The results are in! Community wants more info and a grass field.

One hundred and twenty people participated in the survey about Mount Greylock's athletic fields. The survey was launched in early December 2021 by community members concerned about the proposed installation of an artificial turf field and the school committee's call for community input.

The Mount Greylock Regional School district has been discussing for years how to improve the athletic fields at the rural high school. A gift from Williams College, currently valued at approximately $4.7 million, can be used to pay for the athletic field improvements.

The survey was emailed, shared on Facebook and reported in the Berkshire Eagle . In general, respondents indicated an interest to better understand the school committee's decision process and were, for the most part, not in favor of the installation of a synthetic turf field.

SURVEY RESULTS:

Almost 90 of the 120 survey participants provided comments:

• Grass is better. 100% of cows and bunnies agree.

• I already have enough of information that supports that an artificial turf field is the wrong choice for our community, our children and our planet. I'm very disappointed in the lack of a thoughtful process by the school committee, and the poor direction things are heading in that disregards and disenfranchises many stakeholders in our community, including youth who do not want this field and do not feel comfortable speaking out against it.

• A long-term comprehensive plan for improving, maintaining, and financing the athletic needs of the school should be a pre-requisite for decision-making about such facilities.

• No additional comment at this time.

• I am already convinced that artificial turf is bad for the environment and bad for the athletes. Since there is no way to dispose of it in an environmentally healthy way, I don’t think it should even be considered. Why plan for that headache? Let’s keep our commitment to the children and community of Williamstown. Environment comes first in any decision.

• While it is possible that the results of a comprehensive analysis might change my mind, as a parent of a current MGRHS student participating in 2 sports, a Williamstown taxpayer, and a Williams faculty member who teaches courses on environmental ethics, I currently oppose the construction of an artificial turf field.

• Today's students are tomorrow's taxpayers. Turf is not a forward-looking plan, because of the future costs and environmental toll from the runoff and disposal of the spent materials at the end of the life of the field.

• The case against an artificial turf field seems quite clear.

• I don't think artificial turf is environmentally sound.

• I think I understand most of the pros and cons of artificial turf versus grass, and I am opposed to artificial turf.

• Both natural and artificial turf field require the same preparation to succeed. That is good drainage. I believe it is fiscally irresponsible to jump straight to a turf field with out doing the drainage groundwork that applies to both playing fields. The fact that the school board is not discuss that simple first step shows to me how ill conceived the whole process is.

• This continues to seem like a bad way to spend the gift and one that is driven by a relatively small but vocal constituency, enabled by neglect of the fields at Greylock, their poor drainage and a record wet fall. On the other hand the proponents are wise to be be suspicious of any promises that MGRHS would do a better job on new grass fields if they had them. Voters in Bennington are unhappy about spending $ on anything at the moment, so if was easy ballot issue, but private fundraising continues.

• Turf is bad for the environment and the kids, according to existing evidence.

• Thank you for your update and information. I have a couple comments, questions and concerns: 1) I would urge the School Committee to consider and seek bids for an option that includes the comprehensive improvement and ongoing maintenance of natural grass playing fields - and evaluate both options in terms of benefit to maximum number of students as well as cost, health and environmental considerations; and 2) have the economic and environmental costs associated with disposing of and replacing an artificial turf field down the road, been taken into account? I fear a turf field could relatively soon become more of a liability than benefit, and would like to have a greater understanding of the costs and benefits.

• There is no reason to discover more. Plastic turf is bad for the environment and our kids. The science is there. I’m not sure when we have committed to being a net zero community why this is even a discussion.

• We don't need artificial turf - in a pinch Williams College has let us use theirs.

• I strongly oppose the plan to use artificial turf.

• I think an artificial turf field is a very bad idea.

• My understanding is that academic studies show that artificial turf generates more frequent injuries for young people playing than natural grass. It is less sustainable and, if you consider present value of the stream of costs associated with regular replacement and recycling of the old material, artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass.

• It seems that many on the school committee have let momentum go forward on the turf field, without being willing to go on the record as being decidedly pro or con.

• I've read a lot on this issue and an artificial turf seems both an environmental and health disaster.

• I completely, adamantly oppose a synthetic field. The lesson for students: short-term gratification justifies long term pollution. It will only be a turf field for a single decade, but it will be a big piece of garbage for many more. As we deal with climate change — largely created by similarly short-sighted and selfish actions—we can use this opportunity to do better. This is a chance to teach our kids better. Let’s build a field that supports nature instead of burying it. If you can’t take the mud, get off the playing field.For help in creating a natural alternative I urge you to reach out to Stonyfield Farms and learn about their efforts to support organic playing fields and parks https://www.stonyfield.com/playfree.

