South Portland debates natural vs. artificial grass at planned athletic facility

Jan. 9—Many South Portlanders agree: the high school needs new athletic facilities. But those who attended a public meeting Wednesday night were split on whether new athletic fields should be made of natural grass or artificial turf.

During an almost four-hour meeting at South Portland High School, parents, community members, city employees and industry representatives debated the virtues of artificial turf, a synthetic plastic product designed to replicate grass. Supporters said the artificial turf allows for more play time and lower maintenance costs, while opponents said the product contributes to plastic pollution and increased injuries, and can contain toxic chemicals.

South Portland put a $12.3 million bond referendum out to voters in November, which would have funded an athletic complex project, including upgrades to the track, a new concession stand, bathrooms and, most controversially, a turf field. But the bond lost by a vote of 8,199 against to 6,394 for; voters did approve two smaller bonds to fund security upgrades and facilities work in school buildings.

Now the district is beginning the process of designing a new stadium plan, starting with the turf debate. Wednesday night’s meeting was the first in a series of workshops about how to design and fund a new athletic complex, culminating in a potential board vote scheduled for Feb. 10.

The meeting was at times contentious, as some board members demanded a stronger environmental and health perspective from some presenters. However, speakers on both sides of the issue continued to affirm their commitment to improving athletic facilities for South Portland students.

The district’s next workshop on the issue focused on how to fund the project, will be held during its Monday, Jan. 13 regular board meeting. The final workshop is planned for Jan. 27.

EXTENDED PLAY TIME

South Portland’s football field and track were built in 1965. The field has an uneven slant, weed growth and patchy areas, according to Rick Perruzzi, who manages outdoor athletic facilities for the city, including the high school fields, and South Portland Schools Athletic Director Todd Livingston, who spoke at Wednesday’s meeting.

Perruzzi and Livingston both said that when teams play on natural grass, inclement weather frequently leads to the cancellation of games, and the field also needs time to recover after heavy rain.

“Whether it’s a practice or a contest, obviously, if you have a synthetic surface, you can still practice on them, even in inclement weather,” Livingston said.

He also said additional teams would be able to practice at the high school if there was a synthetic field.

Jana Grant has two sons who are student athletes and is the president of South Portland Little League. She said she represents a group of South Portland citizens who want an artificial turf field.

“What would turf change? An increased time on the field for all athletes, more practice time on playing services they actually compete on,” Grant said. “Less canceled games and practices, less bussing of students to an off-campus site, more teams benefiting from our own facilities, less transitional downtime from school to practice with more on-site options and an increased community participation in games and competition, with us able to host divisional and regional competitions.”

She said South Portland students are at a disadvantage when they compete at other schools that have artificial turf because they haven’t practiced on that kind of surface.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Environmentalists say the additional playability doesn’t outweigh the individual health risks, or broader environmental impacts, of artificial turf.

Sarah Woodbury, vice president of policy and advocacy at Portland nonprofit Defend Our Health, made her pitch Wednesday that artificial turf can contain toxic chemicals like PFAS, so-called “forever chemicals” that can cause cancer, and slough off microplastics into waterways. She also said artificial fields get substantially hotter than natural grass, and are correlated with higher injury rates.

“If I had kids of my own, I wouldn’t let them anywhere near artificial turf,” she said. “The longer playing times are just not a benefit in terms of possible cancer down the road. That is not a choice I’m willing to make.”

In 2029, a Maine ban all artificial turf that contains PFAS will go into effect, and Woodbury said her organization will introduce a moratorium in the Legislature this session for a three-year ban on all synthetic turf.

Public comment also skewed against artificial turf. Amy Haskins, a parent of two students involved in athletics and the marching band, said she understands the play time argument, but can’t support introducing large amounts of plastic into the environment.

“I don’t believe these advantages outweigh the travesty of creating enormous amounts of plastic waste in the near future to be dumped or carted across the country for expensive recycling, and then replaced again and again and again,” she said. “Our society is moving in the right direction. There’s a reason we’re banning plastic bags and plastic straws. In this light, it makes no sense to install acres of plastic fields.”

Two industry representatives, including Lauren Doneski from Geosurfaces, the turf company the district has been consulting with, said new technology allows synthetic turf to be completely recycled, thanks to a special program with a facility in Louisiana. She also disputed the claim that the turf South Portland is considering contains PFAS.

Others argued that while recycling might be possible, it’s still the most expensive option, and pointed out that the Louisiana facility is part of a trend of toxic chemicals being shipped out of state for processing in poor areas.

Copy the Story Link

EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel