Friends of Concord-Carlisle Playing Fields

This letter to the editor of the Concord Journal was published April 24th, 2008:

Dear Fellow Concordian,

Last Saturday’s Boston Globe featured an article titled “Lead found in artificial turf in New Jersey”. The article describes the decision to close two sports fields in New Jersey after health officials discovered unexpectedly high levels of lead in the artificial turf surfaces. According to the Associated Press, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating possible health hazards from lead exposure in artificial fields.

The pigment used to color the nylon fiber used in the New Jersey fields contains lead chromate, a component used to extend the yarn color lifespan. Lead chromate is a highly insoluble compound which is diluted and microencapsulated within the nylon fiber. In fact, OSHA requires no protective measures when handling the turf.

Whichever direction the New Jersey investigation takes, it is irrelevant to the CCHS fields project. The product being installed on our fields is Sprinturf Ultrablade DF. While this product contains extremely low levels of lead chromate, the product is made of polyethylene, not nylon. Quoting from the same Boston Globe article:

“The New Jersey Health Department found lead in both the nylon fields it tested, but in none of the ten polyethylene surfaces it examined”.

On a more positive note, the fields project is nearing completion, with an official inauguration scheduled for early June. The hundreds of weather-related spring sport cancellations and the capacity shortages that have limited kids from participating in sports will soon be a thing of the past.

Sincerely,

Erik Jarnryd
Implementation Coordinator – CCHS Project
Friends of CC Fields

The following Letter to the Editor, from Stow Street resident Jim Atwood, was published in the May 31, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

In the name of “process” some opponents of the playing fields have called for a special Town Meeting. Yet they ignored the town government “process” leading up to annual Town Meeting and delayed the Town Meeting “process” with repeated paper ballots. The town government “process” began with official town studies documenting the need for playing fields and the vetting of 25 possible publicly owned sites. The “process” continued with 30 public hearings and culminated with the relevant town boards approving the necessary permits to build fields at CCHS. All this happened before Town Meeting.

The “process” continued at 2007 annual Town Meeting when two-thirds of the voters approved funding for the fields. These funds along with private and approved CPA funds will combine to build the fields. The Finance Committee unanimously supports this plan and praises it as “…creative use of multiple funding sources.” It is doubtful Concord will ever again have such a financially attractive opportunity to finally fund fields in the right place. If special Town Meeting votes to rescind that funding the opportunity may be lost.

The opponents claim to recognize the need for playing fields but can’t think where to put them. No one has identified another convenient 8 acres of public land that can accommodate two playing fields, parking and lights and will not impact valuable farmland or be directly adjacent to a neighborhood. Following a “process” has led to the CCHS site.

In order to frame a reasonable debate at the special Town Meeting it is important voters become educated on what has transpired previously. To arrive at Town Meeting with little knowledge of the issue demeans the “process” and town committees, and abrogates our responsibility as legislators.

To become educated voters can read the Recreation sections of the 1987 and 2005 Long Range Plans, follow the discussions in The Concord Journal, visit the playing fields Web site at www.ccfields.org, read the Finance Committee report for the 2007 annual Town Meeting and attend the joint Finance Committee and Board of Selectmen June 6 public hearing.

Hopefully the debate at the special Town Meeting will be unencumbered by secret ballots, reflect a greater understanding of the “process” and the wisdom of fields at CCHS. This will culminate in a no vote on the motion to rescind, no on paper ballots and no on alternative sites.

The following guest commentary, by Ridge Powell of Barretts Mill Road, was published in the May 31, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

The Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency filing by Friends of Thoreau Country is a slap in the face to all Concordians. By requesting state intervention, a MEPA filing sends the message that a town is either unwilling, or incapable, of handling its own permitting matters.

The filing undermines the basic essence of township government. What is the point of having permitting bodies, staffed by citizen volunteers, conduct a legitimate and representative permitting process, when a few disgruntled citizens can call on the state to undermine those efforts?

MEPA filings are normally triggered when a project surpasses certain size thresholds. Since the fields project is nowhere near the threshold size, Friends of Thoreau Country is arguing it is in fact part of a greater “long-term project” that includes the Beede swimming pool, construction of a new bus depot, and future reconstruction or renovation of the high school. When one considers that the School Committee has not even decided whether to build a new school or renovate the existing one, how can it be argued that the project is already well under way?

In its MEPA filing, Friends of Thoreau Country makes several false or misleading allegations. The Beede Swim Center was “improperly segmented from ongoing plans for CCHS replacement.” This despite the fact that the swim center was entirely planned and paid for by private citizens. The MEPA filing undermines the validity of permitting for the swim center and is an insult to the hundreds of generous donors who supported the project. This is a small price to pay from the Friends of Thoreau County’s perspective.