• I would like to see budget projections for both organic field option & artificial turf for short term (now); 10 year; 15 year; 20 year with a budget plan to cover the costs of both options. This would give financial comparative to inform the School Committee (& Community) on their most important responsibility: to create responsible budgets for both towns that see to needs of students.

• I would like a comprehensive study comparing the long term effects of artificial turf vs. maintaining organic turf. Artificial turf athletic fields make little if any sense to install and seem like one of those great ideas that 40 years from now will seem headshakingly dumb (if not already!)

• I am in favor of organically managed grass fields only.

• I do not support the installation of a turf field.

• I am Against any more plastic use in our society.

• Artificial turf sounds like a terrible decision. It runs counter to need and to environmental stewardship. What is the benefit?

• I'm reasonably familiar with the pros and cons of artificial versus natural turf, including lifecycle assessment studies. That said, I would like to better understand the specific context vis-a-vis Mt Greylock Regional School's need for upgrades/changes to its outdoor athletic fields and the availability of alternative/supplemental fields in the vicinity in order to be able to better weigh the competing options of natural/artificial/other surface.

• There are still unanswered questions about this project that I believe need to be explored before a decision is made.

• I cannot fathom why anyone is considering installing artificial turf today.

• I am concerned about the maintenance cost and environmental impact of artificial turf.

• Even though I already vote against the school building a turf field, for a multitude of reasons, more research needs to prove to others that this turf field hurts our environment.

• I actually disapprove of turf fields and do not believe we should put one in at MGRHS or anywhere else (the Spruces, for example). I have no problem with developing a long-term plan for athletic infrastructure at the high school as long as it isn't crazy expensive. I suspect the Williams gift money could be used in any number of ways to improve students' educational experience at MGRHS and, since education is what schools are about -- not athletics, despite the fusion of the two -- that's where I'd prefer to see the money spent.

• An artificial turf field doesn't match with the town's Net Zero goal.

• Under no circumstances should our high school build an artificial turf field.

• I've done some research on this topic, wrote a letter to the School Committee in the past opposing an artificial turf field, and have followed the MGRHS situation for years. I hope the School Committee, staff and administration will welcome community input to this process and take seriously all viewpoints and scientific evidence.

• I would like to see better public communication about why an artificial turf would be the highest priority to spend these funds and what other academic and extra-curricular goals might compete for the funds. I would also like an explanation of how this proposal could possibly be in alignment with Williamstown's net zero resolution.

• I would like to express my strong opposition to installing artificial turf at the high school. It's expensive and environmentally irresponsible.

• Nike recycles the soles of their shoes for athletic turf. If you're looking for an environmental angle, this can be used.

• I would like to see equal attention paid to the needs of the various athletic teams including: soccer, football, lacrosse, track, softball, and baseball. In particular, the track team should be able to have home meets. It seems to me there is sufficient space for all teams to play on grass. If there were additional grass fields, with proper drainage and rotation, there would be no need for a turf field. If water supply is an issue, perhaps rainwater and snowmelt can be collected for use in the spring and fall.

• I would like more info about natural turf. The direction of interest seems skewed to artificial turf. During a time when our planet is facing major issues due to climate change and the recent history of our highschool water supply being polluted it seems that a natural solution would be in the best interest of current and future students, faculty, staff, and the beautiful nature of where we live. Artificial turf plays to a short sighted interest and not to the greater population of students, our community, or the natural resource that is living in this rural area.

• It is unclear why such a small school -- with a continuously declining enrollment, at that -- needs such an expensive, environmentally unsustainable field.I would like natural turf.

• I would like the anaylsis and discussion to stop and for the natural turf field to be installed asap. Natural turf should be the fall-back option. If the district doesn't have overwhelming support from the community for changing the existing turf to a new option, the district should just stick with what is currently there and has been there for decades. With this level of controversy and dissent around the installation of artificial turf, it would be unconscionable to switch over to it.

• It's outrageous that this continues to be a debate when children's health and long-term environmental effects are at stake.

• Synthetic turf is problematic during and after the time it is used for playing fields. This not just a matter of installation, removal, and disposal costs. It is a matter of health for those who manufacture the turf, for those who install it, for student athletes, and for those who remove the artificial turf. I would add and for those who dispose of the turf, but there is no place to dispose of the material legally. Given those facts, it will be disingenuous for any designer or committee to tell parents of student athletes and other tax payers, that they have identified the cost of a synthetic turf project. To deny those facts is akin to denying the existence of Black Lung disease, or the effects of Agent Orange. What is your proposal for dealing with the used synthetic turf when you must store it on school property and the "forever chemicals" leach into the ground and the water?

