www.SynTurf.org

No. 29] Toronto FC converts to natural grass. September 2008.

No. 28] Terre Haute, Ind.: Lack of private funds sinks artificial turf fields for three high schools. September 2008.

No. 27] East Hartford, Conn.: Rentschler Field will stay with natural grass. August 2008.

No. 26] Highland, Ind.: High School chooses sod over turf. August 2008. 

No. 25] Tyler, Texas: School District goes with new drainage system and Bermuda grass. July 2008.

No. 24] No turf for the juvenile detention center in Manchester (NH) due to health risks (July 2008). 

No. 23] Many Orange County communities do not allow turf (July 2008).   

No. 22] Montrose (NY) says "no" to turf field (June 2008).

No. 21]  Save Your Park: The Westmount (Quebec) retrospective (video) (June 2008). 

No.  20] Cape Henlopen School District, Del. says "no" to turf field due to economic woes (June 2008).

No.  19] Pelham, NY says "no" to turf fields (May 2008).

No. 18] Maynard, Mass. says "no" to artificial turf field (May 2008).

No. 17] Portola, Calif. Conservation Commission says "no" to turf (Fall 2007). 

No. 16] Haverling (NY) cuts out turf from high school renovation plans (March 2008).

No. 15] Costa Mesa's turf ban ordinance under review (March 2008). 

No.  14] UEFA says “no” to turf for Champions League final (March 2008).

No. 13] Minneapolis City Council says "No" to Turf on Nicollet (February 2008).

No. 12] Minneapolis Councilman slams turf (February 2008).

No. 11] Ridgefield voters turn down turf plan (February 2008).

No. 10] No Turf  at Longmeadow (Mass.) High School (February 2008).  

No. 09] No Turf in Nicollet Island's Historic District (February 2008).

No. 08] National Park Service/Jones Point Park/Alexandria, Va (December 2007).

No. 07] Westmount, Quebec, Canada (December 2007).

No. 06] Caldwell/West Caldwell, New Jersey (December 2007).

No. 05]  Nyack, New York (December 2007).

No. 04]  Fairfield, Conn. (November 2007).

No. 03]  Wellesley, Mass. (April 2007).

No. 02]  Woodside, Calif. (July 2007).

No. 01]  Atherton, Calif. (April 2007).

[No. 72] Marblehead, Mass.: No lack of marbles here, town votes down artificial turf. There are not many more municipal toponyms in Massachusetts that invite a smile than the names of Marblehead, Peabody and Athol – all three of which, according to the detractors of one Endicott "Chub" Peabody, the 62nd Governor of Massachusetts (1963-65) were named after him! That be as it may, the folks in Marblehead are anything but, well, lacking their marbles. According to a news story in The Marblehead Patch (June 17, 2010), “In a resounding vote of 4097 to 1723, Marblehead residents decided against resurfacing Sgt. Christopher Piper Field with artificial material Tuesday during the special election. Conceivably, one of the biggest problems for Marblehead residents is the final bill for such an expense. Many locals claim a synthetic field is not a sound purchase during a time of economic recession. Marblehead Youth Football President and chairman of the citizen Field Turf Committee, Bruce Bial, estimated the cost at $1.5 million, with repair fees averaging $300,000 every 10 years.” Source: Nathaniel Snow, “Override Aftermath: Town Says No To Turf,” in The Marblehead Patch, June 17, 2010, available at http://marblehead.patch.com/articles/town-says-no-to-turf

SynTurf.org Note: According to the same news report, the proponents of the turf field had campaigned on the slogan “Save the Earth, Vote for Turf,” saying the turf is “a more environmentally friendly option because it does not require the current 300,000 gallons of water and various pesticides used each year to maintain Piper Field.” First, this is not an arid or semi arid part of the country requiring that kind of water. Second there are grass technologies that require shorter growing season and have deeper roots and shorter blades – all designed to make the grass drought resistant (less water use). Third, pesticides and fertilizers can be organic.

SynTurf.org endorses the remarks made by Marblehead resident Laura Berham, who told The Patch, “it most definitely does not save the earth; it’s actually an inappropriate use of the earth we're entrusted to protect.” “Shredded tires make up the base of synthetic fields, and research shows these particles can contain dangerous levels of lead, zinc, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and selenium. This creates a scenario for possible chemical run-off, which can end up in local bodies of water, including the ocean. Also, these chemicals can be very harmful if inhaled by athletes according to Berham.” “Another safety issue revolves around the increased heat-absorption properties of turf, which are considered dangerous to play on in extremely warm weather. On average, artificial fields are ten degrees warmer than their grass counterparts.”

[No. 71] Hingham Mass.: Voters turn down artificial turf for Ward Street fields. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. June 15, 2010. According to the town’s website, “For the 20th time, Hingham has been named “Tree City USA” by the National Arbor Day Foundation in recognition of the Town’s commitment to tree care and planting in 2007. Nevertheless, in its infinite wisdom, dictated by “community-minded” do-gooders we about to install artificial turf fields, and floodlights in area that is “mostly surrounded by a curtain of towering trees, barely visible from any houses,” according to Brian McGrory, a columnist for The Boston Globe.[1] Perhaps for that reason and other considerations, the members of the Town Meeting decided to vote down in April 2010 the plan to desecrate this landscape with plastic playing fields. But according to McGrory, “So here we go again. The minority of petulant prima donnas had their way, leaving common sense — and the common good — in the dark.”

According to an item in the WickedLocal.com (Hingham Journal) (June 11, 2010) – “Town Meeting voters said “no” to 80-foot lights at the proposed privately funded Ward Street turf fields in April. As a result, project proponents are revising the layout for the project. “Basically, the two-field concept remains, retaining the existing grass field and then proposing to construct the new field of natural grass, with parking, on the surplus parcel controlled by the Selectmen,” said Jeffery Tocchio, attorney for the Ward Street Fund, in an email to the Hingham Journal. “No lighting is proposed, and fencing will be limited to the ends of the field (to protect people and parked vehicles).”[2]

For an audio and textual reporting on the matter, go to John Penny, “Hingham: Supporters unveil new Ward St. field proposal,” on 959 WATD (June 11, 2010) at  http://www.959watd.com/news.php?Hingham-Supporters-unveil-new-Ward-St.-field-proposal-3698 .

For a previously posted item about Hingham, please go to http://www.synturf.org/justwords.html (Item No. 25)

[No. 70] Bath, Maine: Voters say no to artificial turf. According to a news story in The Times Record (June 9, 2010), “Bath residents voted decisively Tuesday [June 8, 2010] to reject a $300,000 bond to cover the installation of artificial turf on McMann Field. According to unofficial results this morning June 9], 1,522 residents voted against the bond and 861 voted in favor of it. As a result, the ambitious, but controversial, project was dealt a serious blow.” “The City Council twice approved the bond by a 5-4 vote, but a subsequent citizens’ petition drive gathered 1,024 signatures to overturn the council decision and put the issue to a citywide vote. Opponents of the bond called the spending “frivolous” and worried that the annual $35,000 loan payments would increase taxes during a poor economy. But supporters insisted that the city would generate enough revenues through use of the new field that it would cover its annual loan payments and sock money away for an eventual replacement of the surface in the future.” For more of the story, please see Seth Koenig, “Bath voters nix turf loan,” in The Times Record, June 9, 2010, available at  http://www.timesrecord.com/articles/2010/06/09/news/doc4c0fc0a6792c0549716584.txt .

[No. 69] Jacksonville Jaguars go with grass practice field! According to a news report in The Florida Times-Union (May 17, 2010), “The Jaguars decided they no longer need a practice field with an artificial surface. They are tearing up their FieldTurf surface and replacing it with grass so they’ll be able to rotate their practices on three grass fields.” According to coach Jack Del Rio, “Years ago, when you had the old-fashioned artificial turf, you used the basketball shoe on them. It was a completely different surface,” but now “FieldTurf is so similar to grass that the players use the same cleats they use on grass.” “There comes a time when you’re either going to have put in a new one or go to grass,” Del Rio said. “Going to grass and having three fields make a lot of sense. And for our fans, it brings some of the action under the lights closer to them, which will be a positive.” Source: Vito Stellino,  “Jaguars Notebook: Team keeping it real by adding grass practice field,” in The Florida-Times-Union, May 17, 2010, available at http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2010-05-17/story/jaguars-notebook-team-keeping-it-real-adding-grass-practice?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=gardening .

[No. 68] Monroe, New York: Voters say no to artificial turf fields. According to a news report in The Photo News (May 21, 2010), on May 18, the voters in the Monroe-Woodbury School District approved a $147 million spending plan for the 2010-11 school year by more than 800 votes and also gave the go-ahead to replace 10 buses. But when it came to the artificial turf field, 3,331 voters defeated the measure “to install a multi-use synthetic athletic field at a cost of $1.69 million.” For more on the vote, see Bob Quinn, “M-W voters approve $147M budget, reject $1.7M synthetic field and return Budich to school board, in The Photo News, May 21, 2010, available at http://www.strausnews.com/articles/2010/05/22/photo_news/news/1.txt .

[No. 67] Chicago, Illinois: Da Bears pick manly grass over plastic due to risk of injury. According to a news report in The Chicago Tribune (May 13, 2010), the Chicago Bears are not interested in converting the Soldier Filed playing surface from grass to artificial turf, even though the Chicago Park District has been interested in changing the surface. “One of the complicating factors is the Bears still are awaiting results of a league study on injuries incurred on infill playing surfaces. They are concerned because preliminary findings have suggested lower leg injuries occur at a higher rate on infill.” According to Bears President Ted Phillips, “The Chicago Bears will always put a premium on player safety. Each year we will continue to discuss the pros and cons of grass and infill surfaces, and then make a decision.” Source: Dan Pompei, “Bears will stick with grass at Soldier Field: They have safety issues with substituting artificial surface,” in The Chicago Tribune, May 13, 2010, available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-13/sports/ct-spt-0514-bears-chicago--20100513_1_bears-president-ted-phillips-infill-soldier-field .

SynTurf.org Note: We could not resist the characterization of the decision by the Bears to stay with natural grass as a manly act. In apiece headlined “Soldier Field Stays Grass. Real Manly Men Everywhere Rejoice,” Shea Johnson of BlogDownChicagoBears.com (May 14, 2010) (available at http://www.blogdownchicagobears.com/2010/05/14/soldier-field-stays-grass-real-manly-men-everywhere-rejoice/ ) wrote, “[C]consider news that Soldier Field will not install any type of artificial turf this season a win for tough, meat-eating, red-blooded Americans.” That said, Johnson continues, “All I know is that members of the Bears seem to be in favor of change: Of 36 polled by the Tribune last December, only 12 wanted to remain with grass, none of whom were speed position players (wide receivers, defensive ends and defensive backs). This flies in the face of the NFL Players Association Survey (2008) in which  87.8% (43) of the 49 responding believed  artificial turf filed are more likely to contribute to injury than natural grass. For the NFL Players Association Survey, go to http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html (Item No. 24) or http://www.synturf.org/images/2008_NFLPA_Surface_Survey.pdf .

[No. 66] Rutherford, New Jersey: School playground to go from rubber to wood mulch. In June 2009, SynTurf.org reported on the burning down of the Lincoln School Playground in Rutherford, New Jersey. The underlay of the playground was made of vulcanized rubber. This is the same material from which rubber mulch and crumb rubber for artificial turf fields are made (For details, see http://www.synturf.org/warnings.html (Item No. 47). According to a news report in the South Bergenite (March 18, 2010), the Lincoln School fire was an act of arson by an 11-year-old who accumulated a pile of leaves at the playground and lit it with a lighter. The Rutherford fire officials indicated that no accelerant was used, but didn’t rule out that a contributor to the fire was the rubberized play surface. At the time of the Lincoln School fire, Consumer Reports  “conducted a study where it placed a lit match on a tray of both rubber mulch and wood mulch and concluded the rubber mulch burned faster and hotter, creating a more severe fire that was harder to put out than the one in the wood mulch.”  

Now, a year later, the lessons learned from that incident is now being applied to the playground at Washington School. According to the South Bergenite, “Washington School playground will get a new play surface within the next couple of weeks after officials are concerned that the synthetic rubber playground surface could be highly flammable.” “oon after the Lincoln School fire, the South Bergenite tested the rubber mulch surface that lies underneath the Washington School playground and the results were astonishing. With just a flick of lighter, a pile of the recycled rubber ignited and burned into a molten ash in just seconds.” The work will entail the “upheaval of the equipment at Washington School, take out the rubber mulch surface and replace it with wood mulch, the same surface laid down at the brand new Lincoln School playground this past summer in the wake of the blaze.” Source: Lamendola, “Washington School play surface to be changed out,” in South Bergenite, March 18, 2010, available at  http://www.northjersey.com/news/education/88323302_Play_area_to_swap_rubber_for_wood_chips.html .

[No. 65] Middletown, New Jersey: Budget woes scraps artificial turf plans. According to a news report in the Holmdel Independent (April 6, 2010), on April 5, the town “officials laid to rest any and all plans for the construction of turf fields in Middletown.” “’There’s no way, in this economic climate when people’s jobs are hanging in the balance, we could go ahead with a project like that,’ Mayor Gerard P. Scharfenberger said of the turf field project.” “Township officials assured residents that they would still make efforts to repair and maintain the fields, which residents indicated were in poor condition. ‘Field maintenance and field improvements can still be addressed through the capital budget; the issue is there is no plan at this point to proceed with building synthetic turf fields … anywhere,’ [Town administrator] Mercantante said.” Source: Andrew Davison, “Tough economic times sink Middletown turf fields,” in Holmdel Independent, April 6, 2010, available at http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2010-04-08/Front_Page/Tough_economic_times_sink_Middletown_turf_fields.html .

[No. 64] Coal City, Illinois: High School goes with natural grass. According to a news item in the Morris Daily Herald (March 17, 2010), “One month after turning down the artificial turf option, Coal City Unit School District 1 gained its footing Monday with regards to providing a quality surface for its football field at a reasonable cost. Board members gave their verbal consent for district officials to revive the field surface using a process called ‘top dressing.’” “Top dressing is a process that involves a machine moving across the field, spreading dirt in the low spots and dropping a small layer of top soil across the top. The process then involves reseeding and fertilizing over the soil.” The process smooths out the field and helps maintain the crown on the field. The “process will prevent the district from having to resod and recrown the football field in the future. It has been more than 10 years since the district has resodded and recrowned its field.”

In terms of the economics - The primary reason for going with top dressing  “was due to the significant price tag for installation [of artificial turf], which amounted to about $600,000. Along with the cost of installation, the district would also face the likelihood in eight years of having to pay about $325,000 to replace the turf.” “Instead of the $70,000 cost to resod and recrown, top dressing would cost approximately $15,000 the first year, including $9,000 for the top dressing process alone. As part of that first-year cost, the district was advised to first put in a synthetic, clay-like product called DuraPlay, which would cost $6,000.” After that, the district “would be looking a recurring cost of about $9,000 a year to top dress, which means you can do a lot of top dressing for the cost of having to resod and recrown the football field.” For more of the story, go to Mark Malone, “CCHS opts to 'revive' football field,” in Morris Daily Herald, March 17, 2010, available at http://www.morrisdailyherald.com/articles/2010/03/16/52168039/index.xml .

[No. 63] Michigan Center, Michigan: School Boards ditches turf field, goes with natural grass. According to a news report in the Jackson Citizen Patriot, Match 8, 2010, “The Michigan Center School Board turned down a proposal Monday to seek bids on installing synthetic turf on its football field, favoring a new natural grass field instead.

The board voted 3-4 on the artificial turf proposal with President Gerald Holda, Mike Edwards, Debra Kruse and Ralph Branham all dissenting. The board then unanimously approved seeking bids to install a grass field and revamp the track.” “The estimated cost of grass is $90,000, compared to $480,000 for turf, Superintendent David Tebo said.” Source: Claire Cummings, “Michigan Center School Board turns down proposal to install synthetic turf in football field, favors natural grass,” in Jackson Citizen Patriot, March 8, 2010, available at http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2010/03/michigan_center_school_board_s.html .

[No. 62] Santa Ana, Costa Rica: Municipality will go with a grass field, because of lower cost, the environment, profitability and health. According to a news story on Nacion.com (February 2, 2010), the municipality of Santa Ana in Costa Rica is installing grass in its stadium because it is cheaper, more ecologically sound, and allows more uses than artificial surfaces. The trend in Costa Rica is for artificial turf – the country’s national league has the most artificial turf surfaces than nay other. Panama is second. The Santa Ana surface installation will cost $400,000, less than the Alajuelenses’ $1.2 million and Herediano’s (Rosabal Cordero) $750,000 for artificial turf. The field has a drainage infiltration system that drains 100 liters of water per minute and a fiber that attaches the grass and prevents it from bending. The natural pitch has a lifespan of about 30 years, against an artificial 7, and a monthly maintenance cost of around $900. Gerardo Oviedo, mayor of Santa Ana, said he received offers for a synthetic pitch, instead he turned “to natural because it is cheaper, environmentally friendly, profitable and healthy.” Source: Juan Jose Herrera, “Cancha con grama natural desafía modelos sintéticos,” on Nacion.com (February 2, 2010) valuable at http://www.nacion.com/ln_ee/2010/febrero/02/deportes2247074.html (for pdf click here). (with thanks to Frank Dell’Apa).

[No. 61] Poway, California: No artificial turf field for Arbolitos Sports Field? According to a news report in the North County Times (San Diego, December 27, 2009, the Poway Soccer League’s plans to install artificial turf at Arbolitos Sports Field may not materialize. “A report prepared by city staffers on the Poway Youth Soccer League's request to install the turf has concluded that there is a ‘strong probability’ that the fields would be flooded during the life of the turf, possibly voiding its warranty and leaving the city with a replacement cost of more than $1 million, and creating water-quality concerns. “[T]he staff report found that water running off the flooded synthetic field raised significant environmental concerns.” The City Council is scheduled to discuss the league's request on January 5, 2010. Source: Gary Warth, “Poway: City report recommends against artificial turf at playing field,” in North County Times, December 27, 2009, available at http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/poway/article_92ecfb38-4ca2-5dc2-ac47-59c671613c3d.html .

According to another news report on the same story, in Union-Tribune, December 25, 2009,  the “artificial fields won’t work because the two existing turf fields are in a flood basin, and if and when the area floods, the fields would be destroyed.” “A report prepared by Robert Manis, the city’s director of development services, also said water-quality concerns exist because artificial turf is made of loose rubber granules at the base of the blades, which could be washed downstream during rains and flooding. ‘The Regional Water Quality Control Board was consulted, and they concur with these concerns when artificial turf is proposed in proximity to a storm-drain system,’ Manis wrote. Consequently, it is staff’s opinion that artificial turf is not appropriate for this location.” Source: J. Harry Jones, “Artificial turf not likely at fields,” in Union-Tribune, December 25, 2009, available at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/25/artificial-turf-not-likely-fields/ .

[No. 60] Salinas, California: No artificial turf for the place of eternal rest. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. January 2, 2010. A few summers ago, two of this site’s researchers were out in Cambridge, Mass., looking to locate a public view of an artificial turf field at a private school bordering a cemetery. A peculiar sign greeted them as they drove through the front gate of the cemetery: “Please no plastic flowers.” The two got a chuckle out of this display, wondering what if one day artificial turf replaced the greens in the cemeteries as well. A brief  research on the Internet produced a few stories on golf courses and cemeteries at the time actually contemplating on going faux, as did a few race tracks and airports. Each would have its own reason for ripping out the dirt track and natural grass and replacing it with lifeless plastic cover. The irony of it all was the most pointed with regard to cemeteries.     

According to a news report in The Herald (Monterey County, December 29, 2009), the Garden of Memories cemetery in Salinas will be removing the artificial turf that presently covers 5% of the grounds. The previous management had installed it in hopes of reducing maintenance and watering costs. “It catches a lot of people’s eyes and they think it’s great, but it can get really messy,” said Maria Cardenas, cemetery office manager. According to The Herald, “Since April, current management has found the artificial turf is difficult to work with, Cardenas said. In the rain, the synthetic grass is slippery, and it can be ruined when digging graves. Krassow said the artificial turf doesn’t work with the design plan that aims to make the cemetery more visually appealing. ‘There are no vertical elements. It's flat,’ he said. ‘We want to get some trees in place.’ The existing lawn — the area without artificial turf — should be aerated and fertilized. ‘That hasn't happened in a long time,’ he said. Overall, the grounds of the cemetery, which opened more than 100 years ago, are well-maintained, but some improvements can make it more attractive, Krassow said. ‘Planting some new trees will really help,’ he said.” Source:

Daniel Lopez, “Grass Greener: Cemetery removing artificial turf after test tanks,” in The Herald, December 29, 2009, available at http://www.montereyherald.com/local/ci_14085929?nclick_check=1 .

SynTurf.org Note: When people arrange for their burial spot or loved one’s select a location for interment of their departed they seek a pleasant surrounding, typically a natural setting, with trees, water, flowers, shrubs and like. One must wonder to what extent this expectation plays into signing the dotted line before spending thousands of one’s dollars for grave site and what if the cemetery then chooses to turn the place into a ghetto complete with artificial and plastic ground cover. One can only assume that an action my lie against the operators of the cemetery. And who would righten the one who’s turned in his grave?

[No. 59] Marrickville, Australia: Council votes down artificial turf, goes with natural grass. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. December 13, 2009. Marrickville is a suburb of Sydney (New South Wales), Australia, consisting of low and high density residential, commercial and light industrial areas. The Arlington Recreation Reserve at Dulwich Hill serves as one of the area’s local sporting fields, which is used by two soccer clubs for practice and competition. The surface of the playing field has been in a state of disrepair for sometime; it has been 15 years since it was repaired or replaced. 

The municipal government – Marrickville Council -- proposed a resurfacing option that would have replaced the natural grass surfaces to artificial turf. The neighboring community did not like the idea one bit and so it mobilized against the project. Save Arlington Reserve set up a website/blog at http://savearlingtonreserve.wordpress.com/.

The website is actually maintained by one of the local Greens Councillors!
The organizers included Dr. Gavin Edwards, a Senior Lecturer in the School of Chemistry at University of New South Wales, with qualifications in the areas of organic and medicinal chemistry, having taught senior level environmental toxicology at UNSW. On September 20, 2009, Edwards submitted an extensive brief against the project to the Council. For a copy of the brief, click here.

In a letter to SynTurf.org, Edwards informs that on Tuesday night, December 8, 2009, “the Council voted 10-1 in favour of resurfacing the ground with natural grass. As you might expect, under Australian law, Councillors are bound to look after their constituents. The local residents raised mnay issues, including some legal and scientific arguments. I provided the latter,” he wrote. For a news media coverage of this story, please go to:  http://www.torchpublishing.com.au/editorial/news_detail.yuma?ID=66704 .

[No. 58] Costa Rica national stadium will be a grass field. According to a news report on Nacion.com (November 24, 2009), Costa Rica has decided on a grass field for its national stadium. The Chinese government is donating the $85 million stadium. It would cost $500,000 less to install natural grass and, besides, “it’s a field less prone to injury,” according to Pandolfo, the vice-minister for sports. Source: Rodrigo Calvo, “El nuevo Estadio Nacional tendrá gramilla natural,” on Nacion.com, November 24, 2009, available here (thanks to Frank Dell'Apa).

[No. 57] Oxford, Michigan votes down artificial turf. According to a news story in The Detroit News (November 4, 2009), the voters in Oxford voted down 61% to 39% a bond proposal for $635,000 to build a synthetic turf athletic field and a storage building at one of Oxford’s schools. Source: Jennifer Chambers, “Oakland: Residents reject tax hikes in Berkley, Royal Oak Twp.,” in The Detroit News, November 04. 2009, available at http://www.detnews.com/article/20091104/METRO02/911040392/1409/METRO/Oakland--Residents-reject-tax-hikes-in-Berkley--Royal-Oak-Twp.

[No. 55] Connecticut: Some playgrounds remove rubber mulch. According to a news story in the Greenwich Citizen (October 2, 2009), “Greenwich Academy wanted to take a proactive stance to protect its young students on the Academy school playgrounds. So, the school recently replaced the shredded tire rubber mulch surface of its five playgrounds with a new ‘environmentally sound’ wood material called Fibar.” This followed a “similar replacement by the Whitby School in the spring.” “Town playgrounds are also making the switch, said Bruce Spaman, Superintendent of Parks and Trees.” For more go to, Anne W. Semmes, “Recycled tire mulch replaced on Greenwich Academy playgrounds,” Greenwich Citizen, October 2, 2009, available at http://www.greenwichcitizen.com/localnews/ci_13467657 .

[No. 54] Permanent grass for BMO Field. On September 30, 2009, 2Toronto’s city council voted unanimously to install permanent natural-grass turf at the BMO Field soccer pitch for next season. For details go to CTV.ca Toronto, “Council approves permanent grass for BMO Field,” September 30,  2009, available at http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090930/bmof_grass_090930/20090930/?hub=TorontoNewHome

[No. 53] MLB’s turf wars are nearing the end. According to a piece on SI.com (September 24, 2009), Artificial turf goes way of the dead ball.  “After the Minnesota Twins play their Metrodome finale on Oct. 4 and open Target Field next April 12, just two non-grass fields will remain in the major leagues: the Rogers Centre in Toronto and Tropicana Field in St. Petersburg, Fla. That’s down from a high of 10 artificial surfaces, in 1977-78 and again from 1982-94. While colleges and high schools actually are installing more faux fields - to accommodate multiple sports - artificial turf is unloved by Major League Baseball.” For more on the story, please go to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/wires/09/24/2010.ap.bbo.turf.wars.1st.ld.writethru.adv26.1481/#ixzz0SCB6qFPJ .

[No. 53] Toronto: Adios to BMO Field’s artificial turf. According to a news story in The Globe and Mail, September 12, 2009, “Two days after Danny Dichio stepped away from the game of soccer as a player to become a coach with Toronto FC, the club and the city agreed on a field improvement that might have lengthened his career. The board of governors for Exhibition Place on Friday approved plans by Maple Leafs Sport & Entertainment to install natural grass to replace the body-busting artificial surface used by Toronto FC for soccer matches.” “As part of a proposal that would see MLSE spend a total of $5.5-million at BMO Field, Lamport Stadium and a site in Etobicoke near Lakeshore Lions Arena, the pro sport group said it was offering Toronto a “no risk” upgrade of the rapidly degenerating artificial surface.” According to the Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, “We need this stadium to be the national stadium and the home of Canadian soccer. It’s obviously the right thing to do. If we don’t grasp the opportunity,” the CSA [Canadian Soccer Association] would take its base for the world’s most popular game elsewhere in Canada. “Besides, as a season ticket holder for the home pros, he said, ‘TFC’s success would be more likely,’ on a real grass field. Dichio said his career would have been longer if his knees and wonky back hadn’t been subjected to constant jolts on asphalt or concrete-based fields. ‘I can only compare it to an ice hockey team always having to play and practice on glass. You’re slipping. It’s not good for bones... if it doesn’t cause injuries, it’s certainly no help in the recovery process.’” For more on this story, see “Time for a field of grass: MLSE  - Owners of Toronto FC asks Exhibition Place board of directors for approval to replace artificial surf with the real stuff, plan gets instant backing of players,” in The Globe and Mail, September 12, 2009, available at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/time-for-a-field-of-grass-mlse/article1283901/ .

