ONALFO TURF FIELD INITIATIVE TOWN REFERENDUM WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE THINKING… A sampling of letters sent to "The Ridgefield Press" and other places from people opposed to artificial turf on Onalfo Field: (Have a comment of your own? Write to us! Click here.) Ridgefield Press Op Ed: Let’s Vote ‘NO’ on Onalfo The ‘Onalfo Initiative’ will cost taxpayers more than $1.6 million. This is not a one time cost. The annual cost of this recreation complex in debt service alone will be in excess of $100,000. Yearly maintenance and additional costs remain hidden by proponents. An initial review of Ridgefield’s Board of Finance activity over the past few years shows that more than $200,000 has been funneled to Tiger Hollow for improvements to the facility. Additionally, the Town contributes $43,000 every year to a fund that will pay for the inevitable cost of replacing the turf at Tiger Hollow every 12 years. Residents should carefully consider the future financial burden Onalfo will present to taxpayers. Let’s be fiscally responsible. Board of Education’s requests for funding this year include $350,000 to replace a 30-year old boiler at Branchville (because it may break down during winter months, freezing and ruining the ventilation systems in classrooms) and $405,000 for asbestos tile replacement at Farmingville and Veterans Park. The Board of Selectman is scrutinizing these requests. Yet we are actually considering spending $1.6 million to artificially turf an already existing playing field. Let’s fix our schools before Onalfo. The library and the police department are both in desperate need of funds and a compelling case has been made for hiring two additional EMS/fire personnel. Let’s support funding the library, the police and EMS before Onalfo. Proponents have even tried to scare taxpayers into believing that the value of their homes will go down if we don’t turf Onalfo. They suggest that young families will no longer consider Ridgefield a child friendly community. If the lack of full-day kindergarten has not kept young families from moving to Ridgefield it’s hard to imagine how not replacing the grass at Onalfo will do so. Let’s fund full-day kindergarten before Onalfo. Many doctors and public health experts believe synthetic turf poses serious environmental and health risks, especially for young children. Test results conclusively show that hazardous materials in the turf granules leach into water and that toxic chemicals are released into the air. Medical experts are concerned that young children may be harmed by breathing in the fine dust from the turf. It will be years before the harmful effects are known. Proponents have turned a blind eye to health concerns. Many turf proponents have stated that the world is full of health risks. They are, of course, implying that one more risk should not matter. Obviously, we cannot protect our children from all harm, but as parents we do the best we can. Let’s avoid the avoidable risk. This is a growing public health issue both locally and globally. Doctors from Mt. Sinai, researchers from Rutgers, doctors and public health professionals from EHHI are all requesting the need for further studies. The Governments of Norway and Sweden are asking for a moratorium on turf fields. NY State Legislators are currently considering a Bill to place a moratorium on the installation of new turf fields. Greenwich Selectwoman Lavery has recently asked for a moratorium on artificial turf. Fairfield rejected an artificial turf field request based on environmental concerns. The list goes on and on. Yet not a single study put forth by proponents is funded by a group that is not financially connected to the tire or turf industries. Let’s listen to independent experts. Recently, proponents have been broadcasting that there is a solution to resident’s health concerns. In the Fall several residents attended a SCOR board meeting to express our concerns about the infill. The SCOR board rejected suggestions to research Mondo Turf and to consider alternatives to tearing up the existing playing field. Had the SCOR board listened then, there may have been time to thoughtfully consider the much more expensive Mondo. Mondo has not been independently tested. Additionally, we should carefully consider the long-term environmental impact of tearing up the grass and installing a synthetic carpet in its place. We are less than one week away from a costly referendum and this decision cannot be made in haste as, for reasons that remain unclear, some of our public officials scramble to satisfy the spending priority of one group. Proponents have suggested that residents who are opposing the field have a secret agenda. It’s never been a secret - we care about the fiscal stability of our Town, the health of the children who live here and the earth that we all share. Let’s all vote ‘NO’ on Onalfo. Stacey Mesler February 21, 2008 Spoiled Children Of Ridgefield SCOR reminds me of a shameless child in a toy store—first begging for one toy, then another when the first is ruled out. They were for a crumb rubber field, though they didn’t know the first thing about the current research. Now they want Mondoturf, though they don’t know anything about that (nor does the town). All they want is for daddy (the taxpayers) to buy them something. As children mature they learn the value of money and that usually you have to buy things with money you earn, not a gift. SCOR’s materials compare Ridgefield and Darien to prove that we need more fields. Yet Darien Soccer’s website has directions to only 17 fields in Darien and 22 in Ridgefield (more than any town in the area). Darien has a beautiful library. Ridgefield does not. This is not a critical need. The town should not pay for it. David Wellborn February 21, 2008 Toxic switcheroo Now that the proponents of the artificial turf field on Onalfo have confused the issue by introducing the option of Mondo Turf at the "midnight hour", I'dlike to point out two important considerations; 1) Town Representatives made ONE visit to a field in Brooklyn....hardly due diligence for an expenditure of at least $1.6 million. Mondo has not been independently tested for health or environmental impact. 