To the editor:
As we know, the town of Barrington approved $4.5 million for the improvement of the towns’ athletic fields at the financial meeting in May. On election day we will …
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:
As we know, the town of Barrington approved $4.5 million for the improvement of the towns’ athletic fields at the financial meeting in May. On election day we will have the opportunity to decide if the lion’s share of that money will be spent on a synthetic turf field, or not. I am not going to get into the merits of, or problems with synthetic turf. I expect most everyone has made up their minds on that matter, one way or another.
If we vote down the installation of synthetic turf in town, and instead spend the 4.5 million dollars on field improvements, we will have some vastly improved fields, but we will still not have solved the field shortage problem.
The Barrington Department of Public Works needs at least one more full-sized, multi-use field to allow a worn-out field to rest for a full year without the grass being trampled. There is inadequate open space in Barrington which can be developed into a new, full-sized grass field. A synthetic turf field, which can handle three times the amount of play, in all weather conditions, could solve the field shortage problem by freeing up a grass field for resting.
In my view, the best value for our money is to solve our field shortage problem with a synthetic turf field. Or, we can choose not to solve the root problem, and perpetually pay for expensive field improvements on our grass fields, as we have been doing.
Mike Seward
Barrington
Mike Seward is the chairperson of the Barrington Recreation Commission.