[No. 52] Minneapolis, Minn: Twins opt for real grass in new venue. According to a news report in the Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal (August 24, 2009), at 10 PM on Monday, August 24, 2009, crews would “begin installing grass at Target Field.” Te installation would be complete in four days. “Target Field, scheduled to open in April 2010, will have a complex heating, irrigation and drainage system beneath the grass. The Twins haven’t played on grass since leaving Bloomington’s Metropolitan Stadium at the end of the 1981 season. The Metrodome has artificial turf.” For more on the story, see John Vomhof Jr., “Target Field gets its grass Monday,” in Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal, August 24, 2009, available at http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2009/08/24/daily9.html .

[No. 51] New York City’s Public Advocate calls for removal of turf fields. According to a news report in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (June 18, 2009), “Reflecting concerns raised by an internal memo by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum and public interest organizations have again called on the city to schedule the replacement of artificial turf fields in parks throughout New York.” [For coverage of EPA on turf, go to http://www.synturf.org/epa.html ]. The EPA memo, sent in 2008 but not revealed until early this month, said that until a full study was performed, the EPA should take a neutral stance instead of approving of using shredded recycled tires, called crumb rubber, for play areas.” “It appears that there are valid reasons to take a broader perspective of all potential risks associated with crumb rubber,” said the memo.   

For more on this story and information about recent lead test from some NYC-area fields go to, Mary Frost, “Artificial Turf Fields Should Be Removed, Says Gotbaum,” in Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 18, 2009, available at  http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=27&id=28969 .

Last December, the Public Advocate, who is an elected official, asked for a moratorium on the installation of new turf fields in the city. See http://www.synturf.org/moratoriums.html (Item No. 15).

[No. 50] Western Michigan: Several turf funding measures go down in defeat. On Tuesday, May 5, 20009, the voters in West Michigan turned down some bond proposals and approved others. According to a news report in The Muskegon Chronicle (May 6, 2009), the voters in Montague defeated the proposal for athletic facility improvements, including artificial turf for the football stadium. In Reeths-Puffer, the voters nixed a high school renovation plan that included installation of artificial turf at the football and soccer fields. In Muskegon, the voters approved a proposal that included improvements to Hackley Stadium that do not include artificial turf. In Whitehall, the voters nixed defeated a proposal that would have spent $16 million for an outdoor athletic complex at the high school, with a stadium for soccer and football with artificial turf. Source: Lynn Moore and Marla Miller, “Fruitport voters nix bond proposal; Fremont OKs new high school”, in The Muskegon Chronicle, May 6, 2009), available at  http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2009/05/fruitport_voters_nix_new_high_1.html .

[No. 49] Friday Harbor, Wash.: Residents says “no” to rubber mulch/crumb in playground. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. April 26, 2009. Last summer,   According to a news report in the San Juan Journal (April 22, 2009), last summer, the PTA leaders and the principal at Friday Harbor Elementary School, Jody Metzger, selected crumb rubber as the surface material for the newly planned playground. The PTA had raised the money for the new playground equipment called the Big Toy, and the school district appropriated $10,000 for the crumb rubber. The crumb rubber, cut up pieces of used tires, was picked because the PTA and principal “felt it provided the best safety in the event of falls.” The playground was put in August and by September a group of parents began to call for its removal. “[S]some parents complained about the mess, some said the odor prompted asthma attacks, some feared negative health impacts from continued exposure to the material and the chemicals it contains.” “Some parents said it was impossible to push a wheelchair across the loose material, and that it thus violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. A letter-writing campaign was followed by a petition drive and the filing of a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.

The school district agreed to resolve concerns about accessibility, by placing a mat across the crushed rubber pieces, the opponents pressed for the removal of the crumb. In October 2008, the board authorized the formation of a committee composed of board members and parents - Playground Underlayment Committee - to replace the crumb rubber with the stipulation that it would do so with the goal of no net cost to the school district. The committee raising over $7,000 in contributions and on March 7-8, 2009, a group of 60 volunteers removed the crumb rubber and replaced it with $6,000’s worth of engineered wood fiber. The crumb was collected and sold to Horseshu Ranch for $2,000.

Sources: Source: Richard Walker, “New use for crumb rubber: Horse arena surface,” in San Juan Journal, April 22, 2009, available at

http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/sanjuans/jsj/news/43498712.html and “Life After Crumb Rubber” at  http://www.lifeaftercrumbrubber.blogspot.com .

SynTurf.org Note: The committee of parents and community members, including Arvid Lindstrum (alindstrum@centurytel.net), continue to maintain a website at http://www.lifeaftercrumbrubber.blogspot.com and wishes to share its success story with others who might find themselves in a similar situation.

The committee deserves kudos for its work and the result that it obtained. The accomplishment would have been all the better had the school district paid for the replacement of the crumb. If the product was deemed a health hazard and, arguably, not in compliance with the ADA, then legal and financial responsibility for the crumb rubber had to have rested with the district and its negligence in drafting the specifications for the project. These residents are entitled to reimbursement and the school board owes them a massive thank-you for their toil and treasure. Moreover, the board and the municipal authorities owe them a ton of gratitude for removing from their midst a product that could have exposed the children to harm that would have cost the community far more in damages down the line. Finally, a note to parents and PTAs elsewhere -- please insist on getting involved in the design and review of the specifications for a playground or playing field project prior to it going out to bid. Insist on alternatives to crumb rubber, synthetic surfaces and plastic grass.

[No. 48] Kenilworth, Ill.: Voters says “no” to turf on principle! According to a news story in Wilmette Life (April 8, 2009), on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, “Kenilworth voters sent a message to their commissioners on the Park Board. The majority who went to the polls Tuesday said they do not want a major renovation to Townley Field, be it with grass or artificial turf. A citizens group is willing to pay for replacing the grass in two-thirds of the park with an artificial surface, which could better stand up to the year-round use the park gets. But when the question, whether residents supported using private donations to pay for installation of an artificial turf, was put on the ballot, a majority of voters said "no": 562 (81 percent) to 128 (19 percent).” Here are some experts from the news story:

Several voters said they believed artificial turf is not as safe a play surface as grass. The Park District also asked voters whether they favored renovating Townley Field with grass, if it might cause the district to raise property taxes to pay for the rehab. Again, a majority of the people who went to the polls Tuesday voted “no,” although it was closer, with 387 people (55 percent) voting “no” and 312 (45 percent) voting “yes.” “I voted ‘yes’ for grass,” Debby Killion said. “I have concerns about the health issues of synthetic turf.” She mentioned “excessive heat” on turf during warm weather and the possibility that the materials used in the turf could “leach heavy metals into the water.” Her husband, Kevin Killion, said he voted “no” to both referendum questions. “No” to an artificial surface, he said, because "my big concern is open space. In a community that doesn't have much park space, we need to preserve what we’ve got.” Townley Field is more than an athletic field, he said. “People have picnics there, people fly kites.” Kevin Killion said he also voted “no” to a renovation with grass because “the time isn’t right. We don’t need to spend extra money right now.”

Charlene Washburn said she voted against an artificial surface “because I like things natural.”Ann Potter and her daughter Claire said they both voted against using private money to install an artificial turf on principle. “I don’t think private individuals should dictate what happens to public space,” Claire Potter said. Ann Potter said, in addition to having “questions about the efficacy of artificial turf,” she opposed it because she considers it “the ceding of public space to the preferences of private individuals.” If the group who had pledged to pay for a new artificial turf had offered to pay for either option, grass or synthetic turf, according to the wishes of the voters, “that would be different,” she said.

Source: Kimberly Fornek, kfornek@pioneerlocal.com “Why some Kenilworth voters spurned turf questions,” in Wilmette Life, April 8, 2009, available at http://www.pioneerlocal.com/wilmette/news/1517643,wi-townleyvote-040809-s1.article .

[No. 47] Maplewood, NJ: Township council votes for natural grass playing field at DeHart Park. Five months ago the residents of Maplewood voted down a $2.2 million proposal to refurbish DeHart Park, including an artificial turf field. According to anew report in The Star-Ledger (April 8, 2009), on April 7, 2009, township committee voted to issue $1.9 million in bonds, but this time the project includes “a natural grass field instead of the earlier proposed artificial turf, [which] will preempt any significant criticism of the $2.2 million project.” For the rest of the story, please go to Source: Richard Khavkine, “Maplewood to refurbish DeHart Park,” in The Star-Ledger,

According to a news report in South Florida Sun-Sentinel (March 26, 2009), the ordinance was called for by the residents of Starlight Cove, an association community and West Deerfield Beach. The vice president of Starlight Cove told the Commission that the aesthetic grounds for removal of the turf spoke for itself, and “Then, there are the health and safety reasons.”

The Commission also heard from Philip Busey, associate professor of environmental horticulture (turf) at the University of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center. “According to his research, real grass filters water as it seeps into the aquifer, provides wildlife habitat and shade, sequestration of carbon dioxide and generation of oxygen. Busey stated green carpeting, by whatever definition, provides none of those. Artificial turf breeds infectious organisms, heats up to temperatures that are 87 degrees warmer than asphalt and 86 degrees warmer than natural turf, according to Busey. Considering artificial turf as an alternative to a grassed landscape is similar to considering a green cardboard cutout of a tree as an alternative to a tree, Busey pointed out in his document.” Elizabeth Roberts, “City pulls rug from artificial turf owners,” in South Florida Sun-Sentinel (March 26, 2009), available at http://www.sun-sentinel.com/community/news/deerfield_beach/sfl-fldffturf0326dffmar26,0,7264397.story .

[No. 45] San Carlos, Calif.:  Youth Council votes down turf field. According to a news report in The Daily Journal (March 21, 2009), on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, the San Carlos Youth Advisory Council voted 5-4 to recommend the City Council not move forward with synthetic turf on the Highlands Park Lower Athletic Field. “The San Carlos Youth Advisory Council, a group of middle school and high school students who offer opinions to the City Council, prefers to see the money spent on less expensive projects with a broader community benefit,” reports the Journal. Source: Michelle Durand, “Youth against artificial turf,” in The Daily Journal, March 21, 2009, available at http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=107155 . SynTurf.org has learned, the City Council will meet on April 13 to consider, among other things, the Youth Advisory Council’s decision. The opponents of the project would be out in force picketing the meeting.

[No.44] Manchester, New Jersey: The “nays” have it, again. According to a news item in the Asbury Park Press (March 11, 2009), on March 10, 2009, the voters in Manchester decisively voted against a referendum measure that sought to install an artificial turf field at the high school athletic complex. Fearing that the vote against the turf might sink also the funding for non-athletic items, the town put up two referenda. Both went to defeat, however. The vote ditching the turf dreams was 2,906 against and 1,542 for turf. A referendum to this effect also was defeated in December 2008. For more on this story and the reasons why people voted as they did, please go to Michael Amsel, “Manchester votes down facilities again in referendum,” in Asbury Park Press, March 11, 2009, available at http://www.app.com/article/20090311/NEWS02/903110357/1280/LOCAL04&source=rss .

[No. 43] Mamaroneck, NY: No to turf fields, bond measure fails. On Tuesday, February 10, 2009, a Mamaroneck school bond measure that contained $7.7 million worth of four new synthetic turf fields and a new track went to defeat. According to a report in  Larchmont Gazette, Catherine Wachs, a leading opponent to the bond, pointed to high taxes and objections to artificial turf as twin reasons for the bond defeat. She urged the board to resubmit a fiscally restrained bond suited to the times. Sources: http://larchmontgazette.com/2009/articles/20090203bondsummary.html and Christine Pizzuti, “Mamaroneck schools bond referendum fails by slim margin,” in The Journal news, February 11, 2009, available at http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090211/NEWS02/902110390&s=d&page=2#pluckcomments .

[No. 42] Peru: At the National Stadium, it’s out with the artificial turf, in with natural grass. In a news article published on the webzine Living in Peru (February 3, 2009), “Arturo Woodman, the head of the Peruvian Sports Institute confirmed that the Andean country's government had approved the funds to revamp the national stadium in Lima.

This is an effort the government is making through the Ministry of Education.” “The main changes was that natural grass would be planted. Woodman affirmed that the synthetic grass the stadium had was constantly being criticized.” Source: “Peru to spend 20 million soles on improvements to National Stadium,” in Living in Peru, February 3, 2009, available at  http://www.livinginperu.com/news/8274 .

[No. 41] San Jose: Calif.: School district says “no,” to fake grass on environmental and health grounds. According to a news story in The Mercury News (January 22, 2009),  “After hearing from dozens of parents concerned that synthetic turf may contain harmful toxins and can be too hot for children to play on, San Jose Unified trustees voted Thursday [January 22, 2009] evening against plans to replace the current grass field at Trace Elementary School with synthetic turf.” Trustees Richard Garcia, Veronica Lewis and Leslie Reynolds voted against the turf project; trustee Jorge Gonzalez voted for it. Pam Foley was absent. According to the Mercury, “The grass-roots victory left Trace parents jubilant. For months, they have been meeting at Starbucks, researching turf safety studies online, lobbying board members and putting together a ‘Parents for Real Grass’ Web site.” “On Thursday, Trace parents spoke about the need for children to have more natural green space in their lives, not less. One speaker talked of children having a ‘nature deficit disorder.’ Trace parents also focused on other concerns about exposure to potentially harmful chemicals and bacteria.”

For more on this story, see Dana Hall, “San Jose Unified votes against plans for synthetic turf field at Trace Elementary School,” in The Mercury News, January 22, 2009, available at http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11533221 . For an earlier entry on this story on this site, see  http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Item Nos. 45 and 47).

[No.  40] Bentonville, Arkansas: Parks & Rec says “ no” to turf soccer fields; City to continue using grass fields, with more rigorous maintenance. In May 2008, the Parks and Recreation Director for Bentonville sought to replace the grass on seven of the practice soccer fields at Memorial Park with artificial turf. Fast forward to January 2009. The proposal is dead. According to an article in the Benton County Daily Record (January 15, 2009), the Parks & Recreation’s new director, David Wright, has nixed the project. The reasoning behind the decision is best expressed in his own words, as reported by the Daily:

If the city had decided to change to artificial turf, it would have been a “complete overhaul,” he said. Wright also said he's read studies that cite problems with artificial-turf fields. “There was a handful of parks departments across the country that had artificial-turf fields in a couple of their parks. The experiment had not gone originally as planned,” he said. For example, in some cases in which blood is spread on the turf during a game, it increases the potential for spreading diseases. “I don't think it's the best route to take,” Wright said. “Let's come back in and crown the fields the way they need to be crowned,” Wright said. “Let's utilize gravity as our friend (and) put proper grades on the fields,” he said.

Source: Eleanor Evans “City foregoes artificial soccer turf,” in Benton County Daily Record, January 15, 2009, available at http://www.nwanews.com/bcdr/News/69796/ .

[No. 39] Irvington, NY says “no” to turf, mostly over process and environmental concerns. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. December 18, 2008. On Wednesday, December 17, 2008, the voters in the Irvington School District (Irvington, NY) voted down a $6 million bond referendum to finance the replacement of the natural grass field at the Irvington High-Middle School with artificial turf. In better economic times, two years earlier, the bond measure also failed, but by a narrower margin. Yesterday, the electorate let it be known that environmental concern also weighed on the final tally – Proposition 1: 387 (yeas) versus 1,358 (nay); Proposition 2: 322 (yes) versus 1215 (nay). This time around, the Environmental Conservation Board got directly involved in a matter that the school district wished it had not. The ECB was openly critical of the Board of education for not doing its homework. A news story in The Journal News, the days before the vote stated  that the Board “failed to perform a thorough review of safety and environmental concerns of the proposed field and that it led the public to believe studies of synthetic turf all concluded it is safe.” “This was a very result-oriented process. The outcome was predetermined and the objective was to assemble material that would help make a case,” Thomas Jackson, chairman of the conservation board, told The Journal. For detail, see Dwight R. Worley, “Environmental concerns grow over Irvington schools' plan for artificial turf field,” in The Journal News, December 16, 2008, available at http://www.lohud.com/article/2008812160385 . The vote ally is available at https://www.edline.net/files/3cf2b242680ac1d73745a49013852ec4/iNSPECTORSTotalVotesCastedline.pdf . There were a total of 3 absentee ballots for and 42 absentee ballots against each measure. For a previous entry on this story (re Dr. Landrigan’s letter to the local paper a week before the referendum), see, http://www.synturf.org/warnings.html (Item No. 34).

[No. 38] Jordan, NY: School district says no to turf. According to The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY), on December 11, 2008, “Voters in the Jordan-Elbridge school district today approved only one of three propositions in a $27 million capital project.” At issue were two propositions, both of which failed. First - Proposition 2 – sought to consolidate the playing fields at the high school and build new baseball and softball fields, refinish existing practice fields, add lighting to the two tennis courts, and build an athletic field where the existing wastewater treatment plant is located. The $3.3 million measure lost

679 votes to 619. Second - Proposition 3 – sought to install an artificial turf field at the existing high school stadium at a cost of $1.76 million; it failed with a vote of  767-530. Source: Catie O’Toole, “Jordan-Elbridge voters reject turf, approve repairs,” in The Post-Standard, (December 11, 2008), available at http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/jordanelbridge_voters_reject_t.html .