The MEPA filing alleges the project could result in “contamination of aquifer recharge areas protecting the town’s water supply.” In other words, forget about the approvals by the Water Commission, the Natural Resources Commission and the Board of Appeals, and let’s ignore the fact that the fields would be at least 30 feet from the water table. Only the state can protect us Concordians.

The allegations get worse. The playing fields site is described as “meeting the definitions of an Archeological site.” It is falsely alleged that the bus depot at the high school discharges massive contaminants to the ground. The rubber infill used for synthetic playing fields is “hazardous solid waste.” Isn’t it ironic that the fields opponents repeatedly call for turfing playing fields in other sites, but when the fields are near their back yards the product is suddenly hazardous waste?

For good measure, Friends of Thoreau Country concludes its filing thus: “There is reason to believe that the new Playing Fields may be related to the change in playing fields from public to partially private use by Concord Academy. As matters of public trust that are constitutionally protected, these issues beg for MEPA review.”

This closing allegation, combined with statements made at Town Meeting, is more evidence of the strategy of divisiveness employed by playing fields opponents. They are pitting cross-country runners against other students, Concord against Carlisle, and now private schools versus public schools. How else to explain their sponsorship of Article 4 at the upcoming Town Meeting, which seeks to have Carlisle parents pay for playing fields built in Concord?

The playing fields opponents have called for and obtained a second opportunity to debate playing fields in a new Town Meeting. Whether one agrees or not with the merits of a new Town Meeting, at least it is a process that is respectful of town government. Concordians will be debating Concord issues in a session moderated by Concordians.

Do field opponents have faith in their ability to prevail at the next Town Meeting? Why even force a new Town Meeting (costing at least $15,000 and hundreds of hours of volunteer time), when its results may be rendered irrelevant by this shabby and callous maneuver? The tactics used by Friends of Thoreau Country have reached a new low. And the biggest insult to Concordians is that these efforts are sponsored by a group that has effectively co-opted the name of Henry David Thoreau.

The following editorial, entitled "Go to the Hearing," was published in the May 31, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

For months, back-and-forth arguments have taken place over whether two artificial turf fields should be built in woods considered part of Walden Woods behind Concord-Carlisle High School.

With a special Town Meeting planned for Wednesday, June 13, it finally seems the town may reach a resolution to this contentious issue.

By attending the Board of Selectmen and Finance Committee’s joint public hearing Wednesday, June 6, on the Town Meeting warrant, you can bring the town one step closer to the end that’s in sight.

The playing fields debate has been hashed out from practically every angle imaginable since its introduction in the fall of last year. By now, residents who are paying even the slightest bit of attention can’t feign ignorance on the topic — there’s just way too much information available.

And there is too much information out there. Dueling Web sites, letters and guest commentaries in this newspaper, master plans and status reports, news articles and even a report on National Public Radio — the list goes on and on. There are so many valid arguments, and so many different reasons to vote one way or the other that it would take hours to go through everything. Trying to make sense of it all would consume your life, and possibly make your head explode.

On Wednesday night, the town is giving residents one last chance to come together and learn about this issue in a civil environment. The hope is that the hearing, at which each warrant article on the Town Meeting warrant will be discussed, will give voters a good primer on the issues. Here’s your chance to hear about each warrant article and why it is being presented. Here’s your chance to get your own questions answered. Here’s a great opportunity to find out what you will be asked to vote on before you’re on the spot to make a decision. 

The public hearing takes place in the Alcott School auditorium Wednesday, June 6, at 7:30 p.m. If you want to put an end to the playing fields issue, it’s in your best interest to be there.

The following Letter to the Editor, from Hubbard Street resident Susanne Jarnryd, was published in the May 31, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

Opponents of the fields project have made much of a 2002 study by Sasaki Associates, claiming it proves there are many alternatives to the high school site. Here is the reality.

The one-day study was a review of 1994-95 aerial photographs of town to identify possible field sites without regard to parking, access, or current land use. No site visits were done.

The author, David Herzel, cautions, “At the outset I want to emphasize that our review was not detailed and did not have the advantage of specific issues impacting any of the sites. The intent was to identify POTENTIAL opportunities. We assume that site-specific analyses will be required to determine whether or not the potential opportunities can be realized.”

The study identifies 16 possible locations; 12 of these locations were included in the 25 examined by the fields committee as alternative sites. (The report may be obtained at the library or at www.ccfields.org/sites.)

