Danehy Park has four soccer fields; one is artificial turf and the other three are natural grass. The City has maintained the grass fields poorly for years. Now, in response to complaints about field quality by adult organizers of youth soccer leagues, the City plans to cover two of the three grass playing fields with plastic turf in 2013, and the third and last grass playing field with turf in 2014.

Please sign the on-line petition to stop the turf!

Update (March 15, 2013): Councillor vanBeuzekom entered a Policy Order calling for A) a delay in "conversion of further soccer fields [i.e. Field #3] at Danehy Park to artificial turf" until A) the impact of turf on players' health is studied and reported to the Council, and B) a study is made of the degree to which use of grass fields will decrease when more turf fields are available. That order will presumably be voted on tomorrow, Monday March 18th, at the City Council meeting starting at 530pm in the Sullivan Chamber at Cambridge City Hall. (Full hearing schedule here.)

IMPORTANT: even if you can't make it to the meeting, you can still send your comments to the City Council via email to the City Clerk -- just click here: dlopez@cambridgema.gov (if you do this, please consider copying me at teller@mit.edu -- thanks).

Here is the report (with attachments) from the Feb 5, 2013 hearing held by the City's Neighborhood and Long Term Planning Committee.

Craig Kelley sent an email regarding the NLTP Committee hearing and vanBeuzekom's Policy Order.

Here's why we oppose the City's plan:

1. The public process was flawed. The City simply put the job out to bid, without holding hearings to learn the preference of the general public, rather than just the youth league organizers. Youth Soccer League officials have had undue influence on the process.
2. There was no health review. Modern artificial turf contains toxic materials such as heavy metals which can leach into the surrounding environment. Skin contact with turf might be hazardous to human health, especially the health of children. The City did not study any of these issues before putting the job out to bid. (It did get a DEP waiver permitting the disturbance of the soil and clay cap that will be required to emplace the turf fields.)
3. The City has not first tried less drastic measures. Before taking the extreme step of destroying the grass fields, the City can and should try improved maintenance, and restricted usage, to keep the grass fields in playable shape.
4. Turf requires costly maintenance; it's not "maintenance-free."Turf fields develop sinkholes, tears and divots requiring skilled repair. They require regular brushing for cleaning (since they do not naturally reclaim anything deposited on them, such as spit or dog waste). They require watering during hot days. Turf must be replaced every 8-15 years at a cost comparable to that of initial installation. Thus, if the City chooses turf, it is committing to spending another 30-75K annually per field in perpetuity.
5. Youth League Soccer's needs should not trump those of other residents. The soccer folks have a legitimate claim to those playing fields. But so do the hundreds or thousands of other City residents who use those fields for athletics, but cannot play on turf.
6. Turf is simply less pleasant to play on than grass. Turf hurts more than grass when you fall on it. It burns when you slide on it. It smells bad. It can get uncomfortably hot to the touch (up to 160F) in direct sunshine. We should preserve the grass option for our residents.
7. There is no balance. The proposal on the table is to convert all three grass playing fields to turf. Why not convert one or two fields first, then see how the scheduling goes for a few years before converting the remaining fields? Must we replace literally every grass soccer field at Danehy with plastic?