[No. 37] South River, New Jersey: Cost and overreaching by County sinks turf field project. On October 23, 2008, the South River Board of Education “turned down a $1 million grant from Middlesex County for an artificial turf field at South River High School’s Denny Stadium,” according to a report in the Sentinel  (Freehold, New Jersey). The proposal included lights and an public announcement system that residents found objectionable, as well as a use-easement on the field for county events. The additional cost of $300,000 toward the installation of the fields, as well as the annual cost of maintenance and lighting was to be borne by the town. The Sentinel did not report on whether the town or county would fork over the dough for replacement of the turf field after its useful life. Source: Kathy Chang, “Board says no thanks to $1M turf field grant,” in Sentinel, November 6, 2008, available at http://ebs.gmnews.com/news/2008/1106/front_page/001.html .

[No. 36] Brimfield, Mass.: Voters say “no” to borrowing for turf. According to a report in the Worcester Telegram (November 7, 2008), in a special town meeting on November 6, 2008, residents “voted against borrowing up to $2 million for synthetic turf on athletic fields at Tantasqua Regional Junior and Senior High Schools.” The vote was 83 against and 66 in favor of the school district borrowing the money. The Tantasqua school district serves Brimfield, Brookfield, Holland, Sturbridge and Wales. Brimfield’s vote in effect scuttled the regional plan, which had been favored by Holland and still subject of votes by other municipalities in the district. Source:  Patty Lawrence-Perry, “Brimfield 1^st in school district to reject artificial turf project,” in Worcester Telegram, November 7, 2008, available at http://www.telegram.com/article/20081107/NEWS/811070482/1004/NEWS04 .

[No. 35] Maplewood, New Jersey: Voters give thumbs down to turf for DeHart Park. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. November 5, 2008. On November 4, 2008, the voters of Maplewood, New Jersey, turned down Municipal Question No. 1 which sought to install artificial turf fields at DeHart Park. The final tally stood at 3,283 “yes” votes for the project and 3,895 “no” votes against the project. The opponents of the measure waged an effective public information campaign via the internet (www.noturf.org), letters and lawn signs. On Election Day, the opponents also worked the polls.

[No. 34] Hanover, Penn.: Sheppard-Myers Field will be grass. In 2004 the Hanover school board looked at both grass and synthetic turf when it was considering the renovation of Sheppard-Myers Field. At the time, the board made no final decision but it appeared to be in favor a multi-sport artificial turf surface. In March of 2008 the board moved ahead with hiring consultants to come up with options for renovation of Sheppard-Myers Field. On October 6, 2008, the board heard from the consultants. According to an item in The Evening Sun, the plan lays out three options: “renovating the stadium and installing a new track at the existing site along McAllister Street; building a new stadium and track at the high school and middle school campus; or renovating the current stadium without a track and building a track at the high school and middle school campus.” The board has directed the architects “to design a new stadium with a grass field, rather than a synthetic field,” the Sun reported. The cost of a synthetic field was estimated anywhere between $700,000 and $1.2 million, depending on its features, which priced turf out of competition. Source: Heather Faulhefer, “Grass, dirt help off half a million of Sheppard-Myers stadium cost,” in The Evening Sun, October 10, 2008, available at http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_10756787 .

[No. 33] San Luis Obispo, Cal.: City says “no” to turf; will give grass a chance at one field. According to an October 8, 2008, news article in The Tribune (San Luis Obispo, California), the city council has decided against “install[ing] synthetic turf on any of its athletic fields at this point, but accepted a staff report that if it were to go anywhere it should be the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex on Broad Street.” “Artificial turf has been discussed only for the upper field at Damon-Garcia, because the lower fields are in a flood plain and the silica base and the recycled rubber pellets in the turf can be washed downstream. Potential toxins in such turf have led to legislation now before the California State Senate,” reported The Tribune. The decision allowed the city to reallocate $961,000 to other park improvements. The council “postponed making any decision regarding athletic turf until the effectiveness of an effort to regenerate the natural grasses at Damon-Garcia can be studied. The grass at the sports complex, where soccer is played, has taken a beating since it opened in 2005.” Source: --Sally Connell, “SLO City Council decides against installing synthetic turf on athletic fields,” in The Tribune, October 8, 2008, available at ttp://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/breaking_news/story/492647.html .

[No. 32] Reading, Penn.: Reading Junior High School goes with natural grass fields. On September 22, 2008, the Reading school district’s director of facilities informed the school board that the new fields at Reading Junior High School (also known as the Citadel) will be real grass, not artificial turf as originally planned. The reason, according to the director, is that “installing and maintaining a turf field would be extremely costly.”

Source: “Citadel field won’t be artificial turf, Reading school board learns,” in Reading Eagle (Reading, Penn.), September 24, 2008, available at http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=107177 .

[No. 31] Toronto, Canada: Mayor wants natural grass at BMO Field. The horror of the artificial turf field at Toronto’s BMO Field is not a new subject for this website. See SynTurf.org’s previous coverage of the field at http://www.synturf.org/miscellanea.html (Item Nos. 11 and 17) and http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html (Item Nos. 16, 20 and 23), and    http://www.synturf.org/sayno.html (Item No. 29). According to a blog on Out of Left Filed (September 15, 2008), journalist Duane Rollins, cited the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, as saying that “he is working to get a grass playing surface installed at BMO Field next season.” In a blog on GlobeandMail.com, Ben Knight wrote, “Toronto is so close to getting this so right.  BMO Field is an utterly delicious place to watch a professional footy match.  Tucked in between the skyline, the lake, the island airport, Ontario Place, the visuals are dazzling and the atmosphere rocks. But we already know Canada's best international players hate the artificial turf. We also know that veteran English striker Darren Huckerby … was very interested in playing for Toronto, but walked because of the turf.” Source: Ben Knight, “Mayor calls for grass,” in Globe and Mail, September 16, 2008, available at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080916.WBsoccerblog20080916104430/WBStory/WBsoccerblog .

[No. 30] Morris, New Jersey: Harding says no to artificial turf. Morris Township has been planning to build a sports complex on a spit of land in got from Town of Harding, its next door neighbor, complete with artificial turf fields, bleachers and 72-foot high lights. According to an item in The Daily Record, “Harding officials said they did not want fields with artificial turf, lights and bleachers. Efforts to reach a compromise also failed. Now, Morris Township has given up the idea of artificial turf and bleachers, but it still wants lights. To the end, the township plans to demonstrate how high the lights would be with balloons.” Source: “Will field fly like balloons?,” in The Daily Record (New Jersey), September 8, 2008, available at  http://www.dailyrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080908/OPINION01/809080355/1094/OPINION .

[No. 29] Toronto FC converts to natural grass. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. September 12, 2008. The days of artificial turf at BMO Field in Toronto are numbered. For a catalogue of gripes about the turf field at MBO, see http://www.synturf.org/miscellanea.html (Item Nos. 11 and 17) and http://www.synturf.org/playersview.html (Item Nos. 16, 20 and 23). Next season [2009] the pitch will be converted from artificial turf to natural grass. According to a report in Tribal Football, the money for the conversion in part will come from the £2.6 million in fees that Toronto FC and Major League Soccer received from the trade of the American soccer star Maurice Edu to the Rangers of the Scottish Premier League. Source: “Toronto FC to spend Edu cash on new pitch,” in Tribal Football, September 10, 2008, available at  http://www.tribalfootball.com/?q=node/199903

[No. 28]  Terre Haute, Ind.: Lack of private funds sinks artificial turf fields for three high schools. On September 6, 2008, The Tribune-Star (Terre Haute, Indiana) reported that the proposal “to install synthetic turf football fields at Terre Haute North, South and West Vigo high schools has been scrapped because a committee says it is unable to raise sufficient matching funds.” According to the Superintendent of the school district, therefore, the amount pledged by the district also “is off the table completely.” “In May 2007, the School Board agreed to dedicate $980,000 in refinancing money to the project, but the remainder of the cost would have to be privately raised. At the time, the cost was estimated at $1.7 million to $2.1 million.” For more on this story, go to Sue Loughlin, “Synthetic turf idea for schools scrapped,” in The Tribune-Star, September 6, 2008, available at http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_story_250224857.html?keyword=topstory .

[No. 27] East Hartford, Conn.: Rentschler Field will stay with natural grass. The Rentschler Filed in East Hartford, Connecticut, is primarily used for football and is the home field of the University of Connecticut. According to a news story in the Hartford Courant (Aug. 24, 2008), the original sod at this facility was laid down six years ago. At the opening game in 2003 the grass field was immaculate when UConn played its first home game at the new stadium. For the 2007 opener, things were different. There were brown spots sprinkled on the grass and large divots. The condition of the field caused coach randy Edsall to suggest the field might be better with the synthetic FieldTurf. “But a year later, the coach expressed his preference for a natural surface at Rentschler,” reported the Courant. “If you have the right grass and it's maintained well, I really still believe is the way to go,” Edsall said. Source: Paul Doyle, “After Rehab, Field Isn’t Low-Rent: Edsall Backs Off On Artificial Turf,” in Hartford Courant, August 24, 2008, available at http://www.courant.com/sports/college/football/hc-rentschler0824.artaug24,0,339506.story .

