“Yes” to turf means “Yes” for Auburn's future
It seems that the turf discussion in Auburn is really not about pros/cons of artificial turf. It is about do we want to make our city more attractive for us and the next generations to live and stay here? Do we want people from out of town to come and spend money here?
Nevertheless let's wrap up the facts: Installation costs of an artificial turf field are high. Maintenance costs over the life of the synthetic turf are much lower than those associated with higher-end natural grass.
There are among others the costs for watering, mowing, re-seeding, painting (filed markings are woven directly into the artificial turf).
Both fields require removal of litter and solid waste - dog feces for example will not biodegrade on artificial turf - another reason to work on the leash law in Auburn.
Artificial turf can be used all year-round - it does not freeze or get muddy.
Both materials can cause injuries. A study by the NFL shows that less major injuries (joint damages, concussions) occur on artificial turf. The reason is that artificial turf is softer. Natural grass dries out and the ground can get extremely hard. The number of minor injuries can be slightly higher.
What does artificial turf realistically mean for us in Auburn: The multiple all year-round uses for football, baseball, soccer, lacrosse and hockey sounds just wonderful to all of us being involved in sports whether being a player, coach, official, fan or maintenance crew member of the school.
The other uses for band competition, concerts etc. will draw people from out of town to Auburn. This means business for the concession stand, wearables, gas stations, malls, restaurants and bars.
Are we in a position to say we do not need/want that considering the concession/wearables money goes back to the sports and the only jobs that seem to be increasing in Auburn are service jobs?
I believe that it is our duty to invest in our city's future. So personally even if it would cost me a few dollars I am all for it.
We all will see the advantages of this investment pretty much immediately and the young families of today and tomorrow will consider Auburn as a wonderful city to live in and a great, supportive and modern community to be part of.
Sabina Coppola
Auburn
Nevertheless let's wrap up the facts: Installation costs of an artificial turf field are high. Maintenance costs over the life of the synthetic turf are much lower than those associated with higher-end natural grass.
There are among others the costs for watering, mowing, re-seeding, painting (filed markings are woven directly into the artificial turf).
Both fields require removal of litter and solid waste - dog feces for example will not biodegrade on artificial turf - another reason to work on the leash law in Auburn.
Artificial turf can be used all year-round - it does not freeze or get muddy.
Both materials can cause injuries. A study by the NFL shows that less major injuries (joint damages, concussions) occur on artificial turf. The reason is that artificial turf is softer. Natural grass dries out and the ground can get extremely hard. The number of minor injuries can be slightly higher.
What does artificial turf realistically mean for us in Auburn: The multiple all year-round uses for football, baseball, soccer, lacrosse and hockey sounds just wonderful to all of us being involved in sports whether being a player, coach, official, fan or maintenance crew member of the school.
The other uses for band competition, concerts etc. will draw people from out of town to Auburn. This means business for the concession stand, wearables, gas stations, malls, restaurants and bars.
Are we in a position to say we do not need/want that considering the concession/wearables money goes back to the sports and the only jobs that seem to be increasing in Auburn are service jobs?
I believe that it is our duty to invest in our city's future. So personally even if it would cost me a few dollars I am all for it.
We all will see the advantages of this investment pretty much immediately and the young families of today and tomorrow will consider Auburn as a wonderful city to live in and a great, supportive and modern community to be part of.
Sabina Coppola
Auburn
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 14 comment(s)
brew1234 wrote on Jan 30, 2008 10:17 AM:
Farmer's Gal wrote on Jan 30, 2008 8:51 AM:
Astroturf is the worst (I had a shattered left tibial plateau and live with 14 permanent pieces of metal in my leg thanks to astroturf). Bad stuff.
Grass is as good as it is maintained. I played on good grass fields, and I played on one field where it hadn't been mowed and had 4 inch blades twisting around your ankles. The Steelers play on the worst field in the country, natural grass that is a mess. I also played at a practice field littered in chicken bones and filthy garbage in Syracuse. (Imagie the potential infections there!) But if maintained, grass is good. Like a golf course, you have to maintain it well.
For me, the jury still is out on the pros and cons of the new synthetic turf. The play is good, but I don't know about health or maintenance issues.
The bottom line, though, is the bottom line. It costs a lot of money and Auburn is not a wealthy town. Their schools have much more pressing needs. The people were asked and they said no, clearly and resoundingly. As someone else has said, what part of "NO" don't they get? "
AJ wrote on Jan 30, 2008 1:44 AM:
cm wrote on Jan 30, 2008 12:19 AM:
http://synturf.org "
cm wrote on Jan 30, 2008 12:05 AM:
** keyword--REDUCTION! "
cm wrote on Jan 29, 2008 11:49 PM:
They have been particularly interested in the new surface West Virginia University has this year. WVU installed a new generation of Field Turf this summer called Duraspine at the cost of $901,152.
**WHY IS AUBURNS TURF 3 MILLION?
"
cm wrote on Jan 29, 2008 11:25 PM:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/5/468
5 of the 58 Rams players (9 percent); all of the infections developed at turf-abrasion sites. there were subsequent cases in members of an opposing team.
The infections developed at sites of skin abrasions (turf burns) on elbows, forearms, or knees. All the infections rapidly progressed to large abscesses 5 to 7 cm in diameter and required surgical intervention with incision and drainage. Although none of the players required hospitalization, three of them missed days of games or practice, for a total of 17 missed days due to infection.
**ONLY 9% OF AUBURN'S TEAM AND 9% OF THE OPPOSING TEAM WILL POSSIBLY NEED MEDICAL ATTENTION & 17 DAYS WORTH OF PAIN AND SUFFERING TAX PAYING MONEY WHEN THEY SUE!
Approximately two to three turf burns per week were acquired from sliding on the field during competition or practice (Figure 2).(shows picture)
**PARENTS MAY WANT TO SEE WHAT TO LOOK FOR ON THEIR CHILDS BODY!
Players reported that abrasions were more frequent and severe when competition took place on artificial turf than when it took place on natural grass. According to the team pharmacy log for the 2002 football season, a team player on average received 2.6 antimicrobial-drug prescriptions per year.
This rate was greater than 10 times the normal rate,In their survey responses, approximately 60 percent of players indicated they had taken or received antimicrobials during the 2003 football season.
Periodic disinfection is required as pathogens are not broken down by natural processes in the same manner as natural turf
**HOW MUCH DOES THIS COST ANNUALLY?
The most common type uses polyethylene "grass" about 5 centimetres long, which is lubricated with SILICONE and sewn into a rubberised plastic mat.
**IF IT'S NOT GOOD FOR MY BREAST HOW IS THIS GOOD FOR MY CHILD?
This material may carry heavy metals which can leach into the water table.
**HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE LOCAL DRINKING WATER?
hmmm,So many questions and not enough answers!
"
cm wrote on Jan 29, 2008 5:22 PM:
tlb4 wrote on Jan 29, 2008 2:45 PM:
brew1234 wrote on Jan 29, 2008 11:24 AM:
cm wrote on Jan 29, 2008 10:08 AM:
brew1234 wrote on Jan 29, 2008 2:48 AM:
karl L wrote on Jan 28, 2008 6:33 PM:
Dan W wrote on Jan 28, 2008 6:17 PM: