The Turf War Returns
closedehartparkatsunset said:
MORE ABOUT ASTRO TURF CAUSING CANCER IN CHILDREN...
That’s a pretty shaky polemic, by a psychologist who did postdoctoral training in epidemiology and public health at Yale. One example of its misleading statements: “In 2019, Washington, D.C. admitted that 17 of their playgrounds have dangerously high levels of lead.”
What D.C. found was this: ”The principal sources of elevated lead found on PIP [poured-in-place] playgrounds were identified as the following: 1. Leaded paint chips drifting onto the PIP playground from nearby buildings having unstable lead paint (about 12 schools). 2. Nearby soils having various average area background levels of lead (35 – 470 ppm) migrating onto the PIP playgrounds through foot traffic, rain storms, and/or wind. 3. Lead content within the top layer EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) rubber and polyurethane binder of approximately five (5) PIP playgrounds at three (3) schools (visually identified as material with pinkish color when weathered by sun and vivid orange in shaded playgrounds and/or virgin material exposed through cutting). 4. Lead contaminated soils most likely caused by recent, local construction activities (1 school).
That is, of 87 schools with rubber playgrounds, three had elevated levels of lead in the rubber. The D.C. report notes that a playground at one of those schools was remediated this way: “Thomson has had a sealing layer of artificial turf placed over the lead containing EPDM and is also open.”
ml1 said:
closedehartparkatsunset said:
ASTRO TURF MAY CAUSE CANCER IN CHILDREN-SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT....
By Stuart Shalat
March 18, 2017
If you want to get a soccer mom’s attention, bring up the subject of artificial turf, the preferred playing surface for children from pre-K to college — preferred, at least, by school boards and parks and recreation departments.
With concerns about concussions and cancer, parents have become alarmed by reports in the media of increased injuries and illnesses.
And there is the further question of who is responsible for assuring the safety of these fields: The Environmental Protection Agency? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention? The Consumer Product Safety Commission?
As an environmental health professor who has examined a variety of environmental problems and as a soccer dad who watched my son play on these fields for years, I think it’s worth examining the facts and myths about artificial-turf fields and what hazards may or may not be associated with playing on them. Based on studies I have reviewed and conducted, I believe there is a potential health risk because of the chemicals in tires, which are recycled into crumbs to support the plastic blades of synthetic grass.
Artificial turf is made up of three major parts:
1. Backing material that will serve to hold the individual blades of artificial grass.
2. The plastic blades themselves.
3. The infill, those tiny black crumbs, that helps support the blades.
Various pigments are used to provide the green color of the blades. These can include lead or titanium for the white lines and still other metals for school logos on the field.
Those little black crumbs are the problems. Tires can be toxic.
Modern tires are a mixture of natural and synthetic rubber, carbon black — a material made from petroleum — and somewhere between four and 10 gallons of petroleum products. They also contain metals, including cadmium, lead, which is neurotoxic, and zinc.
Some of the chemicals in tires, such as dibenzopyrenes, are known carcinogens.
Also, in addition to chemicals used in the manufacture of the tire, any chemical the tires were exposed to in their use can become absorbed on the carbon black in the tires.
Also, artificial turf is often treated with biocides, as turf has been associated with increased risk of infections from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. MRSA is a dangerous infection because it is resistant to many antibiotics. It can lead to pneumonia, sepsis and bloodstream infections that can prove fatal. An MRSA infection can happen after skin is scraped or cut, which can occur from sliding on artificial turf.
if parents are truly concerned about this they should not allow their kids to play outdoor sports at all. Even if Maplewood doesn't install an artificial turf field, kids will be playing on artificial surfaces when they play games in other towns.
Also, of course, Underhill, home of Columbia's football, soccer, lacrosse and track teams, uses turf.
I didn't know how the referendum vote would go last time. Most of the people I spoke with online and IRL were strongly in favor of artificial turf. Still, the referendum failed. A major difference back then was that so many more people were aware of the issue and had formed an opinion. Today, when I raise the issue in conversation most people reply, "What artificial turf project?" Add this being an off year for elections with little competition for the offices that are being decided in November. There will be fewer voters to the polls this year and unless the discussion moves off SOMA Lounge and into the mainstream, those who do vote in the election may simply skip over the question because they lack the awareness/information to cast a meaningful vote on the subject.
