To the editor:

We're a year into the controversial turf experiment at BHS's Victory Field, and proponents are banging their fists on the tray like toddlers shouting "More!" More fields! More, more, more! A vocal minority claiming insufficient field space is a failure of civic responsibility. Yet they can't say how much more is needed. Is one field enough? Two? Fifteen? While some compare Barrington's field space to other towns, it is important to acknowledge that Barrington is the 33rd-largest municipality by area in Rhode Island, making such comparisons disingenuous. Now that the fervor has shifted to adding BMS field lighting. As a counterpoint, let me offer up a few rational reasons why BMS field lights don't make sense.

#1 – BMS field lights are logistically inefficient

The Victory Field turf has been open for a year and is woefully underused. Analysis suggests that only 27% of Victory Field's lighted capacity is being utilized during the fall season. Even a generous expansion of the analysis' assumptions would only get utilization to about 33%. From Sept. 1 to Dec. 1, about 54 home athletic contests are scheduled that require lights, accounting for just 135-160 hours of use (game time, pre-game, post-game, etc.), compared to roughly 500 available lighted hours. Before spending more on field lighting, let us first maximize use of what we have.

#2 – BMS Field Lights Are Fiscally Inefficient

There are three glaring fiscal irresponsibilities at play here.  First, the BMS property currently has at least 85 streetlights—more if you consider the on-building scones. A rough estimate suggests that those lights, which run all night long, cost the town between $6,000 to $22,000 this fall alone. (Don't get me started on the BMS TVs that are on 24/7). Field proponents want taxpayers to spend MORE on lighting without the sports leagues that benefit sharing any of the burden. THAT makes as much sense as the proverbial screen door on a submarine.

Secondly, installing lights cuts into Barrington's revenue stream. Numerous studies indicate sports fields negatively impact property values for abutters, so the town absorbs increased costs while reducing tax revenue. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

Finally, there are installation inefficiencies. With construction at all three Barrington elementary schools, rolling lighting installation into the schools' fields is more cost-efficient than starting anew and disrupting BMS fields. But let's be honest, as much sense as pairing lighting with current construction makes, NIMBYism suggests late-night lighting at Nayatt and other schools would go over like a fart in church.

#3 – BMS Field Lights Are Hypocritical for the Barrington School Committee

The BSC has previously prioritized student health by changing school start times at significant expense (~$600K). Supporting expanded field lighting, which could disrupt student athletes' and neighborhood abutters' sleep, contradicts this commitment to student well-being.

In the spirit of logic, rationality, and fiscal prudence, I encourage the BTC and BSC to reject proposals to install BMS field lights.

Jason Leigh

Barrington