2) Why do you suppose these same people have now "switched gears" at the last minute from the originally proposed synthetic turf? They were ready to put down one toxic substance before and have no qualms about doing so now. Vote "NO" on the Onalfo Referendum on February 26th. Bebe McCarthy February 21, 2008 Hey, me too. Heard about the soccer field. Cool! Say, I was wondering, I have a hobby too. I like to sail. What do you good people of Ridgefield think about buying me a new fiberglass boat? I’m hoping for something big so I can take all my friends along. They’re mostly from Ridgefield. Mostly. Some are from out of town. Whatever. Can you also get me one of those blue canvas tops so I can use the boat in the rain? Nothing better than being outside in bad weather. And don’t worry about the boat maintenance. As we all know, boats require no maintenance. Sure the whole thing is pricey, but not if you all chip in. Maybe you could cut back on the school asbestos removal or the new paramedics - just ask people to get sick during regular business hours. For more information, please visit my website: www.fiberglassfields.org Chris McQuillan February 21, 2008 Ridgefield Action Committee for the Environment I’ve become increasingly concerned by RACE’s lack of commitment against the turf on Onalfo Field. Clearly there are many environmental implications, none of them favorable, regardless of what kind of turf is chosen. I’ve heard a rumor that RACE is not taking a stance because it is a political issue. But that seems ludicrous, because the environment is absolutely a political issue. Besides, I get emails from RACE asking me to act on political eco-issues all the time. Shouldn’t RACE be speaking out about grass being the best solution. Not to mention that flooded fields give our very entitled children the opportunity to learn to coexist with their environment. To learn that there is something larger to respect than their desire to play a sport? This is an opportunity for us environmentally minded citizens. I know this is a heated issue and it is never fun to put yourself out there, but isn’t that exactly why RACE was started? To voice the concerns of environmentally minded residents? Or should you delete the “Action” part of the acronym. If RACE doesn’t stand up for this, what does it stand for? M.T. February 14, 2008 SPENDING PRIORITIES I read this week that the Board of Selectmen is scrutinizing the Bd. Of Education $1.12 million capital requests and am left wondering. Why wasn’t the same scrutiny applied to the outrageous $1.6 million Onalfo field initiative brought forward by the sports organizations? The Board of Education’s requests include: $350,000 to replace a 30-year old boiler at Branchville (reasons mentioned that it may break down during winter months, freezing and ruining the ventilation systems in classrooms). $405,000 for ASBESTOS tile replacement at Farmingville and Veterans Park. And we are considering $1.6 million to artificially turf an already existing playing field? Imagine if we ran our personal budgets this way. Buying the plasma TV before replacing a failing furnace or asbestos tile replacement. We must get out and vote No on Onalfo on Februrary 26th . We cannot afford this initiative when more important budget issues must be addressed. Elizabeth Butler February 14, 2008 Question: Why were the proponents of the Onalfo Field Project permitted to make a presentation at the last Selectmen's Meeting when others were not invited. The Meeting was last week and they were permitted to make a presentation under the "First Selectman's Report". Normally, the issue should have been discussed as an agenda item and this would have allowed the opponents to speak against the issue. however, Mr. Marconi placed this item on his report section and this did not have to be announced for public comment. This should have been done in advance to allow for open and fair discussion of the issue as opposed to a slanted view made by the proponents. I believe this may have violated the State Sunshine law. It is clear that this is being steam rolled through the town even though the voters are against it. Some one please check on this and put a stop to the entire mess. John February 12, 2008 Quite a handful Handful of Parents? Proponents of Onalfo would have you believe that those who would oppose the issue are just “a handful of parents” with overactive imaginations. No. We are more than that. We are towns across the country -- and just in our own backyard many towns have defeated or asked for more time/information on this issue to get clarity of the facts. Towns and states like: Fairfield and Greenwich, CT, Nyack, NY, New York City, Weston and Newtown, MA, many towns in New Jersey, New York State, not to mention other countries, such as: Sweden, Norway, and Italy (completely banned). All of the facts and studies that led this mass of people to their well-informed decisions are listed at www.grassfields.org. I urge you to read them. This field will costs all taxpayers (whether you use it or not). At time of recession, that just isn't responsible. Vote NO on Onalfo February 26th. Aryn Ekstedt February 7, 2008 Proposal is so ludicrous Onalfo proposal is so ludicrous that it borders on the absurd. I am no environmentalist, but a brief look at the research on grassfields.org and the number of governmental entities that are calling for a halt to these artificial fields makes the risks obvious. Those who claim otherwise are obviously biased. These risks pose not only a health concern, but a major potential future liability for all of us, such that our selectmen are now desperately searching for a way out of this hole that SCOR wants to dig for us. These issues aside, this proposal is galling on a fiscal level. SCOR is a private club with a fraction of the community involved, that has members outside the town, and they are proposing that every taxpayer in town share in the cost of their hobby. Stop the madness and vote no on February 26th. David Wellborn February 7, 2008 A FATHER FIRST A friend of mine in Ridgefield, a father of three and a supporter of youth sports like me, recently made me feel encouraged about the progress our group, Ridgefielders for Grass Fields, is making in alerting parents to safety issues pertaining to synthetic fields. Initially skeptical (but polite), this dad has now done his own research. He recently emailed me to say “This is scary!” This man is a father first. Ridgefield parents should follow this man’s example. To ensure that our kids get back on safe fields: First, vote “No” on Onalfo. That will set a responsible tone for decisions about remedying the synthetic turf problems at Tiger Hollow and Scotts Ridge. Then, pressure the youth sports groups to offer “grass only” to our youngest athletes. Lastly, let’s vacuum up the rubber infill on TH and SR and replace it with a non-carcinogenic, bio-degradable fill. Then our kids can play. Chris Murray February 7, 2008 On common sense As the mother of a child in SCOR, I’m disappointed by what I am seeing. This town is trusting you to do the right thing with our children. If there is the possibility of something even remotely hazardous to my son, I don’t want him exposed to it. End of story. It’s soccer. Why would I want to put my child in harm’s way for a game of soccer? Why would anyone? That is common sense. Pushing this field on us might be bad for your business model because I’ll just find some other activity for Saturday mornings. Right now, reading an old-fashioned non-toxic book is sounding pretty good. I suggest other parents and children do the same. Tina Heh February 7, 2008 Ridgefield school-aged population forecast to decrease Outside of the potential health risk regarding the Onalfo synthetic turf field, the citizens of Ridgefield need to look at what the future may bring. There was an article written in The Ridgefield Press in December which quoted a Dr. Chung as stating that “All in all, the 12-K enrollments in Ridgefield public schools are forecast to decrease by 18.1% over the next 10 years.” If enrollment is going down, are we adding an unneeded immediate expense? Ten years from now when the field needs to be replaced, are we committing to a tax burden we might not really need? The following factors don’t add up: potential health risk no one has the answer to, increase in taxes in a current uncertain economic climate, a future potential decrease in school age population. Ridgefield should investigate a safer, more low cost solution while keeping an eye on our future needs. Robert Despirito January 31, 2008 What's the S.C.O.R. Dear Editor, S    Safety- It is estimated that each artificial turf field contains between 20,000-40,000 ground up tires. Tires contain toxic materials, which prohibit their disposal in landfills, so it is reasonable to question their safety for their use on children’s playing fields. C    Children could be harmed by breathing the chemicals in the turf or by getting it on their skin or in their mouths. O    ONALFO TURF FIELD INITIATIVE TOWN REFERENDUM VOTE “NO” – FEBRUARY 26TH R    Ridgefield taxpayers will pay approximately $1.6 million to artificially turf the grass fields at Onalfo. This repeat referendum from last May is costing taxpayers thousands of additional dollars. No matter how you spell it, SCOR is a losing game. Tom Marshall January 31, 2008 Proponents proposal lacking crucial details "Safe" and "Proceed" is the extent of the information given by turf proponents as they cite the "authorities" they have used to assess potential health risks to young children from breathing in the fine dust from the ground-up tires. The "authorities" used by proponents are biased, irrelevant, misleading and in many cases outdated. For example, "Dow Chemical Company" is a "leading supplier of chemicals and plastics for artificial turf…" (from the Dow website); and the "British Journal of Medicine" addresses injury and not the potential heath risks. Proponents have ignored the most current research, which is fairly new and rapidly developing. The sports clubs of Ridgefield are not qualified to assess the concerns being raised by many health professionals (like doctors at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine). Please visit www.grassfields.org for a review and rebuttal of the "authorities" being used by proponents. Vote "NO" February 26th. Stacey Mesler January 31, 2008 Editor's Note: The rebuttal mentioned in the above letter can be found here. TOWN OFFICIALS - FOR OR AGAINST ARTIFICIAL TURF? It is time for OUR public officials to state their positions, FOR or AGAINST artificial turf. There have been stated risks by public health experts and doctors on the potential health risks to young children playing on these fields as well as environmental impacts. Links to these reports can be found on www.grassfields.org. A town referendum does NOT excuse our elected officials from an opinion on a taxpayers’ project that could prove toxic for our Town. We elected them to study issues and take positions. They represent ALL constituents, including our children who can’t vote. Officials and legislators in neighboring towns are taking action, requesting moratoriums, denying artificial turf field plans and revisiting the use of turf made with ground-up truck tires for the protection of their citizens. Ridgefield officials remain publicly silent. Call or e-mail your local officials to find out their position. Contact info is posted on www.grassfields.org. Elizabeth Butler January 31, 2008 Editor's Note: Contact information for Town officials can be found here. Ridgefield taxpayers footing the bill for out-of-towners Did you know that the Soccer Club of Ridgefield (SCOR) accepts players on their teams from other towns? Meaning not only are the taxpayers of Ridgefield being asked to pay for someone else’s hobby via the artificial turf on Onalfo Field, but we are also being asked to fund the extra curricular activities for kids in other towns as well. As a private club, I think it’s great SCOR accepts kids from all over. But how can you seriously be asking the Seniors of this town to not only be paying for perks for your kids, but to be paying for kids from other towns - and in fact kids from New York State? That’s ridiculous. Local taxpayers should not be footing this bill. If SCOR wants a field to play on, they should pay for it themselves. K. McQuilken January 31, 2008 Other towns are selling while we're buying This week, both New York City and Westport have reversed their prior endorsements of artificial turf fields. Are we to believe that a few sports coaches in Ridgefield know so much more about the safety of the potentially carcinogenic rubber in-fill than both of these other municipalities? My gosh, New York City has their own massive Department of Health, and yet some Ridgefield Soccer Dads know best? More fields? Yes. But why are you trying to install a type of field that other