<p>[East</a> Side puts down new turf; will be ready for Flyer’s home opener](<a href=“http://www.bnd.com/220/story/367567.html]East”>http://www.bnd.com/220/story/367567.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Field turf makes a lot of sense. It can be used all day long, in all kinds of weather, by all sports, including youth programs & gym classes, with no problem tearing up the field. Drainage is great, too, provided the field is well designed. Our town just installed one at the high school & it has been great. Another turf field was just installed across town to accomodate the dozens of teams & programs that the town offers.</p>
<p>So what’s the problem? We have artificial turf at our high school, and so do many schools in our area. Artificial turf may be more expensive in the short run, but it’s a money saver in the long run. With a grass field, you have to limit how many teams can play on it, especially in bad weather. You also have to water it, fertilize it, and pay groundskeepers to line it for almost every game. With an artificial field, you put it down and maybe repaint it every 5 YEARS or so. You can play on it 24/7. Phys Ed classes during the day, soccer practice in the afternoon, football practice in the evening, 7 days per week. Lacrosse in the spring… and it’s no worse for wear. Rec teams, hs teams, adult leagues… it doesn’t wear out. It’s like getting 3 or 4 fields for the price of one (or two). Last spring our softball and baseball teams were fighting over practice time in our fieldhouse due to late-season snow and mud. Meanwhile, the school shovelled the snow off the turf field and lacrosse went out to practice. Plus it’s also supposed to be safer in terms of injuries. And it’s a lot easier to clean the uniforms.</p>
<p>yeah thats not a lot- my school has 4 artificial turf fields- soccer, lax, football and field hockey</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^May be that’s the problem. I wonder if the money will be as easily shelled out for the much-needed books for the library or the new science labs… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Most of the high schools in my old hometown have gone to it. Usually 50-50 paid by boosters and school. Really cuts down maintenance and watering.</p>
<p>Here in California developers are required to prove where the water will come from to serve new subdivisions. One of the easiest and cheapest ways to “find” water is to reduce usage in the existing water company service area by replacing grass fields with artificial turf, freeing up that amount of water supply to serve the new subdivision. Grateful communities and school districts think they’re benefiting from a generous donor, when actually the builder is “buying” water with a deductible contribution directed to artificial field installation.</p>
<p>I think Field Turf or similar products are a GREAT idea for football fields at the high school level because it makes those fields more than “football” fields. They can be used for so much more.</p>
<p>The issue is East St. Louis is a school district and community that the State of Illinois and the Federal government has to bail out continuously. Also, the school district has a poor graduation rate. They are dominant in football, track, and basketball. Anything else sports or academics are HORRIBLE.</p>
<p>^^^^ Well in that case…</p>
<p>Around here we passed a school budget increase last year when the alternative was to cut all support for after-school athletics and activities. But this year when the increase would have saved teacher positions, it was voted down. Might not be a totally valid comparison between years, though, as it’s really hard to get people to approve an increase 2 years in a row.</p>
<p>Aren’t there a lot of unanswered question regarding the health risks from artificial turf and the presence of lead and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which have caused cancer and organ damage in animals. Were those ever disproved?</p>
<p>Lafalum, yikes! And a couple of years down the road the parents who voted down the measure will be complaining about their kids’ calss sizes. Or may be they don’t give a zip. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>chocoholic, my understanding is that the chemicals claimed to be dangerous in the turf are not dangerous is the finished product. The chemicals are present during the production of a certain part of the artificial turf.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting article which addresses the health concerns.</p>
<p>[Indiana</a> Gazette Online - Manufacturer defends synthetic turf safety](<a href=“http://online.indianagazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28663&Itemid=52]Indiana”>http://online.indianagazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28663&Itemid=52)</p>
<p>I wonder if these school districts are aware that the fields need to be replaced every 8-10 years.</p>
<p>I really do not see a problem. Go for it</p>
<p>BunsenBurner: likely it is not the parents who voted against it but the older people whose children are grown up and out of the system. That’s the norm around here.</p>
<p>It took several years, but our athletic boosters raised the $$ to pay for it all. Every team had to help with the fund raising - including the Marching Band !!</p>
<p>Without turf, we would have to eliminate practice time for some sports. Also, sometimes in soggy weather “away” games get moved to our field, since it is still playable.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about the health effects, but I thought that referred to the first generation of artificial turf - which is not the same as the current stuff.</p>
<p>Consolation, it could be true that the old folks do that, but I’ve seen what PARENTS vote down in a nearby SD (thank god, our SD measures seem to pass with flying colors despite the supermajority requirement). We’ll have no kids in public schools next year, but I intend to vote “yes” on everything related to education, even the sports fields (if it keeps kids off the streets, it is a good thing).</p>
<p>I think the lead in the turf fields was found in places where the ground itself is known to be contaminated from past industrial use. I think the turf is supposed to last 15 years or so, but even when it gets replaced it’s not as expensive as the initial installation, as all of the site work is already done.</p>
<p>It’s just amazing how people here vote down the tax increases for the schools. Our town spends 20% less per student than the state average, and our property taxes are some of the lowest in the area. But read the “blogs” on the local newspaper websites and you’d think we were burning $20 bills for kicks. I swear, we could put 50 kids in 3 grades in one classroom and hand them all a slate and some chalk instead of textbooks, and there are folks here who would say we were using too much chalk. What annoys me the most is people who spout off and have NO idea what they are talking about. If they would take ten minutes to learn the BASICS of the laws in this state regarding town budgets, then they’d learn that it’s ILLEGAL to fund things the way they want to, and that a lot of what they see as “waste” (psychologists in the elementary schools, for example) is mandated by state and federal law as part of Title Something-or-Another or Special Ed requirements. What I really love is the people who want to know what we did with all the “No Child Left Behind Money.” HA! What NCLB money? NCLB wasn’t a funding mechanism - in reality it has turned into a huge unfunded mandate. Whatever money our district got out of it isn’t nearly enough to cover it’s requirements.</p>
<p>OK, I’m done hijacking the thread. Off to make Father’s Day dinner!</p>