I really don’t see the “turfers” winning this war. Dehart was meant to be a recreational park in the Hilton section of maplewood. Not an organized sports field like underhill or other high school fields around the state.
Taylor park in millburn will never be turfed. You just don’t go spending millions of dollars on a park just because some people want to. I used dehart park for years when my kids were toddlers, never had an issue with the grass being too wet. I coached little league soccer there back in the early 90’s, kids need to get some mud in their system…. It grounds them.
closedehartparkatsunset said:
How do you add a referendum on the ballot? What is the process?
this is pretty funny. You're seemingly all worked up over this issue but you can't be bothered to do a little bit of investigation on the referendum process?
joan_crystal said:
I didn't know how the referendum vote would go last time. Most of the people I spoke with online and IRL were strongly in favor of artificial turf. Still, the referendum failed. A major difference back then was that so many more people were aware of the issue and had formed an opinion. Today, when I raise the issue in conversation most people reply, "What artificial turf project?" Add this being an off year for elections with little competition for the offices that are being decided in November. There will be fewer voters to the polls this year and unless the discussion moves off SOMA Lounge and into the mainstream, those who do vote in the election may simply skip over the question because they lack the awareness/information to cast a meaningful vote on the subject.
there was no way to predict the outcome of the referendum because there isn't polling on those kind of local ballot questions. At the time there was however a sense among the people who had worked on getting the state and county grants for the project that it was probably going to be defeated. There were just too many different arguments against it, and really only one in favor (that it would allow for more hours of recreational use compared to grass).
What bugged me (and it was echoed a few years later in the brouhaha over the post office site development) was how many dubious and even downright untruthful arguments were being made against the project. Then as now, there were people claiming artificial turf causes illness, even though the research on the topic is far from definitive. There were people making the claim that it would be a heat island, which while probably true, is an argument that could be made against building anything anywhere on a plot of currently unused land. Then there were the people who claimed that the township would be on the hook for the cost if the state and county reneged on paying back the bonds, even though they were told over and over that the state and county would be legally obligated to pay. That argument may have been the tipping point for a lot of voters fed up with local property taxes. So in the end the referendum was defeated by a fairly comfortable 54-46 margin. If the issue ends up in front of voters again I honestly can't envision an scenario in which it passes. It's just too easy for people to set up tables around town and hand out literature saying "your kids will get cancer" or "your taxes will go up" and get people riled up. And from what I've seen in the SOMA Facebook group, you can add "putting turf at DeHart is racist" to the list of anti-turf arguments. OTOH, countering with "more hours of outdoor recreation" is not likely to resonate the same way.
closedehartparkatsunset said:
yahooyahoo said:
The grass will never be in good condition at DeHart. The reconstruction of the field was completely botched by the contractor. I'm surprised the Town didn't do more to get some kind of compensation. The field does not drain correctly and never will unless it's dug up again and fixed.
So the grass is not the issue...its the drainage. Will the astro turf drain any better? Is it justifiable to add to global warming by astro turfing the field if there is no proper drainage? How about all the studies that show children are getting cancer at higher rates than adults... it has been suggested there may be a connection.
I'm not commenting on turf. I'm commenting on the condition of the current grass field at DeHart. It was not constructed properly. If residents want a nice grass field, the only option is to fix the drainage system and try grass again.
Jaytee said:
I really don’t see the “turfers” winning this war. Dehart was meant to be a recreational park in the Hilton section of maplewood. Not an organized sports field like underhill or other high school fields around the state.
Taylor park in millburn will never be turfed. You just don’t go spending millions of dollars on a park just because some people want to. I used dehart park for years when my kids were toddlers, never had an issue with the grass being too wet. I coached little league soccer there back in the early 90’s, kids need to get some mud in their system…. It grounds them.
I used to play softball at DeHart. The grass surface at that time was terrible, bordering on unsafe. I never twisted a knee or turned an ankle playing the outfield there, but it was always in the back of my mind given the rutted, uneven ground. There are certainly good faith arguments against artificial turf at DeHart, but saying it's a decent quality playing surface is a stretch, IMHO.
Jaytee said:
I really don’t see the “turfers” winning this war. Dehart was meant to be a recreational park in the Hilton section of maplewood. Not an organized sports field like underhill or other high school fields around the state.
Taylor park in millburn will never be turfed. You just don’t go spending millions of dollars on a park just because some people want to. I used dehart park for years when my kids were toddlers, never had an issue with the grass being too wet. I coached little league soccer there back in the early 90’s, kids need to get some mud in their system…. It grounds them.
Why were expensive lights installed over the athletic fields at DeHart if they're not meant for organized sports? Night picnics?
ml1 said:
this is pretty funny. You're seemingly all worked up over this issue but you can't be bothered to do a little bit of investigation on the referendum process?
In the interest of saving some time, I was asking for information. I thought that was one of the purposes of this website. Oh the judgment!
The turf causes cancer assertions don't seem to be supported by valid research.
tjohn said:
The turf causes cancer assertions don't seem to be supported by valid research.
Good, as there have been large turf fields in Maplewood (Underhill) and South Orange (at Seton Hall) for many years, as well as fields right on the two towns' borders in Orange and Union.
Any reports on what it costs to maintain Underhill? Longevity of the current turf - replacement plans.
I'm on the fence. The cost is a lot - I would ideally like a natural grass solution. And I don't like the waste of plastics.
Can someone expound on the heat related complaint of artificial turf? Is it for the players or the surrounding area? Having Underhill practically in my backyard - I haven't noticed any heat related issues.
It's $1.2 million to replace the turf at Underhill, though the additional cost at DeHart might be because it's a first-time installation. From memory, I think we're two or three years past the recommended replacement date at Underhill (maybe year 13 of a 10-year lifespan?) and we're at the point where at least one opponent canceled a game because they felt the field was unsafe.
I think everyone's dream would be a usable grass field, but I just don't know how that's possible given the use we need to get from it. As Dean Dafis pointed out, the grass at Wimbledon looks pretty shabby after two weeks of heavy use despite their unlimited resources and ability to stay off it the rest of the year.
closedehartparkatsunset said:
In the interest of saving some time, I was asking for information. I thought that was one of the purposes of this website. Oh the judgment!
Sorry I don't know the specifics. I can help with the procedure. Call the town clerk's office for current, accurate information. You will need to circulate a document for signatures. Be sure you get the required wording on the statement you are asking people to sign. You will then need the required number of signatures of registered voters who live and vote in Maplewood. The town clerk can tell you how many signatures you will need. Since some of the signatures you get are bound to be disqualified for one reason or another you want to get as many signatures beyond the required number as possible. There will also be a due date by which the signatures have to be obtained if the question is to appear on November's ballot. Be sure to get those signatures submitted in time or they won't count.
closedehartparkatsunset said:
ml1 said:
this is pretty funny. You're seemingly all worked up over this issue but you can't be bothered to do a little bit of investigation on the referendum process?
In the interest of saving some time, I was asking for information. I thought that was one of the purposes of this website. Oh the judgment!
it's not judgment. But why on earth would I help someone who's trying to do something I'm not in favor of?
chalmers said:
It's $1.2 million to replace the turf at Underhill, though the additional cost at DeHart might be because it's a first-time installation. From memory, I think we're two or three years past the recommended replacement date at Underhill (maybe year 13 of a 10-year lifespan?) and we're at the point where at least one opponent canceled a game because they felt the field was unsafe.
I think everyone's dream would be a usable grass field, but I just don't know how that's possible given the use we need to get from it. As Dean Dafis pointed out, the grass at Wimbledon looks pretty shabby after two weeks of heavy use despite their unlimited resources and ability to stay off it the rest of the year.
I think I wrote this on FB, but the Giants and the Jets tried natural grass at Giants Stadium years ago. With all the groundskeeping resources the two teams had, they couldn't keep grass growing for roughly 20 three-hour games between August and December. What chance do we have to grow healthy grass on a field that will be used almost daily for most of the year?
the people promoting a grass solution to the field problems at DeHart are selling a con. It's just not feasible to use a grass field as much as an artificial turf one can be used and have the grass stay healthy.
tjohn said:
The turf causes cancer assertions don't seem to be supported by valid research.
it becomes hard to isolate the effect of chemicals in crumb rubber fill because all those chemicals exist in traces all over the place. Where do people think the rubber that wears off our car tires goes? It goes into the air, and on to the road, where rain washes it into storm drains or onto the ground if the road doesn't have curbs. It's likely we all have those chemicals in our bodies in at least trace amounts.
A very limited sample size of young athletes I asked, combined with my experience as a SOM baseball coach 2010-2017, says DeHart is about the best field in MAPSO. Again ... Very small sample size. Also ... I feel spoiled by the fields here compared to those in Michigan where I grew up and still visit. I realize that comparison pales in comparison to neighboring towns here, but still.
Finally ... I get suspicious of motives and consideration for the community when the subject of DeHart Park is raised in Maplewood overall, and MOL specifically. So much of the discussion smells of xenophobia and thinly veiled racism. The recent basketball court debate comes to mind. The above concerns over security smell funny, too. As if a locked fence is going to hold back ne'er do wells. My hope is to see people who live nearest the park get involved, especially when it's time to vote.
It is sad that all the effort to get the turf field will be wasted, as the vote is sure to be against it in this town.
notupset said:
It is sad that all the effort to get the turf field will be wasted, as the vote is sure to be against it in this town.
We're going to start this process with lousy fields and finish this process with lousy fields, yet some will view that result as a huge achievement.
Increasingly, the only families whose kids get to play organized sports on safe, reliable surfaces will be the ones who can afford three grand a year for an out-of-town club team, yet some will view that as a win for equity.
Tune in again 10 years from now when we go through another cycle of lousy fields ---> turf proposal ---> wave of objections ---> lost referendum ---> vague assurances that we can/will get it right using grass ---> objectors who found all those great websites about how grass worked in other towns move on to other things ---> town's efforts to maintain playable grass surfaces fail ---> lousy fields.
When Maplewood was being developed in the 1920s, the population was much smaller and aging in place was far more prevalent than it is now. We were a town of single family homes with yards. Children played in those yards and in the street (less vehicular traffic back then). Far fewer girls engaged in group sports. Athletic skill was not seen as a means of getting a college scholarship. Conditions have changed in 100 years. Increased population, increased multifamily buildings with no green space of their own, safety concerns over children playing in their own yard or in the street, increased emphasis on athletics for girls, expansion in the number of sports available to children and adults in town, growth of sports clubs and sports clinics have placed additional demands on our fields to the point where they can no longer handle the use to which residents would put them. Add in the use of funding sources which prevent our field use being restricted to residents and the demands get even greater. Placing artificial turf over the fields at DeHart won't solve the problem of over used fields. Placing artificial turf over every field in town that is large enough to support organized sports will not solve the problem. We simply do not have the infrastructure to meet the current demand. We do not have the space to increase the number of fields to meet the demand. It is past time time to think beyond the artificial turf proposal and view the issue more holistically. Lets give some thoughts to ways in which we can address the problem through other means.
One means of addressing the problem is to reduce the demand being placed on the fields. This is obviously the least popular solution, especially for those demanding to use them. We could limit the number of permits we issue for use of the fields. Giving priority to town-sponsored sports teams would help with the equity issue that some have raised in these discussions. Making the fields less available to school district teams would decrease equity. These teams use our fields now because Underhill and Ritzer are not able to meet the needs of all the sports teams in the district. Saying no to private sports clubs and privately run sports clinics might not be possible because of the funding the town accepted when creating and maintaining these fields and could eliminate a source of funding for future maintenance; but, would help with the equity issue and would reduce the stress being placed on our fields now.
We could reduce the length of the "season" each league could play, thereby increasing the number of leagues that could use the fields without their falling into overuse. We could place a strict limit on the number and length of practice sessions each team would be allowed. This would enable more teams to use the fields but would limit the amount of time each team would have on the fields. This might not address the concerns of those who complain about insufficient playing time now but could address the issue of making what playing time is allotted more dependable.
We could take a longer term approach and place less emphasis on organized sports by developing other forms of active recreation that could be offered in our schools and in our community at large. We would need to give some thought to what these alternatives could be, what facilities they would require, how they could incorporate not just the physical activity but the team building skills that come from organized sports. If some of the interest in field sports could be directed elsewhere, this would help with the demand being placed on the fields.