places are rejecting? If nothing else, wait a year and all these other towns might be willing to give you their cancer causing follies for free. Saves the town $1.6 million. Cary Hammer January 26, 2008 Polluting the Great Swamp The proposal to turf Onalfo field has drawn strong support by local team leaders and strong opposition from parents who fear for the health of their children. I understand both concerns. But there is another aspect which is unspoken. To the East of Ridgefield lies the Great Swamp. This wetland is 1 ½ miles by 1 mile. This is the home of countless birds, and aquatic plants and animals. A biologist could speak endlessly about the treasury of life in a swamp like this, and of it’s value. The maintenance of a turf field requires that twice a year, more rubber pellets be added to maintain the field. This means that pellets are being depleted over time. Where do the pellets go? We know from letters that pellets will be found on athlete’s clothing and bodies. But could it be that every player goes home with so much ground up rubber on them that every six months there is a shortage of field? I doubt it. I suspect that a larger amount of the rubber pellets washes away or is blown away and enters the surrounding environment. In this case, the environment is the watershed which includes the great swamp. What will the effect of polluting a massive wetland with ground up rubber tires be? If the depletion of rubber pellets on the field, and replacement of pellets to the field continues indefinitely, what does this mean for the swamp? After 50 years, how many ground-up tires will be spread about the watershed? What will the fine particulate of tire do to the health of the area? What will it do to the groundwater supply? These are sincere questions in that I truly do not know the answer. I only suspect that I would not be happy with the answer. Colin Cuite January 24, 2008 A difficult decision I made a difficult decision recently, keeping my son out of the local lacrosse program. He played last spring and loved it but I have concerns about the “heat blooms” and dust the crumb-rubber fields generate. Since he will be on these fields for the next ten years, my parental instincts tell me I cannot ignore the potential long-term health effects. This is my job. The controversy over Onalfo has caused parents to ask our leaders to explore better options. I have talked to many parents who favor a cautious approach – they will vote no on Onalfo and seek safer use of the existing synthetic fields. They are afraid to say so publicly, as they don’t want retribution on their children by the coaching clique. As characterized by one mother, it is “silent support,” showing up in the voting booth. Our town leaders are acting in good faith. They are considering questions of cost, health risk, environmental risk, liability, standards of care, and competing evidence. I encourage them to show real leadership. We just want our kids to have a safe place to play. My unsolicited but relevant advice for our youth sports hierarchies: 1) Parents would be very grateful if you created a “grass-only” option. 2) Propose alternative field types that have no health or environmental risks (geosafeplay.com). Don’t equate canned speeches on the need for fields with genuine and timely due diligence on the health and environmental impacts. 3) Take complete responsibility for raising all the money needed, including the annual maintenance costs. 4) Start repairing your damaged credibility by withdrawing your petition before the referendum date. Taxpayers won’t soon forget your disingenuous “show-of-hands-in-the-basement-on-a-cold-winter-night” strategy for getting this field past taxpayers. Did you honestly think it legitimate to disenfranchise the people you insist pay the bill? Christopher B. Murray January 21, 2008 Reckless and irresponsible to promote synthetic turf It is reckless and irresponsible to promote the synthetic turf field at Onalfo as "the solution” to our town’s need for more playing area. The proponents of this project have ignored the many studies which show that dangerous chemicals are present in the tons of rubber tire crumb used on each field. The identified chemicals are a danger to our children and the environment, but without further tests, we just don’t know how dangerous. The proponents have relied on information from tire manufacturers, chemical companies and synthetic turf salesmen, and they are asking us to do the same. Until the rubber crumb used on the synthetic fields is proven safe, we must not allow another synthetic turf field to be installed in Ridgefield. The required tests will not be available before February 26th, the date of our referendum. Vote NO on Onalfo. Jennie Carr January 21, 2008 Ridgefield Open Space Association[ROSA] reverses support of artificial turf We [ROSA] originally supported the concept, in order to reduce the demand for additional fields and the attendant destruction of existing natural open space, as well as a reduction of the use of pesticides and fertilizers. We have since revised our policy, and have withdrawn our support pending the results of additional research into the safety of these fields. I have cc'd Debby Mandelbaum of our organization on this email, who researched the subject for ROSA and wrote a recent letter to the Press, I believe cc'd to SCOR and others, explaining our current position. Please feel free to contact Debby for a copy of this letter. Ellen Burns, ROSA January 21, 2008 Editor's Note: The SCOR website still claims ROSA's support on this issue. Onalfo and the unknown factors The public hearing on the Onalfo Artificial Turf issue had some interesting moments. The soccer club, Parks and Recreation and other athletic interests rehashed their need for more field time. However, surprising to me was the showing of a large contingent of parents who spoke out about the unknown short- and long-term detrimental health effects of crumb rubber. They were armed with health studies from Connecticut and many other states that indicated that much further study must be made before we expose developing adolescents to the unknown health hazards of crumb rubber. Many states and local communities have put a moratorium on the construction of artificial turf fields until more is known. One time we thought DDT was safe, lead in paint was no concern and we used to play with mercury when I was a kid. Now they are considered health hazards. It appears now the original $1.475-million request turned down at the last referendum will increase to at least $1.6 million and this does not include new equipment and supplies needed for a new field ($100,000 to $300,000). This is thought to be supplied by the Parks and Recreation budget! No contributions were offered by the athletic interests. The most important unknown cost factor is the removal of the crumb rubber when the field has to be replaced! The manufacturer’s warranty for artificial turf is eight years. The proponents claim 12-15 years. As far as I know there is no experience in crumb rubber removal. What will be the cost of removal of a known environmental hazard that can’t be disposed of in landfills? Will there be health or environmental lawsuits? Would cities and towns be co-litigants in liability lawsuits if long-term health hazards are discovered? Example: lung cancer and tobacco! Phil Baumann January 17, 2008 A taxpayer's point of view The turf war will come to a head with a referendum on February 26th. This was the bottom line to the January 9th town meeting before the boards of Selectmen and Finance. While the request for an additional turf field had already been voted down by town voters, it was resurrected by a determined interest group as envisioned by a change in the town's charter. This change was not intended to circumvent the will of the voters, rather to provide more power to voters versus to one of the governing boards. And so it was at the town meeting there were those who spoke passionately for and against the once defeated proposal. Some speakers based their positions on usage, others on maintenance costs, still others focused on health and safety. I listened to everyone with great interest, impressed that so many individuals had spent so much time and effort and had so much conviction about what was good for Ridgefield's children, albeit coming at it from different points of view. But as I have no children who will use these fields, I found I had only one thing in common with those present and with all of you: I am a tax payer. Putting aside the merit of this particular turf war, as a taxpayer, I am extremely vexed by the notion that whenever a group wants something more, we pull out the town credit card -- the bond issue. Whatever you want to call it, it's more debt. And so it is with this proposal. I submit that if you want something more in this town, use as much effort to figure out how to reduce another cost to balance it out. Homeowners can no longer absorb more debt for non-essentials, especially in a time of lost property value. Jan Rifkinson January 17, 2008 Former CDC toxicologist calling this a serious public health issue As a parent of children enrolled in SCOR, I must respond to the most recent SCOR Onalfo update. Their blatant disregard of potential risks to children and our environment is disturbing. In their January 9th public hearing summary, they deliberately don’t mention the many Ridgefield residents who presented information on the health risks of artificial turf to our children and environment. I encourage everyone to watch the televised airing. Dr. David Brown, a toxicologist for EHHI and formerly of the CDC, is calling this a serious public health issue. His belief is that children under the age of 12 should not be playing on artificial fields until further studies are complete. It is a growing public health issue both locally and globally. NY State Legislators are currently considering a Bill to place a moratorium on the installation of new turf fields. Doctors from Mt. Sinai, Researchers from Rutgers, doctors and public health professionals from EHHI are all requesting the need for further studies. SCOR and the Sports Coalition still claim that artificial turf is safe in “all aspects”, relying on safety information from The Synthetic Turf Council. This Council’s members include artificial turf vendor Prograss, Dow Chemical Company and Liberty Tire Recycling. Is that who we should rely on for safety information? Our children’s health and safety should be a top priority for all sports organizations. The SCOR Board has been made aware of the potential health risks, yet have chosen not to share these possible risks with families. Who will be responsible if current studies determine that these fields are toxic for children? While I understand sports programs may be affected by current field limitations, installing a potentially toxic field is not the solution. Safer alternatives must be further explored. Elizabeth Butler January 17, 2008 Onalfo: Make No Mistake, Tires Are Toxic So, a referendum it is. When I got up to leave the selectmen meeting this week, I was approached by a man who said he worked for a tire company. For obvious reasons, he was unable to speak. Artificial turf is made up of recycles tires that have been shown in many recent independent studies to be harmful to the health of children and full of carcinogens, many of which were over state standard levels of hazardous acceptability. This man has worked at an automotive factory for over 30 years. A list of facts he shared: Tires are LOADED with chemicals, including mercury, zinc, tungsten, and arsenic to name a few – all are toxic. The EPA standards are so stringent for disposal of tires and treat the process of making and disposing of tires as handling hazardous materials. The EPA and automotive industries do no allow for any “sanding” of tires as they used to do because of the “dust” from this process. The men sanding and crumbling the tires were getting cancer. Now almost all handling of tires in these factories is done behind glass and/or with machines (due to the high toxicity of their make-up). Most tires come from outside the USA (China, Korea, etc). These countries do not have to meet our EPA standards when “making” the tires. They only have to meet requirements with a finished product. These countries’ environmental standards are nearly absent. He said, “In my experience, the rubber goes into your lungs, it does not come out – it does not biodegrade in the body.” He also said that he has seen time and again, bacteria grow on tires. He added, “I have four kids, and I would never let them play on an artificial field.” Aryn Ekstedt January 17, 2008 Taxpayers’ wishes ignored Last May, the citizens of Ridgefield rejected