Vote NO on the Artificial Turf Referendum (Question 3) on November 2

The Maplewood Township Committee voted to bond for $1,800,000 to artificially turf over the organic grass fields at DeHart Park. After approximately 1000 residents signed a petition to request a referendum in order to oppose the artificial turf bond, it was added to the ballot.

The question is posed as a capital improvement, a financial matter. We do not believe this would be an improvement.  

As climate change activists, the SOMA Action Climate Committee does not support artificial turf. We support reducing plastics, decreasing our carbon footprint, protecting natural environments, and ensuring that vulnerable populations are no made more vulnerable by our actions. 

Our position is based upon the heat island effect, the destruction of the natural biome, the inability to recycle, the increased flood risk, the increased run off, the chemical shed and impact on the water system, the health risks from increased heat, the glaring environmental justice issues, the costs, and the failure of the town to commit to the organic grass field and making it resilient to meet the needs of both the athletes and the community.

The climate crisis is real, serious, and upon us right now.  We want children to have a livable earth. We have also witnessed a lack of commitment to this organic field and believe that it can be improved, while being naturally maintained, in order to better meet the needs of all who use it.

Heat

Artificial turf fields create heat islands. 

The heat maps of Maplewood show that the Lightning Brook and Hilton neighborhoods and Underhill’s turf and the blocks surrounding it are obviously warmer that other parts of the town; the turf field in Union is red; and the lower income towns nearby are a much different hue from those towns with higher per capita incomes, which also surround us.

These heat islands are a result of artificial turf getting hotter than grass, a lot hotter.  There is no denying that. Not even with the addition of proprietary applications such as “CoolTurf,” i.e., more chemicals, can artificial turf be brought anywhere near the temperature of grass. That heat causes burns.  

The medical community agrees that these burns, as well as other heat-related injuries, are an issue that needs to be considered especially with respect to children. For more information the health risks to children see this article and this letter to the Mayor and the Maplewood Township Council from the Children’s Environmental Health Center, Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

While water is needed to maintain an organic field, even more water would be necessary to keep an artificial turf field at a temperature anywhere near that of grass. For more information read this and this.

Flooding

Artificial turf results in increased water run-off. 

We know that our storm water drainage system already cannot handle large storms.  Township Committeeperson Nancy Adams asked about this during the discussion of the plan and was told the upgraded system would cost more than was proposed; the TC went on to bond for the proposal amount, leaving no money for upgrades, and increasing the flood risks to our community.    

Injury Risk

Injuries Increase on Artificial Turf.

Burns and Heat Stroke risks increase on artificial turf.

Read more.

Socio-economic Injustice

We have also considered the environmental injustice of placing plastic turf in the most densely populated section of town, in the only green space in the Lightning Brook and Hilton neighborhoods, and the census tract with the most BIPOC persons (more than 70%), lowest per capita incomes, and greatest percentage of the population of Maplewood (by census tract).  

 This well-sourced article is written by three Hilton residents, including a scientist.

The key question is Why DeHart?

Financial Concerns 

At $1,800,000, an Artificial field is vastly more expensive than real grass: 

Installation

With a 15-year bond we would be locked into paying $120,000 plus interest every year (for a product whose warranty expires in 8 years, and likely needs to be replaced in 8 to 12 years). 

Maintenance

Grass fields can be typically maintained for $25,000 per year. Turf fields have to be maintained, too. A minimal service contract (2 visits, surface brushing) typically cost about $7000. Note that rehabilitation after flooding has cost towns (such as Ridgewood, NJ and Wilton, CT) $67,800 to $137,485 per field per episode. 

Disposal

Cut grass can be composted. When artificial fields are replaced (in 10 years or so) it can cost $150,000 to $200,000 to rip out, transport, and dump the remains (plus the cost of the replacement field!) Artificial fields cannot be recycled. 

An artificial turf is a fiscally irresponsible use of taxpayers’ money, especially when Hurricane Ida has exposed serious infrastructure problems that need attention. The TC has proposed spending $1.8 million dollars to turf DeHart Field through a contract with Colliers Engineering and Design. As part of the yearly capital budget, it would leave less money for other infrastructure uses, including open space, recreation, and conservation. The money would be used to convert a public-use field effectively into a sports complex to “serve U-10/U-11 soccer, U-13/U-19 soccer and 46/60 softball,” diverting funds away from more pressing community needs and toward the use of those who can afford the soccer program in town. The 700 youth athletes playing in Cougar soccer (representing 9.5% of all eligible children) deserve a playable field, but not at the expense of the health of players and others, the environment, and green space. 

Moreover, these $1.8m in funds are being proposed because those in favor allege that the fields are not available 25% of the time. That means we are not gaining a whole new field to support athletic needs but rather are spending $1.8m to add just 1⁄4 more use of one field, plus all the other social, environmental and health costs and loss of the only easily accessible green space in the Hilton area. Is losing a multipurpose grass park worth 1⁄4 of a new field? 

Those in favor of the artificial field have tried to reduce the sticker shock associated with the $1.8m by suggesting that the grass field there was similarly priced, and costs the town hundreds of thousands of dollars in maintenance. That is simply wrong – very wrong. In fact, the $1.3m spent at DeHart a decade ago was for the whole project, including the lighting, track, and irrigation systems. The most ever spent for a grass field contractor in a single season was $43,000, and yearly the costs are more often in the $20,000 range. 

Finally, given the growing list of lawsuits against artificial turf producers and city- and county-wide moratoriums on the use of artificial turf (such as the Washington D.C. moratorium on use of crumb rubber in fields), it is irresponsible to proceed with this project. Residents of other NJ towns are demanding likewise. 

For more information read this. 

In this year’s budget, Maplewood agreed to upgrade the drainage at a field in Maplecrest park. The cost? $150,000. Upgrading grass field drainage is possible.

Environmental Irresponsibility

Nothing lives on plastic. No worms, no butterflies, no birds.  

Some argue artificial turf reduces pesticide usage but DeHart is the organic field.  Pesticides aren’t being used.

Claims that artificial turf can be recycled are simply incorrect.  No place in the United States is presently recycling artificial turf.

Destruction of the only organic field in Maplewood

DeHart is the only organic field.  We know some are talking about artificial turf as reducing pesticide use, but that does not apply at DeHart.

The grass offers far more to the community than artificial turf.

We know that organic grass can be resilient. We are aware that the town failed to fix early issues with the field, failed to commit to it, and intermittently abandoned professional maintenance. We are aware that some believed that investing twenty thousand dollars per year into an organic field was excessive, but that is far less than one-hundred-twenty thousand dollars per year plus interest. It is also much more fiscally sound to maintain an organic field than to bond for fifteen years on an artificial field that is only guaranteed for 8 years and is expected to have to be replaced in 10 years, to the tune of another $150,000 to $200,000.  This creates a reliance on more artificial products, products that are not recyclable.  Imagine all that waste!  

Let’s come together and demand proper and consistent maintenance of the organic turf fields in DeHart Park, so that all can enjoy!

VOTE NO on Question 3!