Another suggestion that has been mentioned in the "turf war" discussions is to take a regional approach by arranging to use fields in other towns. This would require other towns having the field time available to share with us and our having resources we could contribute to make this a worthwhile arrangement for them. We have a shared recreation agreement with South Orange now. We could explore broadening this into a formal regional approach to all forms of recreation programming, not just field sports.
Please add any suggestion you may have here. This thread should be about exploring solutions not just repeating statements for and against, when arguments for and against are all valid here and what we really have is a discussion of priorities.
no matter where anyone stands on the issue of artificial turf, I would hope they would agree that telling kids and families that they're going to have to live with fewer opportunities to play sports is not the answer.
Joan, you're exactly right that putting turf at DeHart would merely be a modest improvement of the field situation and that the most responsible resolution would be a holistic, overall review that recognizes the massive changes in organized youth sports and defines the level of community resources that should go toward them. It's fair to reject the DeHart turf because it's far from a complete solution, but one of those would probably anger everyone in some way, so I think a modest improvement is the best we'll get.
I do think that a regional approach might be the best way. Cougar soccer already plays "home" games on the county turf field in Orange and at Newark Academy. Again, that's not a perfect solution as one of the overlooked problems in youth sports equity is the inability of some families to drive to distant practices and games and heaven help the TC members who have to convince residents to invest in a turf field located in Newark or somewhere.
Though I don't think it will be reached through the thorough and reasonable review you propose, I think inertia will hold and we'll end up being a town that de-emphasizes organized youth sports by default. Families who can afford it will put their kids on club teams that play on reliable fields. Kids from families who can't will make do for a while, frequently having fields closed and games canceled, until the whole thing peters out because of the club kids' absence. I'd find that unfortunate for several reasons, but maybe the community would benefit from more picnic and free play areas.
joan_crystal said:
Another suggestion that has been mentioned in the "turf war" discussions is to take a regional approach by arranging to use fields in other towns. This would require other towns having the field time available to share with us and our having resources we could contribute to make this a worthwhile arrangement for them. We have a shared recreation agreement with South Orange now. We could explore broadening this into a formal regional approach to all forms of recreation programming, not just field sports.
I see this as the most feasible option. Since we are surrounded by towns with artificial turf fields at this point, why are we not trying to rent time on their fields? Cougar SC uses the turf field in Monte Irvin Orange Park (an Essex County park) for games. There should be more of these arrangements. Millburn, Union, Springfield, etc. Towns and school districts want/need revenue, this seems like a logical opportunity.
Also, the use of Underhill Field is not optimized (in my opinion).
yahooyahoo said:
I see this as the most feasible option. Since we are surrounded by towns with artificial turf fields at this point, why are we not trying to rent time on their fields? Cougar SC uses the turf field in Monte Irvin Orange Park (an Essex County park) for games. There should be more of these arrangements. Millburn, Union, Springfield, etc. Towns and school districts want/need revenue, this seems like a logical opportunity.
Also, the use of Underhill Field is not optimized (in my opinion).
What makes you think that these surrounding towns have less demand on their fields than Maplewood does on it's fields?
Want/need revenue? This would be yet another step to the privatization of all youth sports and the fee-for-service model than is near-and-dear to red-staters.
So much for the equity argument that everyone makes for everything else around here.
I've written it before, but it's probably a foregone conclusion that an artificial surface at DeHart isn't going to be built. Probably not ever if it comes up on the ballot as a referendum each time it's proposed. It's an uphill battle under any circumstances because most residents' families are probably not currently using the recreation facilities. So asking the majority of voters to approve a bond that will benefit a minority of residents is never going to be a slam dunk.
and the other factor that we saw in 2008 was the passion gap. The people who opposed the artificial turf seemed about twice as passionate, and had arguments that were simple enough to fit on a bumper sticker -- "It causes cancer!" "It adds to global warming!" "Kids will get MRSA!" "Your taxes will go up!"
Arguing that artificial turf fields allow for considerably more hours of outdoor recreation use just doesn't rile up the emotions in the same way as arguing that your kids may die if they play on artificial turf.
Maybe the proponents should argue that it will increase property values. Sometimes, it seems that this is the only thing that people consider on issues of this nature.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
How do you add a referendum on the ballot? What is the process?