To the editor:

I understand the town’s athletic fields have not been properly maintained for many years. The DPW has done the best it could with field maintenance, but with no dedicated fields crew and limited resources, it has not been enough. At the Financial Town Meeting, I voted for the bond that included $4.5 million for the middle school’s athletic fields. Town Council members assured community members that this was not a vote for or against synthetic turf fields - that question would be on the Nov. 5th General Election ballot. 

I voted for the bond hoping that synthetic turf will be voted down and the $4.5 million could be used to improve all town playing fields.

I attended the Barrington Town Council Meeting on July 22. Late in the evening, the Town Council discussed the School Committee’s letter regarding issues with the plan for the middle school fields. It was a lengthy discussion. Then it was time to discuss the wording of the ballot question(s). Listening to the discussion, it appeared there would be one question – whether or not to approve the plan for synthetic turf fields at the middle school. It was midnight when community members were allowed to comment. I asked why there wasn’t going to be a question allowing Barrington voters the opportunity to vote yes or no to artificial turf being used on all town athletic fields. I reminded the Council members of what they said at the FTM. I also reminded Council member Kate Berard that when she voted for the bond that included the middle school fields plan, she said Barrington voters would be able to vote yes or not to artificial turf athletic fields on the November ballot. After more discussion – including Council member Rob Humm’s concerns that Barrington voters might be confused by the two questions – he along with the other Town Council members voted 4 to 0 to approve the second question being added to the ballot.

The use of artificial turf for youth athletic fields is an issue that is playing out in communities in RI, MA, CT and across the country. I have closely followed the Barrington Times’ coverage of the town’s athletic fields issues for the past several years. It is clear from multiple Times’ editorials, as well as its reporting, that the paper is strongly in favor of using artificial turf in town and school athletic fields. In service to Barrington voters and for the sake of fair and balanced journalism, I suggest the paper does an article on the concerns related to artificial turf. These include: health and safety of student athletes; environmental impact; financial costs of purchasing and then replacing these fields after their 6-8 year lifespan; the dubious claim that these fields can be recycled (I’m referring to current types of these fields with so called organic infill), and if recycling is ever possible, what the costs will be to Barrington taxpayers. It is impossible to fully describe these concerns in a letter to the editor.

Eileen M. Small

Barrington

Eileen Small is a member of the Barrington Conservation Commission.