Letter to the Editor
June 6, 2008
Opposition to turf field proposal for Upper Gedney Field
Editor’s note: This is a copy of a letter submitted recently to the New Castle Town Board.
Dear Members of the New Castle Town Board,
A recent article in “NewCastleNOW.org” discussed a proposal for an artificial turf field to be installed by a private company at Gedney Park. (See “Grass vs. turf: Recreation Commission and town board kick around a few field ideas,” by Christine Yeres, NewCastleNOW.org, May 21, 2008). While the private entity would pay for many costs, the town would incur the cost of upgrading lighting, parking lots, and access roads.
The proposal raises many questions and objections, a number of which were already asked by the Town Board, but the most fundamental is whether or not we want our park to be used by a private entity as a for-profit sports center. Gedney Park is primarily a passive use facility enjoyed by many people in our town, especially dog walkers and small children at the playground. Our children use the baseball fields in the back of the park in spring and summer during evenings and weekends. Access to even these limited events is problematic. The roads to this part of the park are narrow and difficult to navigate, but also run next to a stream making them difficult to widen. Even if it were possible to widen the road, would this be desirable?
Recent articles suggest there are concerns about potential toxicity from turf fields
Several years ago, there was a proposal before the school board to install a turf field at Horace Greeley High School. At that time, there was little information regarding environmental impact; much of it provided by the manufacturers, hardly an unbiased source. As a group the undersigned opposed the installation of turf citing the need for more study. Recently, articles in “The New York Times” highlighted towns suspending play on turf fields due to concerns with toxicity from the chemicals emitted by these fields. (See “Parents Raising Concern Over Synthetic Turf,” “The New York Times,” October 28, 2007).
Even the most ardent supporters of the artificial turf field at Horace Greeley agreed that allowing a private corporation to fund the field would be the wrong way to go. A private entity that funds such a venture wants a return on its investment and the money comes with “strings attached.” This type of funding would likely result in loss of control of our valuable natural resource. The proposal already places responsibility for disposing of turf onto the town if the town does not renew the lease. What would happen if this company declared bankruptcy and could no longer operate this facility?
As Mr. Larramendi of the recreation commission stated, we need “to do what”s right for recreation and what works for all the other town constituents.” We do not believe a turf field, with a bubble, operating until 10:30 in the evening in our town park is in the best interest of the town. If a commercial operation wants to run a business, they should do it on land zoned for businesses, not on our parkland.
Sincerely,
Paula Petito, Anne Caywood, Janet Franco, Raquel Moskovits Grey, Jackie Rider, Beth Zelony
Click here for a printable view of this article.
Click here to read more Government articles.Click here to read more Sports articles.
Click here to read more Town articles.
Click here to send a copy of this article via email.
We're interested in your opinion. Click here to submit a comment on this article, or any other.
