Recently, the councilors of the City of Saco have been discussing changes to the transfer station ”“ from closing it to changing its location or adding security measures.

At issue is the site’s proximity to recreation fields that are used by children, as some residents feel the uses conflict. Our question is: Why all the concern now?

Five years ago, the city happily agreed to use the 157-acre parcel of land next to the transfer station for playing fields, as part of their Landfill Reuse Plan of 1998. The fields were created atop capped deposits of municipal and shoe leather waste, and all the officials involved seemed to consider the fields a great use of the open land.

Parks and Recreation Director Joe Hirsch even said at the time that the new fields would fill a need, since the city was “hard pressed to find areas for all the teams to practice in the spring.”

The only concern raised at the time was that a redesign of the entryway would be necessary, since the fields would share an entrance with the transfer station, which has restricted access. No one asked for the transfer station to be moved or blocked off in any way once the fields were added.

Now the city is looking to make a major investment ”“ up to $450,000 ”“ to move or make changes to the transfer station, or even eliminate it altogether, because the fields are there. The possibility of this added cost was not brought up back when everyone was cheering on the development of the fields. Would councilors then have been so eager to approve the reuse of the landfill if they knew it might lead to this?

In our opinion, there is no need to secure, move or eliminate the transfer station just because there are playing fields next to it. The council didn’t think so five years ago when they approved the fields, and nothing has changed since.

Mayor Roland “Ron” Michaud wants the city to make “firm plans” to relocate the transfer station because he believes the fields are not in a safe environment. Taxpayers ought to step up and tell the city that if they thought it wasn’t safe, they should have thought about that before investing in the fields.

Plans for the park were in place 15 years ago, to address the need for more playing fields, and it’s hard to believe that no one stepped up to say, ”˜Hey, maybe we shouldn’t put these next to the transfer station,’ if it was a real concern.

Councilor Leslie Smith was right on target when he said Monday that the transfer station area is perceived as being more dangerous than it really is and so long as children aren’t allowed to run off unsupervised, there shouldn’t be a problem.

To date, the city has not cited a rash of children coming down from the playing fields, wreaking havoc at the transfer station or getting injured by residents who are dropping off their debris. The city does not need to be spending money on a non-existent problem, particularly in these economic times.

Funding for the playing field creation comes from “recreation impact fees” on new homes and from the parks and recreation department’s ballfield development budget. Will the money for moving the transfer station come from that fund? Probably not. It will come from taxpayers’ wallets. And if these new concerns truly get out of hand, residents will lose their local transfer station.