in a referendum the proposal to spend about $1.5 million in improvements to the Onalfo field. In a year in which there was comparatively little budget rancor, this proposal was still defeated with no organized opposition. Obviously, voters felt that this was an extravagant request that would burden the many to benefit the few, while the town had other pressing priorities. Now, just six months later in an outrageous and petulant tactic, SCOR has presented a petition attempting to resurrect this proposal. The strategy is clearly to fly under the radar and have this measure adopted by a Town Meeting, where they can pack the room with their members. If this moves forward, it would blatantly disenfranchise the voters of Ridgefield who just decided this issue in a far more democratic process. The situation we are in indicates that our Selectmen either lack the means or the will to stop it. Either way, something must be done to ensure that taxpayers’ wishes are not ignored again. Should this proceed to another referendum, all the residents of Ridgefield will have to pay thousands of dollars just to cover the expense of the vote. With growing calls to abandon this project for environmental and fiscal reasons, SCOR should pull their petition before it gets that far. Otherwise, I would implore all my fellow citizens to attend the Town Meeting and defend our budget and our democratic process. David Wellborn January 10, 2008 Onalfo Field: The Costs Outweigh the Benefits Parents and taxpayers are examining the potential health risks of this proposal, many of which have come to light since this same proposal was voted down last May. Our politicians should spend time doing more than just a needs-assessment on an issue that is multi-faceted. There is a mounting concern among scientists and independent groups around the country who have paid for their own studies (not by the natural grass industry). A short history of these risks is on the internet: out-gassing of toxins when rubber infill heats up; the breathing in of rubber dust; serious skin burns; and the leaching of metals/chemicals into the soil and waterways. What about turf disposal after the turf expires? Nancy Alderman of EHHI points out that in a time of emphasizing environmental responsibility to our children, we are advocating pulling up natural grass in favor of acres of plastic grass with over 100 tons of ground-up rubber tires. Who will be responsible for the disposal of these tons of potential toxic wastes? They are proposing a 1.2 million dollar field. Plus parking at $175,000. In 8-10 years, the town will have to pay $400,000 for re-surfacing the field (don’t forget inflation). Cost – just under two million for one field, so our children can play soccer in the rain. Taxpayers (especially our seniors) should not have to pay for this. Why hasn’t the sports community come back to the town with an alternate plan like raising a percentage of the money themselves? Proponents say turf is safe – “at least at this point in time.” I can’t think of anything more appalling than using our children as guinea pigs. New York and Connecticut are proposing further studies until we have more information. Red flags have been raised and that is the bottom line. Aryn Ekstedt-Cluney January 10, 2008 Onalfo plan needs a referendum According to the Town Charter Sec-3-5, the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance, after a public hearing must vote to approve or deny a special petition for a town meeting. If either or both boards deny the petition then the Board of Selectmen must submit the matter to a referendum! If they both approve the petition the matter goes to a town meeting for a vote. The petition for artificial turf for Onalfo field must go back to the voters as a referendum! Most everyone knows what happens at a town meeting vote. Special interest groups like the Soccer Club of Ridgefield (SCOR) will pack the meeting with its members and other sports enthusiasts to get what they want. The taxpayers will lose! The Onalfo turf issue lost at the last referendum and now the proponents are trying to force the issue down our throats through the back door. In fact, I heard some of their folks brag that the petition would not go to a referendum! Really? Do they know something we don't know? It is encouraging to note that ROSA has now taken a stand against the turf issue because of health issues. I don't think it would be a good thing if a toddler was to start chewing on a piece of loose artificial turf that they picked up off the ground, but everything seems to go into their mouth. It is important for everyone to call or e-mail the Board of Selectmen and Board of Finance to let them know that you are against the Onalfo artificial turf. They should respect the will of the majority of the voters who already voted it down, and deny the petition and move it forward to another referendum. Decision day, Jan. 9, public hearing. Cost possibly $2 million. Phil Baumann January 2, 2008 Cancer and Children Is the risk of cancer and the exposure to unknown carcinogens worth the risk to our children and grandchildren for an artificial turf field, just to satisfy a group of sports zealots that want to extend the sports season in the spring and fall without considering the consequences to the children? This is what will happen if this self-serving group of sports lobbyists get their way. The Onalfo field resurfacing with artificial turf is in front of us again. In the May budget referendum the budget request for $1,475,900 was defeated 52% to 48%. I think that the voters were smart then and I hope will be again and turn it down if this item reaches a referendum. I will give my reasons why I believe this should be turned down besides the fact that it is an extravagance. Recent medical studies by the University of Connecticut Health Center, and as reported in the New Haven Register, Nov. 11, indicate artificial turf is environmentally unsafe for children of all ages. Fairfield conservation officials blocked an artificial turf field at the Fairfield Country Day School last month. Artificial turf fields were recently rejected in New York and New Jersey for health reasons. On Oct. 23, a bill was introduced in the New York State Assembly calling for a moratorium on new synthetic turf installations pending a resolution of concerns of potential health hazards. Crumb rubber, artificial