The Fake Future of Ludington Football

[XLFD]

As many of us gear up for the last football game of the 2021-22 season this Sunday, we should take a look further forward towards what is planned for football in the Ludington area for the future.  You may wind up losing some money by betting on the wrong team to win the Superbowl, but you may lose a whole lot more every season as a taxpayer if the Ludington Area School District (LASD) goes ahead with a plan to install artificial turf at Oriole Field at a cost of nearly $1 million (likely over a million when adjusted for the recent jumps in inflation).  Additionally, our children who play football and soccer may ultimately suffer health consequences for the district's short-sighted and fallacious assumptions regarding the change.

At the February 2nd meeting of the LASD Board where they decided to place a renewal of the sinking fund millage, the biggest prospective use of the fund (if passed) was a football field modification:

The 'turf replacement' was set to take place at the far end of the proposed sinking funds duration:

This reporter had never heard that Oriole Field had its natural grass replaced by artificial turf in the first place so that it could be replaced.  After confirming that the field was still real grass by a visit to the facility, I learned after talking to the new superintendent, Kyle Corbett, that the conversion from grass to turf was part of the Oriole Field updates in the $101 million 2019 bond proposal, and that the project had yet to be done or even bid out.  Sure enough, it was in the bond's treasury application at the top of athletic improvements: 

The change had apparently even made the local newspaper just before the bond had passed where the former superintendent had explained the acquisition:  

"Kennedy said the cost for field turf is $900,000. If voters approve the bond, the district can use the design phase to take a closer look at installing artificial turf, Kennedy said, noting that the current grass field is expensive to maintain and artificial turf can last for several years.

“We are looking at the cost effectiveness of having field turf put in versus the cost of maintaining it on an annual basis,’ Kennedy said. “You generally find that within an 8-to-10-year window the district has come out ahead. With all of the advancements, those (artificial turf) fields are lasting 12 to 15 and up to 20-plus years.”"

The issue of replacing turf has not reached the school board since the bond has been passed, and since the 'design phase' has already took place, and since they have already made plans to replace the faux grass in 2034, it appears that the decision to make the switch to artificial turf has been made outside of the decision-making body of the district.

Whoever made the decision is likely to have received their input only from people who make a living by marketing and selling artificial turf fields for the big bucks.  If they had allowed the issue to come in front of the public, they may have learned that there are very valid arguments that would lead most sensible people away from the $1 million purchase.  Let's look at a comparison of the two types of fields, and see how it applies to our local situation:

In Ludington there would be no construction costs to keep the field made of grass, at least $900,000 to switch, that $900,000+ will need to be paid again in a dozen years.  For those wanting turf over grass, they usually point at the maintenance savings-- turf doesn't need to be cut.  But look at the maintenance savings in the above table, made about five years ago.  

The difference between two school district maintenance costs were about $2600 in favor of turf, but oddly enough the turf required additional hours to maintain.  At two division one university schools the maintenance costs are under $2000 per year in favor of an artificial field.  This suggests that we can spend $900,000 now and save around $2000 per year for a dozen years, which still leaves us $876,000 in front-loaded debt over that time -- and then you have another major hit to the budget to reconstruct the turf, a cost equal to that first time, plus inflation.

The cost is prohibitive, but the cost to the health of the kids who play on artificial fields is perhaps even more prohibitive.  During summer practices, it is quite possible, even on the left coast of Lake Michigan, that the surface temperature of your fake fields will be well over 100 degrees.  In 2011, Penn State University did a study to compare surface temperatures during hot days. The study found that the surface temperature of synthetic fields reached anywhere from 140 degrees to 170 degrees on summer days. In the same study it was found that natural grass rarely reached above 85 degrees on the same type of days. 

The majority of professional football teams (aka the NFL) play on grass, with a study done in 2010 showing that 82 percent of players thought that artificial turf would contribute to injury and almost 90 percent believed that playing on these surfaces were more likely to shorten their careers.  