[No. 25] Tyler, Texas: TISD goes with a new drainage system and Bermuda grass. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. July 25, 2008. It is no joke: In a state where everything is big, football is pretty huge. You do not have to be a fan of NBC’s Friday Night Lights series to appreciate the love affair between the Lone Star State and the gridiron. SynTurf.org is especially fond of Season 1, Episode 20 (March 28, 2007). A chemical spill near Dillon High School left Coach Taylor with the choice of playing at a glorious artificial turf field away from home or to preserve his tram’s home field advantage by playing the state semi-final game on a field hastily arranged on a farm, which degenerated into a veritable “mud bowl” when the skies opened. Ah, the glory of it all.

According to a news story in The Tyler Morning Telegraph, the Tyler Independent School District voted on July 22, 2008, to appropriate more than $110,000 for repairing hazardous drainage situations at the varsity fields at John Tyler and Robert E. Lee high schools.  The district closed the fields earlier in July “to begin maintenance, which includes the installation of a new drainage system and reinstallation of Bermuda turf.”

According to TISD Superintendent, Dr. Randy Reid, “[t]he district looked, at one point, at putting an artificial surface on those fields, but believed it would be cost prohibitive.”

“We found what we believe to be a reasonable solution,” Reid said.  

Source: Megan Middleton, “Funds OK’ed to repair TISD fields,” in The Tyler Morning Telegraph, July 23, 2008, available at http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080723/NEWS08/807220332 .

[No. 24] Manchester, New Hampshire: No turf for juvenile detention center due to health concerns. July 19, 2008. According to a news story in The Nashua Telegraph, “State officials have withdrawn a contract to install synthetic turf at the juvenile detention center in Manchester, after Executive Councilors and state workers raised health and procedural concerns.” Councilor Raymond Wieczorek said, “The bottom line is, before you make these changes you have to make sure it is to benefit the population you are serving.” Councilor Debora Pignatelli said “she was ready to vote against the contract due to health warnings about placing synthetic turf on children play fields in other states.” Source: Kevin Landrigan, “Juvenile detention center won’t install turf,” in The Nashua Telegraph, July 17, 2008, available at http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080717/NEWS02/106474411/-1/news20 .

[No. 23] Many Orange County communities do not allow artificial turf. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. July 12, 2008. It is a common shared view among many readers of SynTurf.org that the closer one looks at artificial turf, the uglier it looks. Apparently, many communities in Orange County, California, also agree. According to a news story in the Orange County Register, it is unlawful to put down artificial turf on residential and commercial properties in Garden Grove, Santa Ana, La Palma, Stanton and Orange. In ten other OC communities, there are “various synthetic turf restrictions and guidelines and many homeowners associations across the county ban and restrict turf as well.” The aesthetics is a primary reason for the restrictions on synthetic turf. The push to lift the restrictions is being encouraged by rebate programs afforded by water authorities like Orange County Water District, which would like to encourage water conservation due to drought. However, the residents who have installed turf are now in the danger of having their turf removed as well as having their water rebate applications denied.

SynTurf.org Editor’s Note:  In the near desert heat conditions of Southern California, turf bakes to a nice hot temperature, which probably still requires watering to cool down. While conserving water is essential, nothing is without a price. While the property owner may well learn first hand about the heating up of the turf in the Southern California sun, the property owner ought o also learn about the potential risks of crumb rubber and silica, outgassing of VOCs, PAHs, and the leaching of lead, zinc and other substances to health and the environment.

[No. 22] Montrose, NY: Turf proposal for Hendrick Hudson High School bites the dust. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. June 22, 2008. The Hendrick Hudson  School District is 45 miles north of Manhattan. The District serves 8 municipalities, including Montrose, which is the home of the Hendrick Hudson High School. On Wednesday, June 18, 2008, voters in the district voted down a $2.1 million plan to replace the natural grass field at Hendrick Hudson High School with artificial turf. The vote was 779 against to 518 for the plan.

The Journal News reports, “Lawrence Zeitlin, a retired professor, questioned whether the new field was even necessary, given the condition of the grass field now in use.” “It's a perfectly adequate playing field,” he told the Journal.

Source: Robert Merchant, “Hendrick Hudson voters reject athletic field, OK 2 other measures,” in The Journal News, June 19, 2008, available at http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008806190437  (New York’s Lower Hudson Valley).

SynTurf.org Editor’s Note:  The foregoing was brought to SynTurf.org’s attention by DD, a resident of Croton, New York; Croton is one of the municipalities served by the Hendrick Hudson School District. In an e-mail to SynTurf.org, DD stated:

[No. 21] The Westmount Brief: A video retrospective. This link will take you to YouTube, where you can watch Save Your Park (June 17, 2008), a reportage by Patrick Barnard, which memorializes the successful effort of the citizens of Westmount (Quebec) against synthetic turf in their urban parks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFhWHlV-My8&feature=email . For SynTurf.org’s coverage of the Westmount story, go to http://www.synturf.org/thewestmountbrief.html.

[No. 19] Pelham, New York: Voters say “no” to turf . On May 20, 2008, the voters of Pelham rejected Proposition 2 for $2.7 million turf fields at Franklin and Glover fields.

According to one voter, “It's too expensive," adding that she believes artificial turf is unsafe. According to the Superintendent of Schools, concerns about turf safety influenced voters. "We were never able to overcome anxiety over the long-term health issues," he said. Source: Ernie Garcia, “Central and southern Westchester voters approve most school budgets,” in The Journal News, May 21, 2008, available at http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080521/NEWS02/805210414.

[No. 18 ] Maynard, Mass. says “no” to turf. On May 19, 2008, the voters at the town meeting overwhelmingly rejected a $1 million-plan to install an artificial turf field at Alumni Field. While “[a]ll other articles at Town Meeting passed handily,” the turf lost by a vote of 153-47, way short of the 2/3 majority required for its passage. The number one concern of the people who voted down the plan: “concerns about the field’s safety” followed by “there are other priorities.” Source:  Meghan B. Kelly, “Town meeting nixes idea of synthetic turf,” May 20, 2008, available at  http://www.wickedlocal.com/maynard/news/x1191424304.

On February 27, 2008, a Town Council meeting was convened to discuss, among other things, if the town should pay a consultant to study the pro and con of natural grass versus artificial turf for any of the one of the town’s four fields Rossotti, Miller, Ford and Town Center. The Councilmen Steve Toben and Richard Merk and the Mayor Maryann Moise Derwin were in attendance,as were a few of the parks and recreation officials. Two of the 5-member Council members were absent. The meeting voted 2-1 to can the turf study for now.

The outcome of the Council’s vote was largely predictable because the Conservation Committee had already decided that artificial turf was inappropriate for any of the town’s fields and therefore the idea of spending money to “study” an artificial turf option was not a good use of the town’s resources. The committee unanimously opposed hiring a consultant because of three key concerns about artificial turf: long-term health risks, long-term environmental impact, and inconsistency with the town’s rural character.

Typically, the selling of a municipality on artificial turf begins by that internal study that shows, on a scale of 5, a very high incidence of use (close to maximum) and typically average or below average maintenance to keep pace with usage. Next comes the compulsory “outside study” to evaluate the pro and con of artificial turf and natural grass options. In an overwhelming majority of instances, the “independent” study by a “consultant” results in the predictable admission that grass is better, but because its maintenance is costly and does not withstand wear and tear, therefore, artificial turf is the best practical option for a community plagued with gophers and goose poop and muddy playing fields. Naturally, the seduction then moves to the area of conning the public that the upfront million-dollar investment will pay for itself in no time, as these “low-maintenance” fields will last forever, practically, notwithstanding the industry’s standard 8-year warranty and replacement and disposal cost of the carpet every 8 to 10 years. The environmental impact and health risks are virtually ignored, other than to emphasize that this not the old Astroturf and is a safer playing surface than grass fields!

None of the foregoing pro-turf hype clouded the sober and informed judgment of some dozen residents who got up and spoke during the “public comment” portion of the Town Council meeting.

Rosie Breen noted how the ball bumping in a different direction added to the challenge of playing soccer on the grass fields; how much fun it was actually to get dirty, with family watching from the sideline, and little kids picking at the grass. Annaloy Nickum noted the pro-turf bias in the terms of reference for the proposed study of the field situation. Elaine Taylor said, ‘The consultant should be used to figure out the best kind of grass, best kind of irrigation, etc.” Emma Ingebritsen and Haley Egbert testified about the fun they’ve had playing on natural grass. Angela Hey, who grew up playing hockey, said said, If the goals were muddy and there was no grass growing there, it was not the end of the world. If there were slippery places and dry places, it was not the end of the world… Kids falling [is] a part of the game.” “”Part of soccer was what bump the ball would take,” added Mary Enright. Jim Stoecker recalled fondly the muddy memories from when he played on the fields being the most memorable.

