Youth soccer is big on Bainbridge Island, and the local association boasts some 1,100 members. Even though they've lost out on lights at a proposed new facility (neighbors and astronomers won that one) the kids and their parents - commendably - have announced plans to raise $800,000 from private sources to fund four-fifths of the new field complex. Just one catch: it would be artificial "FieldTurf; a big improvement over the current messy, sub-standard and unsafe field. But local parks activists are questioning the environmental pedigree of the fake turf. Here's the story, from the Bainbridge Island Review.
Jay Trinidad, a member of Friends of Bainbridge Parks, said his group neither endorses nor opposes artificial turf, but "is concerned that sufficient research has yet been done to guide a decision on the matter."...the level at which two soccer fields may contaminate the surrounding area is still in question, Trinidad admits. "We have been unable to find any scientific study that states that the materials that are being considered pose no environmental risk to groundwater," he wrote. "Likewise, we have been unable to find any scientific study that states that the materials pose a clear and serious risk to water quality."...many local players – young and old – can't wait to run the plastic pitch. "As a 68-year old player, (artificial turf) enables me to continue playing," said Max Marinoni, who participates in a Seattle soccer league.
"It's easy on one's articulations - ankles, heels, knees - due to its shock-absorbing qualities." Chandler Foster, who plays on a teen club team, told the park district in a letter that it would be "a great help" if the park district would consider "making the sand fields at Battle Point into nice turf fields." Soccer coach and Arrow Point Drive resident Richard Storch called Battle Point's fields "embarrassing and probably unsafe for play," adding that a poorly maintained natural field is more dangerous than a turf one.
...park board chair Kirk Robinson said he doesn't yet know whether to go natural or artificial. He said the board will deliberate Thursday and could hire a consultant to study the various impacts of turf fields. Robinson said the soccer club has "graciously provided a gift to the community" that some residents have misunderstood.
Follow the money. A four-to-one private-public funding formula is taxpayer-friendly, and reliable soccer fields are kid- and family-friendly. Would-be enviros reduced to quibbling over soccer field surface materials are none of the above, and should pick their battles more carefully.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at December 05, 2005 04:48 PM | Email ThisTell that to the WSU athletic department which uses this exact surface on their football field.
And while I wouldn't swear to it, I suspect there was more than one environmental review when this surface was installed in Husky Stadium. I suspect there were other environmental reviews when this surface was installed at Quest Field (formerly Seahawks stadium).
But why bother. Being the local bully enviro-jerk is easier, right?
Posted by: jiimg on December 5, 2005 05:31 PMAfter all, Trees have feelings too!!
They also have names and children (called saplings!)
Nothing surprises me about the CLOWNS who want to micromanage every square inch and every activity on the face of their mother Earth! It the trendy New Age, "Progressive" thing to do, dontchaknow!!
For the good of OUR COMMUNE-ity! Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 5, 2005 06:15 PM
R
And it's not that I'm complaining. Just don't be surprised if the soccer club gets the turf turned down, because they earned their money on their own and there by not owing somebody a favor. Posted by: PC on December 5, 2005 10:29 PM
Sorry about the length.
