduled to be heard before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on Thursday, Oct. 19. Your voice is needed at the zoning board meeting that begins at 7:45 p.m. If you object to this proposed 112-feet high cell tower, it is extremely important to be at the hearing. Numbers count.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick