More turf wars in Cranston. This time it’s a cyberjoust between former Ward 2 Councilperson Cindy Fogarty and current Ward 2 Councilperson Emilio Navarro.
I believe Steve Stycos started this argument, I supported his concerns, and it now looks like Cindy Fogarty is willing to push the boulder a little further uphill. Both Stycos and Fogarty question the wisdom or value of spreading artificial turf at city’s stadium football field. Councilman Navarro is in favor of the idea, although it sounds like the exact terms of the deal are not yet final.
The emails started last Friday with Cindy sending a short one stating that she was “very disappointed” by Navarro’s support of the artificial turf, calling it a “financial disaster” and comparing it to the kind of behavior of previous administrations (O’Leary’s comes to mind) that “put this city on the brink of bankruptcy 5 years ago.”
Navarro’s long response included defending the decision based on its minimal financial impact to our overall budget and explaining that upkeep of the natural field costs about $25,000 a year. Presumably the upkeep of the artificial turf would be less. He then stated that it was not yet decided whether it would be 10 years or 15 or 20, but that he thought 20 years was the way to go.
Cindy Fogarty replied with concern that Navarro did not know the numbers yet for a decision that he was supporting, and suggested that there are other problems with artificial turf such as some kids being allergic to the plastic.
Essentially, Fogarty is pointing out the obvious fact that it does not seem to make sense to buy something that only lasts 12 years, yet continue to pay for it for 20 or 30 years. Navarro is making the case that if we had artificial turf it might be cheaper to maintain and people might rent it from us. It is unknown whether we could recover anywhere near $50 K or even $25 K in revenues from renting the field.
As for the environmental concerns, it seems to me that it’s a toss-up between which is worse — breathing chemical fertilizers and pesticides from the field or breathing a little more plastic. Wikipedia’s page on artificial turf talks about some of the disadvantages of artificial turf including “turf toe” and that athletes tend to get injured on it more. There is no mention of allergic problems to artificial turf, although there is evidence that various chemicals in plastics, particularly PVC and BPA, may be harmful to humans.
Finally, all this talk of turf begs the question: is this turf war about more than just artificial turf? Is Fogarty going to re-enter the fray and make a run to recapture her council seat?
Kmareka.com 
What concerns me is the logic that the Mayor’s office is using for installing the turf.
“The city has a mandate to install the artificial turf, they argue, since voters approved a $2.7-million parks-and-recreation bond issue last year.
“This was voted on back in November 2006 and it was approved by the citizens of Cranston,” Harty said.
Opponents counter that the vaguely worded bond does not provide the authority for the field.-ProJo, Aug. 9
Why is that a valid argument for the turf project (or any project) when money from that same bond is being witheld to improve the ballfield at the intersection of Hilltop Drive and New London Avenue because of what might happen with a proposal that hasn’t even been submitted to the City??
Cindy Fogarty is absolutely correct in her remarks…this project has no business plan and no financial analysis, so why spend our money blindly? “Build it and they will come” only works in the movies.
Here’s a great study from Penn State University that speaks to the lifespan of artificial turf and their warranties:
http://cropsoil.psu.edu/mcnitt/infill.cfm
“The long-term durability of these fields is unknown. The duration of the warranties offered by synthetic turf companies has been set by economic and competitive issues as opposed to knowledge of the long-term durability of the systems. Originally, the standard warranty of a crumb rubber infill synthetic turf system was five years. Competition increased the warranty to eight years and for several projects the systems were warranted for 10 years. Currently, an eight-year warranty is considered standard in the United States. This author has seen some outdoor high-use fields that may last well beyond the warranty period while others look worn after only one year of use. Since the pile fibers breakdown due to both foot traffic and photodegradation, indoor fields will typically outlast fields that are exposed to sunlight. The author has observed thinning pile fiber in high wear areas around the goal mouth of high school lacrosse fields after only two years of use. There is no standard method to evaluate wear or thinning of the pile fiber. A warranty providing a guarantee against ‘excessive wear’ is open to interpretation.”
If city council thinks “they” will come after it is built, then they should already have a list of “They”. I remember when Cranston used to have a fall Harvest festival. It was free event in and around City Hall. Then someone realized Cranston could make money on it if it moved into the stadium- charge admission. What happened to that? Last one was in 2001 right a week orso after the 9/11 attacks. Let’s improve the plraygrounds and ball fields that majority of people use. So we spend 800,000. to get 25 uses a year for 10 years. $3200 dollars a “use”. How many seats in there 5000. That is only $0.64 per person per use. Looks like the stadium should be able to pay for their own turf. How much could be charged for each usage? Typically an event is multiple days. Will we get a tax break on the income? Why should 1/3 of the approved funds all go into one place? To many unanswered questions to start rubber stamping approvals.
Ed,
It isn’t their money. It’s ours. It’s called fiscal irresponsibility! They just spend and take more. What can we do other than vote differently in 2008.
Time to tell them no more. Can you imagine running your personal financial matters like this?