Environmental Impact: The State Environmental Policy act requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be reported and reviewed prior to the installation of either a grass or synthetic athletic surface. The EIS covers but is not limited to the following environmental elements: 1) Earth: Geology, soils, erosion, and topography 2) Air: Air quality and odors 3) Plants & animals: Threatened and endangered species, sensitive wildlife habitats 4) Energy and natural resources: Energy use, sources and efficiency; nonrenewable and renewable resources 5) Noise: Noise levels and attenuation, sensitive receptors 6) Land and Shoreline Use: Land use patterns and compatibility, relationship to plans and policies 7) Housing: Relationship to housing activities 8) Aesthetics: Views from adjacent and surrounding areas, views for park users 9) Light & Glare: potential conflicts with surrounding residents 10) Recreation: Compatibility with existing and planned uses. An EIS is customized for each given location. In general, in-fill synthetic fields with sand and rubber in-fill use recycled materials including tires and recycled athletic shoes. The fiber itself is inert with no known impact environmentally. Sand or silica is a known human carcinogen in instances of long-term exposure [6], and industrial policy about the health concerns of sand have been widely considered [7, 8]. However, the impact of sand used in an in-fill athletic playfield or on a sand based grass field has not yet been researched. The rubber in-fill fields do not have a permeable backing, therefore the holes punched into the backing may permit rubber particles to transfer into the drainage system, however, no measured impact of these particles has yet been offered. Similar to interior carpet installation, an industrial grade glue is used to seal the synthetic
Page 6
seams. The potential environmental impact of this glue has not been previously reported as it pertains to in-fill surface installation. As opposed to artificial surfaces, a soil based or sand based grass field requires fertilization, pesticides, and disproportionate use of a limited natural resource, water. The measure of the environmental impact of grass versus the inert synthetic surface is measured by the potential impact to the earth, air, plants and animals. The environmental benefits of infill synthetic surfaces compared to grass are obvious and proven. A single infill synthetic field displaces 7 playable grass fields (1/7 of the land use), requires no water, no chemicals, minimal gas and diesel powered equipment, and most importantly offers a decisive diversion of labor and machinery to real habitat improvement projects.
You call yourself a real soccer player and then mention a ten yead defensive slide? Do your keeper a favor and stay on the bench, cause any skilled player will breeze right past you.
And quite to the contrary, synthetic turf gets quite slick when wet, possibly allowing longer slides which can be quite painful.
One mistake that i have seen in quite a few places is that you don't have to water synthetic. You can actually extend the life of the turf by watering it prior to events on hot days to reduce the wear.
Posted by: Grog on December 6, 2005 01:54 AMWhoa, Fog...you're mistaking tolerance for discourse.
Posted by: South County on December 6, 2005 07:11 AMSo it's better to waste water, put chemicals into the ground, and burn fuel mowing the lawn and putting the exhaust fumes into the air?
With synthetic fields, none of the above apply. These environmentalists are not really concerned about the environment, just anti development...
Posted by: JustSumGuy on December 6, 2005 08:27 AMComplaint fells school's `giving tree'
2005-12-06
by David A. Grant
Journal Reporter
Medina Elementary School officials took down a Christmas-themed ``giving tree'' Monday after a parent complained about its religious connotations.
Chris Metzger, office manager at Medina, said the spiral, lighted Christmas tree with a star on top was up for about a week before it was removed.
The tree had mittens on it with a different gift idea attached to each. The idea was for students to take a mitten, get the gift listed, wrap it up and return it to school along with the mitten.
Organized by students in the Community Kids program, presents from the giving tree are going to be given to students at Lake Hills Elementary School, Metzger said.
After the tree was taken down, the mittens were taped to a counter in the main office so the gift-giving could continue.
``Now we just have a giving counter,'' joked Metzger, who knew that putting up the tree was ``kind of iffy'' because of a district policy that provides direction on the place of religion in the curriculum.
The flap is similar to one that occurred a year ago at Bellevue City Hall when a man complained about a giving tree in that building's lobby. His complaint generated an enormous backlash and the tree stayed. The unadorned Christmas tree has returned this year, apparently with no controversy.
Metzger said the tree at Medina Elementary was put up at the suggestion of parents. But when a parent complained about the Christmas tree Monday morning, it was taken down.
``We covered the star and called it a giving tree. We hoped it would suffice, but it didn't,'' Metzger said. ``The district is pretty clear about celebrating holidays. It's not like when we were kids and sang Christmas carols'' in school.
Sharon Howard, general counsel for the Bellevue School District, said the district adopted a policy in 1979 making clear any activity that has to do with religion must be tied to an instructional program and have an educational purpose.
According to the policy, ``Such studies shall not result in classroom displays or decoration which promote religion.''
Howard said that most years, the Christmas tree issue isn't a problem. Last year, the only complaint was from a parent who said not enough was being done to celebrate Christmas at school.
``Fortunately, we have enough religious diversity in the district that most people are sensitive,'' Howard said.
David Grant can be reached at david.grant@kingcountyjournal.com or 425-453-4237.