Letters to the editor
An open letter to Mayor Marks
Dear Ms. Marks:
Mr. St. Louis, Mr. Deegan and Councillor Forbes met with us on Feb. 12, 2007 to make a presentation concerning the proposal to replace the natural grass parkland along Academy Road with artificial turf. We understand that this PowerPoint presentation was made in the fall of 2006 to a public meeting.
The health and safety of our children is our primary concern, as I’m certain it is for the citizens of Westmount. The staff of Westmount Park School still has concerns regarding the proposal. Among the questions are the following:
- Has there been a toxicity analysis of the materials used in the artificial turf?
- Might the tire particles be a source of allergies?
-What are the consequences if they are ingested or breathed in by children or if they enter skin abrasions common to players on artificial surfaces?
-Tire fires are known to produce toxic smoke. What toxins are released if artificial turf burns (as a result of vandalism, for example)?
-Could the runoff from rain, combined with disinfectant, pollute the groundwater in the proximity of the school and homes?
- Staph infections have been identified in players who use artificial turf. How can the school deal practically with cleaning the abrasions of the children, if they are reported?
-How will the city deal with the presence of blood, spit, sweat, dog and bird droppings on the surface?
-If disinfectants are used, will these be a possible cause of allergies or of resistance to antibiotics?
-Experience has shown that the heat levels on artificial turf can be much higher than the air above it. How will this affect our students’ use of the space in September, May and June?
-Given the short life expectancy of the artificial turf (seven to ten years, we were told), what environmentally-safe disposal is envisaged?
Should the citizens of Westmount agree with the installation of artificial turf, we need to know the answers to the following questions:
-Will installation be done during the summer in order to minimize the effect on the children in the school?
-Will we have complete control in choosing the times for our recess and lunch periods or will they depend on the rentals of the artificial surfaces?
-Will there still be possibilities for other school-related outdoor activities on an ad-hoc basis or will the enormous cost of the project and subsequent maintenance mean that rentals will be promoted for the entire day?
-Our school is not air-conditioned. Will the noise from the fields interfere with the teaching process during the months that we must keep windows open?
-Should rentals be extended into the evenings, would the installation of the electricity necessary to support lights affect the safety of our children?
Neither your conversation with me by telephone on Jan. 12, 2007, nor the presentation by Public Works on Feb. 12, 2007, has allayed our concerns regarding the replacement of natural grass with an artificial turf - even if it means occasional restricted access to areas of the field for maintenance purposes.
Natural grass traps and bio-grades pollutants, reduces air temperatures, filters rainwater, and provides a gentler landing for the body. Most importantly, in this time of intense global warming, natural grass absorbs carbons and produces life-sustaining oxygen. Artificial turf does none of these.
The Westmount Park School Council would appreciate a written response to our concerns.
Alanna J. Dow
Chair, Westmount Park School Council
Can't we maintain grass?
To the editor:
I would like to respond to Lori Baird's letter of April 19. The dismissive tone toward the Save the Park campaign bothered me.
It would be a pity to fence off a field in a city park and put artificial
turf on it only to find that the projected figures for its use are not accurate.
I would like to see Westmount keep all its fields open for both organized and spontaneous play. The more open the fields the more likely are people to play in them, whether it is soccer, lacrosse, rugby, frisbee, or any other games. I don't see why it should not be possible, with proper planning, to maintain all of Westmount's grass fields in a healthy state.
King George Park playing field (on the Boulevard) could be used for children's soccer. I believe this field is under-used.
I wonder whether the City has a hidden agenda involving the use of
artificial turf on one field for rental purposes.
The environment part of the debate is important too. I'd like to declare my "self-interest". I live on Lewis Avenue and pass by the Park often. I simply have no wish to see a natural space replaced by an artificial one.
