I am writing in reference to the concept of a turf field at Freeport High. I live in the neighborhood that surrounds the fields. My three children graduated from the school. A committee has stepped forward to privately fund artificial turf fields, in part, by selling “naming” rights, and by getting the building committee to agree to let them use the money — $600,000 — that is in the approved bond for repairing and upgrading the grass turf field. The artificial turf fields were voted down by the tax payers three times. Not everyone who voted “no” on the fields did so only because of the cost. There have been, and continue to be, significant concerns over the health issues associated with the turf fields including, but not limited to, injuries, infections and cancer spikes, as well as problems with it creating hot spots in the environment — the largest green space in the downtown area would become a plastic mat. One young sportsman stated that he did not like playing on the turf fields in neighboring towns because the heat produced makes him feel as if he is going to have a stroke. The committee plans also call for adding to the noise and light pollution in the area. People in our neighborhood have represented all of these concerns to the school at each prior vote. These concerns are not something new to Craig Sickels. Clearly, in the article, “Turf Field of Dreams,” the issues previously discussed were certainly minimized. Again, a current article quotes John Paterson, “A question has arisen as to whether this creates health concerns for kids. From what we can see there are not serious health concerns about it.” I will argue that there is data that should not be ignored. Being the parent of a child who lives with a disability sustained on a soccer field, I beg to differ. Injuries to any children should be taken seriously.

When Nike offered a track to Freeport, artificial fields were new and data did not exist. Data exists now. There is a reason that the U.S. women’s soccer team is so vocal in their protests against artificial turf. In California, where drought has made it necessary to look at alternative ground coverings, artificial turfs are not receiving the write offs available to other surfaces being used because of the need to replace it and the costs associated with the damage and toxic chemicals that make it impossible to dispose of safely. It leaves a toxic mess behind and how deep and wide does that spread? The quoted life span is 15-20 years, but the practical life span of such fields is closer to 10. Grass fields are perennial.

In a town that was the first nationally (worldwide) to ban styrofoam containers, is working to ban single use packaging and is anchored by a well respected environmental giant retailer, does it really make sense to put in a toxic mat for our children to play on? This is definitely not the best thing to do for our children.

Simply because a group of people feel that they can raise money in exchange for naming rights (Really? Selling the property of the town to corporations?) does not make their plan acceptable. If anything, ongoing support for keeping maintained grass fields would be environmental and health friendly. That would be leadership that counts more than keeping up with the neighbors.

I encourage Freeport residents to contact RSU 5, Freeport Town Councilors and the Project Review representatives to remind them that the voters have spoken three times — and have said “No.”

Kathleen Meade,

Freeport