The testimonies by residents were informed also by science. Matt Stoecker noted that the turf was a petroleum-derived product, with a large carbon footprint, laden with toxins and chemicals and did nothing to add to the environment. Nickum emphasized the necessity for looking into advanced natural grass technologies. Jean Eastman spoke about infections and latex allergies. Yvonne Tryce, who teaches science classes, noted the multipurpose nature of the fields that one day would host sports teams and other time welcome her pupils catching butterflies and collecting bugs. She voiced her concern about the impervious nature of artificial turf, which would deprive tree roots of moisture. ssblock. Marty MacKowski called attention to the heating of artificial turf fields. “Dogs love the fields,” a Willowbrook resident said, “You couldn’t take dogs on artificial turf – especially if they are short and close to the ground.

Clair Jernick, whose kids participated in a variety of sports leagues, could not support the study/” The town has established itself as a leader in the protection of the environment and sustainable development,” she said. After a lengthy examination of turf’s inconsistency with town’s and state’s environmental agenda, Jernick urged the council to “build fields of acclaim, not fields of shame.”

When the public comment portion of the meeting concluded, Councilman Toben stated that he was not “pro-turf” but that he was curious about it. In a blatant form of disingenuous doublespeak he stated to the council that he wanted “to learn more and understand why there were arguments that suggested this could be an attractive alternative.” Humbug! Not that he did not know about low-maintenance cost of turf, or huge savings in town’s water bill and all the other fluff that the purveyors of this product foist on parks and recreation departments and sports leagues hungering fro more play time. 

Councilman Merk displayed an uncanny ability to fence-sit when he stated that he was not against the turf but was against the study at this time, citing a number of years left in the existing fields and daily changes in turf technology. Mayor Derwin too supported a complete and impartial study of the matter, but she felt the timing was not right! 

The Council moved to a vote despite Toben’s objection that the other two council members were not present. Mayor Derwin issued an equivalent of “tough luck” for the absentees and by a vote of 2 (Derwen, Merk) -1 (Toben) the council voted to decline the recommendation to fund the RFP for the field study.
Because the vote turned down the turf study does not mean this issue is dead; far from it. As Councilman Merck indicated it just has been continued (postponed) for two years. It will resurface like a bad penny. The only safeguard against it recurrence is for the town to adopt an ordinance that makes it synthetic-turf free.

[No. 16] Haverling (New York) says “no” to turf. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. March 22, 2008. Bath is a town in the Steuben County in the Finger Lakes region of western New York state. With a population of about 6,000, Bath is the seat of the county, which is know for housing the oldest continuous county fair in the United States. The northern part of Bath borders a community known as Haverling, which houses the Junior and Senior High School of the Bath school district. Three months ago the voters of the Haverling school district rejected a capital project appropriation for $19.5 that was intended to renovate the schools, which included the installation of an artificial turf field at Haveling Junior/Senior High School. The city official went to work and came back with a new proposal for a $16.5 million project instead, eliminating the artificial turf part of the earlier project. On March 19, 2008, the voters approved the new deal.

For details on this story, see Rob Price, “Haverling voters pass $16.5 million project,” in The Courier, March 21, 2008, available at http://www.steubencourier.com/news/2008/0323/Front_Page/001.html.

[No. 14] UEFA says “no” to turf for Champions League final. March 9, 2008. The Union of European Football Associations is one and the most important of FIFA’s six continental confederations of national football (soccer) federations. While it oversees European national and club competitions, it is by far the wealthiest  and most influential of the continental orgnaizations. According to SportingLife.com (UK), the UEFA has refused to allow artificial turf for the Champions League final that is to take place in May 2008. See, “Artificial Turf at World Cup,” March 9, 2008, available at

http://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/08/03/09/manual_130427.html.

[No. 13] Minneapolis, Minn.: City Council Votes Down Artificial Turf. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 29, 2008. Earlier today, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to exclude artificial turf from the development plans for a stadium on Nicollet Island. The Council was hearing an appeal by the applicant, DeLaSalle High School, from an earlier decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission that had gone against it. This marked the third time that the Council had voted in favor of a grass playing field: twice before, it voted expressly for grass, but today’s vote was a direct hit against artificial turf. Today’s vote was made all the easier because the applicant withdrew its appeal moments before the meeting, therefore opening the procedural way for the denial thereof.. Whether the denial would be appealed to the courts remains to be seen.

For more on this story go to www.ourbeautifulriver.org.

For a wrap up the situation prior to today’s meeting, go to Shawne FitzGerald, “City Council To Vote on Friday Feb 29 on Artificial Turf at DeLaSalle,” February 26, 2008, at http://www.mplsparkwatch.org/node/787.

For background on this story go to: http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Item No. 25) and http://www.synturf.org/sayno.html (Item No. 12).

For the City Council proceedings’ archived meeting webcast go to: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/archives/proceedings/2008/2008.asp.

[No. 12] Minneapolis, Minn.: City Council Member Slams Turf. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 28, 2008. On February 22, 2008, the Minneapolis City Council member, Cam Gordon (Green Party - Ward 2) published a lengthy criticism of the turf filed proposed for Nicollet Island. “Putting plastic grass in the middle of the Mississippi in this historic National park is just a bad ides,” he wrote. Artificial turf is significantly worse than natural grass: “it does not sequester carbon, does not aid water infiltration, does not cool the air, and in fact contributes to the heat island effect. The state-of-the-art type that is being proposed also includes its own artificial dirt – 200 tons of ground up old (and toxic) tires. These are known to contain toxins and have yet to be proven safe for children to play on or for a river eco-system.”

[No. 11] Ridgefield, Conn.: Turf plan bites the dust. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass. February 28, 2009. In a referendum held on February 26, the voters in Ridgefield defeated the plan to install 3 artificial turf fields in the town. SynTurf.org  has learned from Ridgefielders for Grass Fields (www.grassfields.org) that the tally was 2,390 against and 963 in favor of the plan. In an e-mail to SynTurf.org, an organizer of the “No” vote noted that the “Yes” vote did not even match the 1,200 number of signatures that the sports organizations had pulled when they petitioned the town for the project last Fall. Here, as is the case elsewhere, “It is wonderful to know that grassroots organizations can get out and make a difference.  I hope that this provides hope for other towns facing similar issues and referendums,” the organizer told SynTurf in an e-mail.

For background on this story, see http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (Items Nos. 24 and 26).

[No. 10] Longmeadow, Mass. Community Preservation Committee Votes Down Turf Plan. SynTurf.org, Newton, Mass., February 21, 2008. Last evening, the Longmeadow Community Preservation Committee decided by a vote of 9 to 0 not to recommend Community Preservation Act funds for the installation of a synthetic turf field at Longmeadow High School. The applicant had requested some $825,000 in CPA funds to be bonded over ten years.

A number of factors informed the Committee’s decision.. First and foremost is the legality of spending CPA funds on a project that involves the renovation or rehabilitation of a field that was not originally acquired or created with CPA funds. This legal issue is before a number of courts in the Commonwealth; the Supreme Judicial Court will hear one of them this spring. The town and possibly bond counsel were best advised not to proceed with a project that might run afoul of the law. The Department of Revenue is already on the record that CPA funds should not be used for artificial turf fields.   

Another factor weighing on Committee’s mind related to the issue of crumb rubber and how to ensure that its leachate or migrating granules do not end up in the wetlands and town’s wells. The process of requiring a monitoring system, which the state’s environmental agency might require, would have complicated project.

The last-minute concession by the proponents of the project to substitute an alternative infill for the crumb rubber may have ended the project for now. While the proponents touted it as “safer,” the alternative infill has not been analyzed sufficiently to ensure that it does not raise a whole host of other environmental and health risks. Moreover, this constituted a material change in the project that possibly would have required further hearings by the Committee and other interested town committees.  

The sheer size of the request also threatened to deprive the town of the badly needed resources to address the other CPA priorities like the acquisition of open spaces, preservation of historic resources and creation of community housing.

Even though the application has been denied CPA funding, it may well rear its head if alternative financing can be secured for it. That may include private funding or other public funds.

For a background on this story, see  http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html (item No. 27).

[No. 09] Minneapolis, Minn. Heritage Preservation Commission says “no” to turf in Nicolett’s historic district. From Friends of the Riverfront, “Preservation panel upholds city council ban on fake turf,” February 6, 2008, available at  http://www.ourbeautifulriver.org/preservation_panel_upholds_city_council_ban_on_fake_turf .

For background on this story go to:  http://www.synturf.org/grassrootsnotes.html  (Item No. 25).

[No. 06] Caldwell and West Caldwell, New Jersey, vote down funding for turf!  On December 11, 2007, the voters in the New Jersey communities of Caldwell and West Caldwell voted to raise $14.7 million for school repairs, but said “no” to a $2.4 million measure to make improvements at Bonnell Athletic Field at James Caldwell High School, which also serves West Caldwell. The improvements called for an artificial turf field. Source: Elizabeth Moore, “Caldwell and West Caldwell voters approve $14.7M in school repairs,” in The Star Ledger, December 11, 2007, available at http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12/caldwell_and_west_caldwell_vot.html. It is not clear if the defeat of the ballot question on field improvement was as much an anti-turf vote as perhaps it was a vote against extravagance or misplaced priorities.