Elizabeth O'Connor
Lewis Avenue
I don't want a carpet
To the editor:
I don’t want them to put a plastic carpet in front of my school because then we couldn’t dig. I like the fact that we can dig in grass. And I also like the fact that it grows flowers and if we had a plastic carpet a plastic carpet could not grow flowers. The look is less important than what it really is. I like how grass grows tall and I like how we get to roll in it. In a carpet it wouldn’t be as much fun. I like the fact that dirt covers seeds so they can grow. I really want things to grow so we can go out after school and smell the grass when it’s summer. Animals wouldn’t have as much fun on a plastic carpet. I like the fact that the dirt is so mushy. If we had a plastic carpet we couldn’t make footprints when it was a little muddy and I like the fact that we can make footprints in the field now. I like looking at worms and how they live. Worms are kind of important, you know. If they put down a plastic carpet it would kill all the worms because the worms wouldn’t have any way of knowing they were going to do that. And a lot of worms live in that field. And birds need worms to survive. I like looking at the birds. The park is like their home. What if they had to give up their home? I don’t think they’d like it. I think they’d miss their old home a lot.
I think this list has a lot of good reasons in it. Do you think so?
Katalina Toth (age 5)
Redfern Avenue and CPE Narnia in Westmount Park School
Weather: Montreal, July 19th 2008 / 20°C
/ Overcast
/ Wind: 7 Km/h / Humidity: 88 % 
Steven Guilbeault - Environment Column
Richard Cléroux - National Columnist
Marie Campbell
Comment online since May 22nd 2007Thanks is extended to Council for the information-gathering opportunities offered through the consultation meeting on May 16. In the course of the meeting, several members of the Westmount community presented thoughtful and well-researched papers on environmental issues associated with this proposal.
In light of their findings, it was not reassuring to hear from the representative of the environmental engineering firm Golder and Associates that there was nothing to be concerned about in respect of the toxicity levels in artificial turf. This response was entirely in keeping with the “grass is not green” catch phrase used by one or two of the speakers. The reality (thankfully) is that grass is very green indeed – certainly when compared to artificial turf. This is borne out in a recent report (2006) produced by the Athena Institute as commissioned by Upper Canada College.
Athena’s analysis responds to UCC’s concern for specific information that would allow the school to offset the global warming effects of its proposed artificial turf installation. Neither in its general tone nor in its methodology does the report engage in any attempt at problem denial or even understatement with the environmentally savvy UCC. Rather, Athena takes as its point of departure the reality of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) as an environmental factor in artificial turf installation, and so the report for UCC immediately begins to address such issues as: the extent to which artificial turf contributes to GHGs; how their damage might be mitigated; and how, specifically, this should be achieved.
To those who posit that grass is “not green,” I would respond that drawing on the data pertaining to the UCC field (9000 square metres) and its analysis by Athena, a GHG reduction effect (-16.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions or CO2e) was noted in the natural field, and a relatively high level of GHG emissions (55.6 tonnes CO2e) was associated with the artificial turf. The offset value for the artificial turf was, therefore, 72.5 tonnes CO2e. In other words, grass is greener by more than 400%.
Athena’s recommended offset (adopted by UCC) establishes the planting of 1,861 trees as the carbon replacement solution. While this does not address the specific and more immediate environmental risks that Westmount residents brought to the community’s attention on Wednesday, it does serve as a concrete representation of the GHG factor. The problem is not insignificant. I find it both interesting and disconcerting that Athena has been so forthcoming with UCC, while Golder and Associates continue to assure Westmounters that there is nothing to worry about – and this in the face of hard evidence to the contrary. I sincerely hope that Mr. Larsen is mistaken in his observation that the findings of commissioned reports are indeed reflective of those who commission them. One final, but not unrelated comment on Wayne Larsen's "Cut to the Chase." I'm wondering what information the residents and the City of Westmount would draw on if we are not to concern ourselves with those "meaningless" reports and statistics. Is he advocating that we go with an uninformed opinion? Surely not.
Marie Campbell