Turf issue revisited: The health hazard potential in the opinion of March 25 omitted reported toxic/carcinogenic analyses (The Citizen, March 16).
Players would certainly be exposed to hydrocarbons, latex or toxins or carcinogens. Whether that exposure is significant enough to cause problems is an open question and OSHA's lack of documents is not proof of anything.
We must consider the long term effects of such exposure. As far as safety issues are concerned, turf is not safer to play on so safety doesn't justify its use. Putting health/safety issues aside, my real problem with installing turf is about spending our money on a project that will renovate a field used about four months a year. That is frivolous in these times.
Originally, turf was to be considered because of a grant from the state. And even if it doesn't come out of Auburn's school budget, it will come from Albany's budget.
It's still a tax. I find it difficult to believe that local non-tax monies would be adequate to install and maintain a turf field.
Turf was one of the issues to be voted on (separately please) when the school budget comes up for vote, I believe in May. If there is no tax money involved, why is it to be voted on?
The U.S. economy is tanking; New York is the highest taxed state in the union, and we Yorkies have a $4.5 billion deficit. There are lobbyists trying to get our taxes raised again to meet our burdens because we can't do it now.
The money for the turf should be used either to reduce our deficit or prevent a tax increase.
Remember, a turf field will not improve anyone's education and that's the school board's concern. The grass field is doing a fine job.
Richard Hunter
Auburn
We must consider the long term effects of such exposure. As far as safety issues are concerned, turf is not safer to play on so safety doesn't justify its use. Putting health/safety issues aside, my real problem with installing turf is about spending our money on a project that will renovate a field used about four months a year. That is frivolous in these times.
Originally, turf was to be considered because of a grant from the state. And even if it doesn't come out of Auburn's school budget, it will come from Albany's budget.
It's still a tax. I find it difficult to believe that local non-tax monies would be adequate to install and maintain a turf field.
Turf was one of the issues to be voted on (separately please) when the school budget comes up for vote, I believe in May. If there is no tax money involved, why is it to be voted on?
The U.S. economy is tanking; New York is the highest taxed state in the union, and we Yorkies have a $4.5 billion deficit. There are lobbyists trying to get our taxes raised again to meet our burdens because we can't do it now.
The money for the turf should be used either to reduce our deficit or prevent a tax increase.
Remember, a turf field will not improve anyone's education and that's the school board's concern. The grass field is doing a fine job.
Richard Hunter
Auburn