turf, is ground-up auto tires. Tires contain toxic substances that prohibit their disposal in landfills and oceans, so is it safe for use in fields where children play? Studies conducted in New York and Connecticut have confirmed the presence of hazardous substances on existing fields exceeding the limits of the Department of Environmental Services as safe. Phil Baumann December 13, 2007 Ridgefield is close to broke Good luck to all who are making the case for the health and safety aspects of use of synthetic turf, a debate which seems to have the best chance of stopping the latest application for profligate expenditure. How many Ridgefield parents needed a polymer composite field to enjoy a weekend game with their friends? What is wrong with grass even with, heaven forbid, a little mud in it? Why is it necessary these days? Ridgefield is close to broke. Now, in a Board of Education look-alike action, not rebuffed one bit by a vote on the issue, a few of our townspeople want a referendum and we have to pay for it. I tell you what, let's see just how important this synthetic turf really is; let's ask all who think their kids cannot get through the weekend without a perfect field to sign up as sponsors; Ridgefield will hold a referendum when that group has escrowed, or pledged, 50% of the requested funds. That way, the philosophical luxury of spending other people's money will be eradicated and we, those asked to pay, will be able to gauge just how critical this $1 million plus really is. Barry Drayson December 7, 2007 More safety concerns with artificial turf I read with interest the coverage of Ridgefield's consideration of synthetic turf for new soccer fields. It was interesting to hear about the potential environmental problems associated with these types of fields. It is my understanding, based upon discussions with athletes, that these artificial turf fields are extremely challenging to the players. For one, falling on the extremely hard surface is in itself painful, and often produces a brush burn on the skin that s generally worse than when falling on real grass. In addition, the sanitation of these fields should also be thoroughly investigated (how are they cleaned?). While those answers may take a while to obtain, it will serve parents and other taxpayers well to know whether $1.6 million will be spent as an investment in Ridgefield's children's health and well-being as active soccer players, or as a waste of money that could have been avoided. Jennifer Bosavage December 5, 2007 Another $1,000,000 and how many Ridgefield student went on to become great Sports Stars? Here we go again! They want to fix another field, and they are going to hold their breath until they get it! How about what the taxpayers who do not use this field want, the people who pay for the upkeep of this and the other fields that they do not use? I have lived in this town all my life and when I was young we could go and play on any field if not being used. Now if I want to use a field, I have to pay for a permit. Does anyone see the problem? To add insult to injury you want us to give a million dollars to upgrade this field! To all the taxpayers young and old, please open your eyes to the injustice of asking us to pay for this! When will the madness stop! I ask the people of this town to look in the history books and find out how many students went on to become famous sports stars! I believe as others do, that education and sports are a very important part of growing up, but at what cost to the taxpayers? If we continue on this path we might as well build a field for evry child in town to play on! To the parents and to the taxpayers: Do we really need to spend a million dollars for a playing field, or can we decide as a town, not individuals, that we can make the field that we already have work? This way everyone can use and enjoy them together and not have to pay for them twice! Try to remember those two great words: imagination and unity. David Coles November 26, 2007 Isn't that better than telling a young adult they have cancer? In response to letters in last week's paper from Roy Messing and Karen Isaac (SCOR Administrative Staff) I would like to address and "correct some of the inaccuracies" and misrepresentations that SCOR has perpetuated in their quest to synthetically turf the Onalfo field regardless of the very real health concerns to Ridgefield children. When gathering signatures SCOR described the petition as a way to reopen the communication regarding the field, which was rejected last year by Ridgefield. In an e-mail dated Nov. 15 SCOR translated those signatures which supported reconsidering the issue into an "overwhelming show of support." It is imperative that the community understand that parents who signed may have had no idea that there is a national debate occurring over the safety of synthetic fields exactly like the one being touted by SCOR as "safe and reliable...superior to any alternative." The Nov. 15 e-mail erroneously and misleadingly cites Connecticut's EHHI as concluding that "synthetic turf is safer than grass." In truth, EHHI supports placing "a moratorium on installing...fields...that use ground-up rubber tires until additional research is undertaken." SCOR has yet to retract the incorrect information. Mr. Messing states that there has been "no effort to suppress information" and accuses Ms. Carr "of ignoring the facts" however, he and SCOR are misrepresenting the facts and ignoring the research. Contrary to Ms. Isaac's statements synthetic turf does emit hazardous vapors. The issue is how big a risk is being taken when our children play on these fields. No one wants children to be "told they cannot play" but isn't that better than telling a young adult they have cancer? This letter is not against expanding the field but supports proceeding with caution and finding the truth. Stacey Mesler November 26, 2007 Parents are not the enemy As the mother of two soccer playing children, I have been following with interest the growing debate over the proposed synthetic turfing of Onalfo Field, including recent coverage in The Press. I am very troubled by the dismissive tone taken by some of the supporters of the initiative toward people who legitimately question the safety of synthetic turf. Legitimately, because notwithstanding the representation made by Roy Messing in his letter last week, there is a