Fuzzy logic on turf field decision
Original post made by Renee Batti on Apr 17, 2007
So the Menlo Park City Council did not want to put in money for a large soccer field at Encinal school.
I can understand the concerns about a soccer field drawing many more people to the school and what it might do to the quality of the neighborhood. There also might be some environmental concerns, but I do not want to address those issues here.
However, concerns about injuries on a harder surface? What does the uninformed council mean by that?
Have any of them ever been on an artificial surface field? It is flat, softer than packed dirt, and has no holes, sprinkler heads, gopher holes or worn spots. As far as artificial turf being "warmer than grass," well, it is ground-p rubber. How much hotter? Probably not much. Does Menlo Park shut down its outdoor basketball courts or its tennis courts when they get hot? No.
So what seems to be the problem here? An adult-sized field does not belong at an elementary school? Why not? Adults usually work during the day and play after hours or on the weekends. Elementary schools usually are in session nine months a year, five days a week from morning until late afternoon.
One other thing: The $1.2 million estimated cost is probably too high. Talk to those in the artificial turf industry. With new technology and products, an "adult size" field is well under $1 million.
All in all, it seems that a "good solution for the children" is to put in another grass field that will deteriorate over a short period of time, use lots of water to keep it green (except in the spots the sprinklers do not reach) be a home to gophers and be of limited use to the public at large.
Oh, one more thing. Encinal School is in Atherton. That presents another problem.
Sterling Avenue, Menlo Park
If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.
Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 3,018 views