To the editor:
The negative impact of artificial turf on student athletes and the environment are well documented. The vast majority of the NFL and soccer players oppose artificial turf. …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
The negative impact of artificial turf on student athletes and the environment are well documented. The vast majority of the NFL and soccer players oppose artificial turf. Beginning in 2029, artificial turf containing toxic chemicals (PFAS) will be banned in Rhode Island.
The Town Council paid $85,000 for a consultant to provide an “analysis” of our fields. It recommended: 1) improving the scheduling of field use, 2) improving field maintenance, and 3) the installation of artificial turf fields. Thus far, the town has failed to sufficiently address the issues of scheduling or maintenance.
Instead, the town has focused on artificial turf. Curiously, the consultant’s “analysis” contains no discussion of the harmful effects of artificial turf on students and the environment, even though these topics are always a focus of any inquiry into artificial turf fields. In fact, the report’s section on hybrid artificial turf fields consists of nothing more than the sales brochure of a company that sells hybrid artificial turf fields.
Artificial turf fields will be a financial burden to Barrington taxpayers for years to come. The taxpayers already approved a $4.5M bond, $4M of which is earmarked for athletic improvements. Artificial turf fields are expensive, and if they are installed their cost will consume a significant portion of the $4M. If bond money is spent on artificial turf fields, little money will be left over to maintain our other fields, and we will inevitably be asked to come up with more money to cover these expenses.
The RI Department of Environmental Management has relied on a report issued by the Toxic Use Reduction Institute at the U. of Mass, Lowell. In addition to outlining safety and environmental concerns over artificial turf, the report notes that “artificial turf systems of all types require a significant financial investment at each stage of the product life cycle,” and that “the full life cycle cost of an artificial turf field is higher than the cost of a natural grass field.” The report states that “maintenance of artificial turf systems can include fluffing, redistributing and shock testing infill; periodic disinfection of the materials; seam repairs and infill replacement; and watering to lower temperatures on hot days.” Furthermore, “artificial turf requires disposal at the end of its useful life… Disposal is an increasing source of concern.”
At the end of the turf’s useful life (8 - 10 years) taxpayers will need to pay for the cost of disposal. Right now, this would involve shipping it to one of the few remaining turf recycling locations in the US. In 10 years, that cost will be significantly greater. At that time, the town will also be prohibited from replacing the artificial field with the chemicals currently used.
Artificial turf fields are bad for student athletes, bad for the environment, and overwhelmingly bad for the taxpayers of Barrington.
Vote in favor of student athletes, for the environment and for fiscal responsibility – vote REJECT to the ballot questions regarding artificial turf fields!
Andrew Reich
Barrington