The remaining four locations were not seriously considered due to obvious issues. They were:

The Prison Farm: This active farmland is not currently for sale. If shared, it would be an unsafe venue for our children and unattractive to visiting teams.

The Light Plant: This site would require use of abutting state land which it’s unlikely the state would ever allow, considering a possible future redesign of the rotary. It would require players and fans to fight rotary traffic at rush hour. Wetlands issues and an existing gas line would further complicate the site.

The State Police barracks: This site, used to park police cars, would only accommodate a half-sized playing field with no parking.

North of Nine-Acre Corner: Willow Guzzle is actively farmed and is considered important open space. Because of significant wetlands the site would only fit two undersized fields if they were squeezed next to Sudbury Road, a busy commuter route. Reducing the project to one field would not help, as the two field sites are separated by private property (two houses).

It is significant to note that the report also recommended two to three fields at CCHS. “With grading and tree removal behind the school, the relocation of the bus parking (onsite being preferred we assume), and reconsideration of the configuration of all the fields, it appears that two or three additional fields could be accommodated.”

The following Letter to the Editor, from Gail K. Keane of Westvale Meadow, was published in the May 31, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

With respect for both sides of the playing fields controversy it seems to me that the issue is not so much about preserving the Deep Cut Woods, but a simple case of NIMBY: not in my back yard.

It is perfectly understandable that the neighbors on Bristers Hill Road would be concerned about extra traffic, noise, etc. However, when one chooses to live abutting a public school, one understands that the school’s needs and programs can change and the use of property owned by the school can change as well.

There is no question that we need new fields for our children and I do think that the Fields Committee has done a thorough and honest search of all possible locations and have determined that the high school land is the best choice.

I hope that both sides of this issue will be honestly and clearly portrayed at the Town Meeting on June 13 and we can move on to building the new fields that have been so clearly needed for many years without further delay.

The following Letter to the Editor, by Michael Kolowich, was published in the May 31, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

Article 4 of the special Town Meeting warrant would demand that the town of Carlisle split the cost of building new playing fields at the high school. At first blush, some will find this reasonable, like “going Dutch” for a dinner-date.

On closer examination, though, this seems just plain wrong.

Carlisle has constructed and made substantial improvements to its fields (particularly the Banta-Davis complex in 1998) that benefit both Concord and Carlisle players (I’d bet that more Concord players play on Banta-Davis than Carlisle players, in fact), without demanding contributions from the town of Concord or its residents. The proposed Banta-Davis Phase 2 project, if and when approved, likewise seeks no town of Concord support even though it would benefit Concord athletes immensely.

Carlisle athletes and their families are already paying for the new CCHS fields through user fees imposed on all youth and adult sports league participants. These fees can run into hundreds of dollars per family per year. Substantial funds and pledges have been committed by Carlisle residents wishing to make private donations to the project, and it’s expected that many more Carlisle families will step up, as Concord and Carlisle families are being solicited for contributions with equal vigor.

In the end, I can’t help but feel this is another delaying tactic by those who seek to block the fields at any cost: its passage would seek to drag Carlisle through the same kind of expensive, time-consuming process they’ve forced on the town of Concord, or else delay until next year.

Is the next step to erect a tollbooth where Monument Street meets River Road, to cover the cost of maintaining and improving the Concord roads that Carlisle residents dare to use?

Is this ever going to end?

The following guest commentary by Erik Jarnryd was published in the May 24, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

Opponents to the playing fields project have stated repeatedly that there are better options for locating a two-field complex than the proposed site at the high school. We would appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.

At the outset, it is worth noting the town and volunteers have closely examined 25 alternatives for all-purpose fields (visit www.ccfields.org/sites).

While the proposed high school site was identified in 2001, the search for alternatives started many years earlier. The 1987 Concord Long Range Plan identified the dire shortage of playing field space, recommending a third field complex similar to Emerson and Rideout. The plan also recommended that wooded sites be considered first before farmland or open fields. This seminal report provided the town with a mandate to support field advocates in the search for potential sites.

Armed with these recommendations, the town manager and field supporters teamed up to evaluate options. Several opportunities for playing fields presented themselves as the town acquired parcels of land at Harrington Farm, Virginia Road, Strawberry Hill, Hebb and Mattison field. In each of these cases the group’s efforts to secure partial usage for playing fields were politely rebuffed as each parcel was designated as conservation land. The town then looked at the Albano land on Lexington Road, but the determined access to the site was not adequate.

The end of this phase of the search process was the town landfill project. Mass Highway approached the town with an offer to pay $5 million for the receipt of soils from the Big Dig project. These monies would have been used to build multiple fields on the site. However, safety concerns and resistance from conservation groups led Mass Highway to withdraw its offer.

The next phase of the search process was launched with the 2003 Playing Fields Study. This study assessed existing facilities at Emerson, South Meadow, Ripley, Cushing, Cousins, Rideout, Sanborn, Thoreau and Willard. The study’s main conclusion was that many of the fields were in need of renovation, and that the inability to rest fields for a season or two was contributing to this problem. Lack of available space at these sites also precluded the possibility of new fields.

The 2003 study further intensified the search process. Over the next two years, eight additional sites were considered: the Burke land, the Amendolia land, the White Row parcels on Commonwealth Avenue, the Wastewater Plant, Wright Road (NE Correctional), the Scimone land, and the Concord Ice Company land. All these sites were found to be inadequate or too challenging to develop for fields.

This search re-affirmed the high school as the only feasible site that met all the necessary criteria: maximum benefit to both high school kids and youth sports members; good site access; sufficient parking and environmental suitability. The last two years have focused on a comprehensive and inclusive search for permitting and funding, which have led us to where we are today.

While a very large majority (between 63 and 73 percent on the various votes) at the last Town Meeting supported new playing fields at the CCHS hill site, we recognized that everyone wants to be assured all reasonable alternatives were seriously explored. It seems hardly fair that a small number of opponents would now suggest that there has not been a serious consideration of alternative sites — as that has been discussed at many public hearings and was also summarized at the recent Town Meeting. We invite any interested citizens to learn more at www.ccfields.org/sites. There are also hard copies of the report at both town libraries and other major municipal sites. If you have any questions, please contact us at info@ccfields.org.

The following letter from Steve O'Brien of Dalton Road was published in the April 24, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

The building of new playing fields is too important to the youth of Concord to be caught in a swirl of fear and half-truths concerning the imagined environmental impact. There has been an assumption by some that creating playing turf fields as currently proposed is detrimental to the environment because it will require cutting down trees, which absorb carbon dioxide. Let’s look at the environmental impact the shortage of fields creates as well.

As an engineer who has had to analyze and manage energy conservation projects I will attest that predicting the total effect of a project can be difficult. To analyze a project one must look at all the carbon dioxide inputs and outputs and calculate the net total effect. The Fields Committee has committed to planting more trees to mitigate the net effect on the atmosphere. More importantly, on the positive side, with the fields at CCHS, hundreds of athletes will drive shorter distances and thus create less air pollution.

Building turf fields is also beneficial when one considers that the maintenance is extremely low and there is no need to mow constantly with pollution generating lawn mowers. Not to mention, fertilizers, pesticides also needed for grass fields. In addition, the use of recycled tires as part of the turf substrate is a much preferred use than in a landfill.

Also to be considered is that there is a significant undercounted population of athletes who play club sports. One reason they do so is for access to playable fields. My 13-year-old son plays club soccer and we have had to travel as far away as Portland, Maine, Ludlow and Plymouth for access to playable fields. Today I drove to Lancaster, 44 miles round trip. Hundreds of athletes were playing on five turf fields; Concord fields were closed. We went to three separate turf fields in April while Concord fields were still unplayable and closed. By the way, my son’s home field is 24 miles away, a turf field in North Andover.

An analysis of the inputs and outputs results in a clear conclusion. Lack of fields causes athletes to drive outside Concord. To reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, I urge that the fields be built without delay so athletes, siblings and parents don’t need to drive to get access to playable fields. A delay causes pollution.

The following Letter to the Editor, written by Elm Street resident John Boynton, was published in the May 24, 2007 edition of the Concord Journal:

The fields project has proven surprisingly divisive for the town and I wish it were not so. We should put our trust in the recommendations of our town manager and volunteer boards — all of whom overwhelmingly support the project. We should not let a vocal minority derail a good plan that solves a widely recognized problem.

Concord has always been governed by hard-working volunteers. The many who serve on town boards devote untold hours to understanding issues and making decisions in the best interest of the town. Small groups of citizens will object to certain decisions for personal reasons, as in this case, but that is inevitable. The town boards are obliged to do what is best for the town, and those boards would not have voted their unanimous support unless they believed this to be a plan that effectively balances the personal interests of the abutters with the greater interests of the town.

Though I have not been involved with the planning of this project — and we should all thank those who have — my family is one of more than 70 others that have pledged financial support to the project (and I am not aware that any corporations have given money). We have four young children who will build skills, friendships, and character on these fields and we want to pull our weight. Let’s stop the bickering and move ahead with the proposed fields plan. The unqualified endorsement of our town manager and boards is good enough for me.