Interesting that no one in the article mentioned talking to any of the actual users of the fields. I did - I asked my 11 year old son who attends Graham and played soccer there last year. He really doesn't like the artificial turf - he says it hurts to fall on.

If you wouldn't want to picnic on it, do you think playing on it is somehow okay? I guess the point of that is - I won't be using it, so it is good for others.

As a dog owner local to Crittendon, with its conveniently enclosed grass field, I don't recall being consulted either. We and our dogs love having a grassy field to romp in. We can and do clean up droppings to the point where the soil and grass, with routine watering, can absorb any residue very well. I have no idea how any residue would ever "decompose" to harmlessness in AstroTurf. (Can it leach into the underlying soil? What enzyme or chemical sprays should we tote to hasten the process? How will they affect the VOC emissions?) Instead, I can already see the "Dogs Must Be On Leash" signs replaced by "No Dogs Allowed" (after the damage is done). The new signs, however, will no doubt be enforced. Oh now I get it: Another revenue stream!

So this is what going green really means. Artificial grass over real nature. And it doesn't look like the owl stands a chance against the city.

You can use "Turf" 365 days a year in all kinds of weather. There are no rainouts due to field conditions. It is a more consistent playing surface with no holes or dirt areas. You don't have to close the field for 3 months each year for renovation. You don't have to water it, fertalize it or mow it. It may cost more up front but pays for itself in the long run and will actually save money. The biggest benefit is that it allows more people and teams to use the fields. If we had unlimited field space and unlimited budgets grass would be great - but we don't.

Make sure that the supplier of this artificial turf has absolutely zero connection to those that approve it. This smells fishy.