vigorous debate among experts as to the health effects of exposure to synthetic turf. Legitimately, because Connecticut's own attorney general agrees that further testing is needed. Parents who want more information before they support spending more than $1 million on synthetic turf are not the enemy, nor are they "ignoring the facts" as Mr. Messing alleges. Jennifer Sachs November 25, 2007 We were not given the facts Many parents did not oppose the synthetic turf field at first because we were not given the facts. SCOR has promoted this initiative by sharing only the benefits of artificial turf, while ignoring the potential hazards. They seem to have an agenda to install this turf at any cost to our town. They have stated that they have support from our elected officials. Any elected politician who supports the Onalfo proposal should issue a public statement in writing teeling all his constituents in advance why he or she intends to support it, including a position on health issues. There is another side to this story which has been omitted from SCOR's newsletters, and which may pose many serious health concerns to the children who will use the fields. There is also the very real threat to the environment. All I have been asking is that we wait until we have evaluated both sides before we push this project through. SCOR has ridiculed adverse comments and legitimate questions as histrionics, yet questions are being raised in many communities. I urge all Ridgefielders to seek out information and make up your own minds. A simple online search yields plenty of information; one web site to look at is www.EHHI.org. Jennie Carr November 25, 2007 "Avoidable" and "unavoidable" risk In recent reports, SCOR board members have stated that the concerns for the turf fields are limited to a small number of parents and that the risks are a "non-issue." One parent with concerns was accused of "ignoring the facts." That is simply not fair or accurate. Similar concerns are being raised in our region and beyond. EHHI, Inc., a nonprofit organization comprised of doctors and public health officials in Connecticut, recently released the following statement: "Children will be exposed to recognized hazardous substances on synthetic turf fields and until further testing is done to show how exposed each child who plays on these fields will actually be, no new artificial fields containing ground up used rubber tires should be installed." SCOR sent out a recent e-mail stating that EHHI concluded that turf fields are "as safe or safer" than grass. This is simply not true. A board member told me that a corrected e-mail would be sent to members. This has yet to be sent. New York Assemblymen Englebright, Colton and Koon co-sponsored legislation to prevent the installation of artificial turf until further studies are complete. Attorney General Blumenthal has called for the allocation of funds for further studies. The Fairfield Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission denied plans for a new turf field at a Connecticut school, based on the possible risk of contamination to groundwater supplies. Public health officials in Norway, Sweden and Italy have also asked for a moratorium on new synthetic turf fields. The public reports on these risks are increasing and should not be ignored. To me it is about "avoidable" and "unavoidable" risk. Of course we cannot protect our children from all risks, but let's not add to the chemical exposure without a fair evaluation. Beth Butler November 25, 2007 Go slow, EMS before sports fields The town should heed the advice of the "go slow" parents regarding the resurfacing at Onalfo. There are legitimate questions the town, not SCOR, should take responsibility for answering. I hope the various athletic organizations pushing for Onalfo are correct in asserting there aren't any environmental or health risks. Nevertheless, please give taxpayers the time to understand the risks. The consequences if wrong would be catastrophic for the kids, the town, the neighborhood and the sports organizations. For example, I understand the rubber pellets in the proposed field are from old tires. There is a reason why tires aren't allowed in landfills; why are they OK for soccer fields? Wouldn't the drainage from Onalfo potentially run into the properties on Ivy Hill (including mine) and end up in the Great Swamp watershed? According to the Centers for Disease Control, athletes using synthetic fields (versus grass) stand a seven times great chance of contracting MRSA (methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Would the synthetic fields have to close with a MRSA outbreak? How are they disinfected? Ridgefielders should also consider the impact Onalfo would have on the neighborhood. John McGeary, whose home is adjacent to Onalfo, recently wrote a letter to The Press objecting to Onalfo based on drainage and quality of life issues. Ridgefielders should honor the McGearys' concerns. First Selectman Marconi has promised that Onalfo will not have lights and it would close at sunset. I will hold him to his word. Chief Burford recently made a compelling case for hiring two additional EMS/fire personnel. Any taxpayer hearing this presentation would have concluded, as I did, that this need will eventually have to be met. In an era of strict prioritization of needs, EMS staffing is imperative. I support funding EMS before sports fields. Christopher B. Murray November 24, 2007 Blumenthal thinks it's an issue In response to last week's article about SCOR petitioning for another vote on whether or not to resurface Onalfo Field with synthetic turf, I don't understand how any reasonable person could call this a "non-issue." Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal thinks it's enough of an issue to spend $200,000 researching the effects of the chemicals, which leach out of these rubber compounds, so again I ask, "Why should Ridgefielders even consider resurfacing Onalfo Field before we have the answers to this study?" It doesn't make sense to proceed in any way before we have all the facts. Bebe McCarthy November 19, 2007 All letters reprinted after seeking permission from both "The Ridgefield Press" and the original authors.

Home | Environmental Issues | Economic Issues | Research | News | Neighbor's Thoughts | Vote | Join Mailing List | Who To Contact
©2008 grassfields.org

Website by grassfields.org