Their fears were warranted according to one study which looked at all NFL games in the years 2012-2016 and showed playing on synthetic turf in the NFL resulted in a 16% increase in lower body injuries (foot, ankle, knee) compared to the same injuries on natural grass.  If every NFL game were played on natural grass during these five seasons, there would have been 319 fewer lower body injuries, accordingly.  Other types of injuries did not significantly differ between the two surfaces.

ESPN did a study with 104 MLS players in 2018 and asked their opinions on artificial playing surfaces. Sixty-three percent of the players said an artificial surface would impact their decision to sign with teams.  Some of the things the players said included: “No. As long as they train mostly on grass.” and "I don't like turf, plain and simple. The times I played on it, it takes a day or two extra to recover."  

Public health concerns about playing on synthetic turf fields have increased over reports that young adult soccer players, particularly goalies, are being diagnosed with blood cancers, presumably from rubber crumbs that make up the turf.   Artificial turf is often treated with biocides; it has been associated with increased risk of infections from MRSA, which can lead to pneumonia, sepsis and bloodstream infections that can prove fatal. A MRSA infection can happen after skin is scraped or cut on artificial turf.  As turf technology advances, this may be less of a problem in the future, but the cost of the turf is likely to rise since they will have to use more expensive materials.

So where is the benefit to the people of Ludington in making the switch of playing surfaces?  Hard to say, nobody is debating the issue from their side, but let's leave the subject by looking at Michigan State University and their football fields over the years. 

MSU first installed artificial turf back in 1969, it effectively failed in under five years and needed to be replaced with another synthetic surface which required regular replacement until 2002, when the university replaced it with a hybrid modular system which actually won a couple of awards over the next 16 years-- but then MSU decided to change once again back to natural grass in 2019, 50 years after they initially replaced it, and have been very pleased with the result. 

Can you imagine the amount of savings on installation and de-installation they could have realized over those years if they had just kept it real?  Can the decision-makers behind the curtain at LASD learn from the Spartan experience?  Can they keep it real for the health and safety of our kids?

[Willy]

SYNTHETIC TURF CONTAINS KNOWN CARCINOGENS

Science shows artificial turf problems of heat, injuries, toxic exposures to humans and animals and more.  Accurate information assists decision makers, parents and citizens determine what is acceptable, and at what cost, in the pursuit of a lovely and durable playing surface. Below is just some of what we know about the human health risks associated with synthetic turf fields.

https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/toxicity-carcinogens/

I don't think the local promoters of artificial turf have given much thought to the young lungs that will be breathing in the dust and particles that come off this turf material. Football players regularly "kiss the turf" when playing the games and practicing. They come in close contact to the turf. Health wise and money wise, this is not a good idea.

[XLFD]

I agree and conveyed that to the board earlier tonight among other things in my public comment, yet they still voted 6-0 to purchase the fake field for 50% more than they were planning on last February.  You should have heard the rationales that were put forth by the board and the superintendent claiming this purchase was a great thing, it sounded as if they were directly quoting an Astroturf salesman they were that oblivious to the health, safety, and monetary concerns.  Three of these hypocrites were ones that were forcing kids to wear masks even when the health department wasn't out of their concern for your kid's health. 

In actuality, they were going against your kids' health and safety then, and they still are.  

[Willy]

Sounds like some officials might be getting a few bucks under the table on this deal. Anyone who cares about the kids should take a serious look at what they are approving. When the board discovers they have made a mistake the next thing our tax money will be paying for is a field mask.

[Freedom Seeker]

Thats' an excellent graphic, Willy! And just what a toxic, fake grass playing surface needs. What a stupid and dangerous idea to make kids play on fake turf and at such a cost to the taxpayers.

[Freedom Seeker]

The only real way to make an impact on the LASD is for parents to protest and don't let their kids play football. And they should make the protest before the huge money is spent.