To the editor:
I respectfully disagree with townspeople who have been advocating for the installation of artificial turf fields in Barrington, both at the schools and at the municipal fields.
…
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:
I respectfully disagree with townspeople who have been advocating for the installation of artificial turf fields in Barrington, both at the schools and at the municipal fields.
It is fiscally irresponsible to dig up the middle school fields and replace them with artificial turf. Please consider how much money has been spent to date on middle school playing fields. Before construction of the new middle school, the fields adjacent to Lincoln Street were rebuilt due to drainage problems at a cost of millions of dollars. Then, the fields had to be relocated due to the building of the new middle school. State of the art playing fields were installed to the left of the new school – more millions of dollars. Now Barrington taxpayers are being asked to approve a bond to rip out these fields and replace them with artificial turf.
The middle school fields abut wetlands. Any promise that berms will stop runoff (as stated in the landscape architects’ report to the town) is dubious. Many areas of our country have experienced extreme weather in the past year. Barrington has been fortunate for many years. Unfortunately, the question is not if Barrington will be hit by an extreme storm, but when Barrington will be hit by an extreme storm. No berm will hold back runoff when a storm dumps 5-plus inches of rain in one day. (Unfortunately, the Nov. 5 ballot questions related to artificial turf do not address the proposed high school artificial turf fields. These fields will be located in a flood plain that empties into Hundred Acre Cove.)
Barrington taxpayers should not be burdened by the costs of: purchasing and installing artificial turf fields; maintaining these fields throughout their limited lifespan (8-10 years); and paying for the cost of disposing them. This cost would be significant, whether or not the artificial turf could be recycled.
Manufacturers’ claims that recycling will be possible are very questionable. Artificial turf fields are like sandwiches: the top layer consists of blades of plastic grass; the middle layer - called infill - acts as a cushion; and the bottom is often a polypropylene-based foundation. Artificial turf manufacturers are facing lawsuits regarding the toxicity of old types of infill made from ground up rubber tires. Many companies have come up with a variety of new infills made from so called “organic” materials. For example, one company is using wood chips. Wood is considered organic because it is derived from a living organism, but that doesn’t mean it’s free of chemicals. This company claims the wood chips could be extracted from the other artificial turf components and used for garden mulch. Who would want to use mulch that’s been mixed up with plastic blades containing PFAS?
If you are concerned about the health & safety or our student athletes; a fiscally-sound town budget; and protecting our environment - Vote No on Ballot Questions 9 & 10 on Tuesday, Nov. 5.
Eileen M. Small
Barrington
Eileen Small is a member of the Barrington Conservation Commission.