• There is nothing I have read about artificial turf that convinces me that it is superior, or necessary. to replace a grass field. At the same time there are many environmental, health and safety reasons why an artificial plastic turf field is a very bad idea. Why are we still having this discussion?

• I have played on as my son has many artificial playing fields and see nothing wrong with them.

• I vote for natural grass for the health of our children and the planet!

• I just brought my lawnmower in for a winter tune up. I love the feel of walking on grass and I believe that real grass is what should be played on. Need help with mowing? give me a call!

• I am absolutely against installation of a turf field and support the points made in the attached letter. The School Committee should abandon the pursuit of a turf field.

• I already understand the pros and cons of this situation. As the parent of several former Mt Greylock athletes, I don't think the few extra weeks of playtime that is claimed as the benefit of an artificial field will have much of an impact on the enjoyment or development of high school athletes and, in fact, poses many more risks to their wellbeing, between increased abrasions and impact injuries, exposure to volatilized chemicals, increased risk of overheating, and respiratory disease from inhaling stirred up dust. And then there are the ecological and greenhouse gas impacts of artificial grass. And all for a higher up-front cost, not to mention the cost of disposal and replacement every 8-12 yrs in perpetuity. This seems very clear-cut to me.

• I am utterly and completely opposed to artificial turf. It is environmentally unsound, it is unhealthy for people, soil, plants, animals, and the planet, and is produced by and for the fossil fuel economy, that is destroying our planet.

• First of all, I already know the pros and cons of turf fields and I am absolutely opposed to having an artificial turf field installed at the high school or anywhere in town. This debate has been going on for some time now and there has been more than adequate information broadcast in town. If you haven’t heard the pros and cons, then you either don’t pay any attention or don’t care. Secondly, another study? For what!? To tell us that artificial turf fields are horrible? We already know that. The facts are not going to change with another study. If a long term study is necessary for a reason I’m not aware of, then okay, but not one that is going to be a repeat on natural vs artificial turf fields. In general, I am always for long term planning. I can’t imagine anyone thinking an artificial turf field is a good idea. Please register me as a “no vote” for artificial. This survey is disappointing! Why not just ask the question—are you for or against artificial turf fields? How about other choices that say, “I’m already informed about turf fields.” An explanation of what the long term study would entail would also help.

• Let me say at the outset that I am against the artificial turf field for environmental, health and safety reasons. Period. I am against covering our beautiful mountain with plastic and I am most definitely against installing an artificial field without knowing what will happen to the plastic in 10 years. Are we really still trying to decide whether to do natural or turf fields? Or is there also now a question as to where else the funds might go? If the question of how to best spend the gift is still on the table, then I will tell you what I really think. It angers and saddens that our school community continues to over value sports teams at the expense of general fitness, academics, music and the arts.

• Dear School Committee members: artificial turf has no environmental benefits (it does not sequester carbon as grass does, it does not contribute to water seepage after a rain as grass turf does, although maybe it will require no herbicides to kill the dandelions, I will give it that) and many detrimental environmental impacts (eg, releasing microplastics to the watershed, GHG from plastics production, it's plastic - gross). Please keep our children playing on natural grass fields.

• The fields look beautiful now thanks to a committed staff using green techniques.

• I have concerns about the environmental impact artificial turf. I have even deeper concerns about the emphasis placed on sports at Mt. Greylock. This money could be much more wisely spent on academics and the arts.

• It completely baffles me how a community that claims to be so environmentally conscious can justify artificial turf. I'm also a little baffled at how a comprehensive analysis and long term plan hasn't been done. I was at the school board meeting pre-COVID where they said they would be doing this. It doesn't matter if you are pro or against artificial turf. Not know how much maintenance and disposal will cost and having plan a plan in place for future funding is not fiscally responsible.

• I believe the SC allocated $1M (should be now $1.5M after gains) into our building endowment fund. I'd like the SC to confirm that $1.5M is set aside for long-term capital maintenance.

• I really hope it is not artificial turf. It pollutes water and causes injuries.

• The community, and especially parents and future parents of MG students, have the right to expect that all of the options for improved athletic facilities have been carefully and thoughtfully considered, researched and then shared with the community. Before such large decisions are made, it would be great if the SC would report back in detail on their findings, particularly in regards to the installation of an artificial turf versus new grass fields. All the research that I personally have read on this issue makes clear that grass fields are a far healthier and more forward-thinking option than artificial turf.

• I believe I already have sufficient knowledge to compare the two options. I also believe the short range considerations are greatly outweighed by the long range detriment if Williamstown goes forward with the artificial turf option.

• i'm NOT in support of artificial turf. I think I understand the issues more or less. Happy to support these efforts in opposition to more plastics. Not certain if a comprehensive analysis is effective or cost-worthy...

• A,ready done

• I am not in favor of artificial turf for our kids, and I am disappointed with this process thus far. Please, let's move forwards together and let's put our kids health and our impact on the environment at the forefront.

• I live next to the high school and suffer from flooding on my property as a result of the "improvements" made to the parking. They did not put in adequate drainage and now they are attempting to build some sort of berm solution. It isn't really working. Now this turf garbage....I can only imagine how the lowest bid will cause more damage to my property

• We have a plastic glut on our planet. When we have a choice, let's not choose to make it worse!

• The decision is easy - go with grass. It's natural with no petrochemicals involved.

• I can't believe artificial turf is even being seriously considered, it's just ridiculous in this time where we know about how plastics are getting into everything.

• I would like the committee to consider a long range disposal plan. I also would suggest that the Williams gift go towards the creation of a track, for use by students and community. I am not aware of this possibility being discussed previously.

• I support an artificial turf field and a track for our students.

• Artificial turf is dangerous, toxic to land, water and students using it! Please think ‘natural’ when making the choice.

• Turf is not a sustainable solution

• Rural Williamstown, with all its beautiful rolling hills, farm lands and green landscape, it is absurd and insulting to the highest level to bring in artificial turf for playing fields.

• I have been following the arguments for and against artificial turf and there is nothing that will convince me that artificial turf is a wise choice. From every standpoint its is a bad idea!

• It seems to me like a shortsighted plan that is environmentally unwise as well as a potential health hazard.

• This issue has been fully discussed ad nauseum over the last several years, and it is my understanding that a decision was made to construct a turf field. It's clear that there are ,many who are extremely disappointed in that decision, and it is my understanding that every possible argument was presented. My son is a high level soccer player who also is an environmental activist, having worked for Greenpeace for several years. He has played on both surfaces in varying weather, including turf fields in Florida and Las Vegas in the summer, and on grass fields in New England summers and falls. His preference on balance is a turf field, and environmental issues enter into his calculus. I also believe it important, and especially so in Williamstown, that we allow our elected officials to do what they were elected to do, namely study issues and make decisions. As a citizenry, we need to accept those decisions even if we disagree unless there is significant new information warranting revisiting a decided issue. When a society fails to do that, governance and progress grind to a halt, just as has happened here, where millions of dollars simply sit in a checking account waiting to be used. Another unintended consequence of this delaying process is that it discourages giving in general and will convince large donors that gifts will have earmarks on them, limiting the ability of the elected officials and administrators from using the money where they see the greatest need.

• Having installed many grass and artificial turf fields in schools I've led over the years, I know there are pros and cons to both. It would be helpful to understand the comparison of upfront and maintenance costs as well as environmental impact of the two options. Likewise, having a comprehensive plan for the athletic infrastructure would assist with all decisions in this mix. I'm unclear on how decisions will be made and what information would assist the decision-makers here. In any case, I'd be happy to help.

• Artificial turf should be illegal.

• I feel pretty clear that artificial turf IS NOT what I want. Thank you for organizing this!

• I am open to hearing more pros and cons about turf and seeing an updated design schemes and price points from the new architect. I would prefer to see the Williams Gift money remain with athletics and if it will not go to turf, then see it adequately applied somewhere to benefit our athletes. (pool perhaps?!). Thank you for your efforts.

• I have looked into this issue enough to know that moving forward with artificial turf would be a terrible decision for the athletes as well as the environment.

• I remain strongly opposed to the artificial turf field, having experienced health problems after playing on just such a field when I lived in California.

• I oppose a turf field. I know about PFAs

• It seems shortsighted to use artificial turf - perhaps cheaper in the short run, but much more expensive in the long run, in terms of maintenance, not to mention environmental and health damage. This is a matter of public health and wellbeing, and the public should be consulted on it.

• As a (former) competitive athlete, I wanted to also offer for consideration the potential increase in student athlete injuries on turf fields as well as the difficult to quantify but still important joy in playing on grass that is just lost with artificial turf.