If you think the current controversy over Fairfax County Public Schools' plans to squander millions on unnecessary artificial turf is new, think again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/19/AR2008111901515.html

This is an old issue, and that means, among other things, it is not going to go away any time soon. The current crop of school board members and County supervisors would do well to keep that in mind as elections approach, especially given the precipitous nature of the County's funding.

Turf fields are going in everywhere because they allow more kids to play, and they do not have the maintenance costs that grass fields do. It is also safer to play on a turf field than on a bad grass field. (A good grass field is even better, but they cost an arm and a leg to maintain.) The biggest "problem" with turf fields is that kids and adults want to use the fields so much. Neighbors object to the noise and lights at night. Your use of the verb "squander" betrays a lack of understanding od the full range of benefits.

It seems funny that you hear so much these days about childhood obesity, "lazy kids", poor eating habits, video games, etc. but when there is an expenditure like this for artificial fields, some people might consider it an act of squandering money.

What else do we squander money on? Books? Schools?

The fact is, artificial fields allow for much more use.

Consider a day like today...rain. If you had a grass-field with even one game on it, that thing would be ripped to shreds. Probably a mud pit for the next 3-4 days, and then after it drys out, a dirt pancake.

Forget about playing 3-4-5 games on it today.

Turf? No problem whatsoever....play all day on it...and tomorrow. And the next day. And after that.

Sure they need replacing, but so do grass fields.

Just because something costs less, doesn't mean it is better.

The FACTS about high turf costs are here:

http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass-costs.php

And, why should TAXPAYERS support a resource for the privileged few? Let them pay for their own turf fields and olympic pools and the like.

I home school my kids. Fuck public schools! I still have to pay taxes so fuck it. Who gives a shit how they spend the money they steal from me! Fuck all you liberals!

That was an interesting study. Another thing is that the money spent on maintaining a premium grass field is spent locally (jobs created here) and returned to the local economy as workers spend the money (and pay local taxes). This is a benefit that would ultimately reduce the cost of the natural grass even more.

the voice of truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The FACTS about high turf costs are here:
>
> http://cafnr.missouri.edu/research/turfgrass-costs
> .php
>
> And, why should TAXPAYERS support a resource for
> the privileged few? Let them pay for their own
> turf fields and olympic pools and the like.


The facts as spoken by a "grass specialist". I'm not even gonna look, but I'd bet you that I could find a turf specialist that has a study about the savings associated with turf.

What is the cost of nobody being able to use a grass field today, vs. multiple users on a turf field, all day, today?

What is the cost of needing multiple grass fields so they can be rotated so they are not torn to bits and renedered useless by multiple teams?

What is the cost of watering...fertilizing...seeding...a grass field?

Taxpayers pay for a great deal that they don't firectly get to use/enjoy...F-16's...schools...etc.

"The facts as spoken by a "grass specialist". I'm not even gonna look, but I'd bet you that I could find a turf specialist that has a study about the savings associated with turf."


You state: I'm not even gonna look. I think you should look at both sides of an issue before you make a decision (and definitely before you make bets on what you believe is right). Also, this kind of spending is not in the category with F-16's or schools. Not even close----sorry.

I know both sides of the issue well enough.

I know that, without even looking, there is a turf specialist somewhere that has done a study that would show the cost of installing/maintaining a turf field is somewhat comparable to the cost of maintaining a grass field of comparable utility. If you're dumb enough to believe that nobody in that industry has put together such a study, then I might be wasting my time.

I know that today, multiple teams using a grass field would most likely majorly f*** it up and render it pretty dang useless for the next 3-4 days, and I know that multiple teams could use a turf field today without rendering it useless for its intended purpose for the next 3-4 days.

Not in the same category? I DON'T know what categories you have in mind (different kinds of ants and bees, apples and oranges, different kinds of dinosaurs, different kinds of fruitcakes, what) but as for an illustration of what taxpayers spend money on, and might not typically get to use/enjoy directly, these two things, f-16s and schools, are in the EXACT SAME CATEGORY (as are a huge number of other things that I just don't feel necessary to list) as a turf field.

F-16's provide for the defense of all the people in the United States

Schools are available to all people from the age of 5-18 or so AND someone else's education benefits you every day in many ways (doctor, mechanic, engineer, etc., etc.)

I was thinking of categories of things that tax money is used for (and I don't think different kinds of dinosaurs is one of the categories---nor are fruitcakes).

Turf fields are in the "exact same category" as F-16s and schools???? No wonder you are having a hard time prioritizing on this issue . . .

Turf fields are in the "discretionary spending" category. Those are things you spend money on when you have already taken care of other more necessary items. Given that FCPS is having a budget crisis, turf fields just don't seem like something that should be at the top of the list.

Basic logic for you:

If your category is "things that provide for the defense of all the people of the United States" then yes, I could see F-16's fitting in that category.

Turf fields, however, probably are not in the same category.

However, if your category is, "things that taxpayers pay for, but typically don't get to directly use/enjoy", F-16's and a turf field seem to, in fact, be in that category.

So, obviously, it depends on the category.

Sorry if this is difficult for you.

again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Turf fields are in the "discretionary spending"
> category. Those are things you spend money on
> when you have already taken care of other more
> necessary items. Given that FCPS is having a
> budget crisis, turf fields just don't seem like
> something that should be at the top of the list.


Might depend on who you believe, or really, who you want to believe.

Do you believe a "grass specialist" who says a grass field is cheaper and has the same utility as a turf field (even on a day like today, where a single team using it would probably tear it up beyond usable condition)?

Or do you believe a "turf specialist" who says a turf field offers better utility (especially on days like today) at a comparable cost to a comparable grass field?

It looks to me like you want to believe that "grass specialist" for some reason.

I was talking about discretionary spending and not about who I believe. I might believe we should spend money on neither of these things since they are both "discretionary".

Home school Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I home school my kids. Fuck public schools! I
> still have to pay taxes so fuck it. Who gives a
> shit how they spend the money they steal from me!
> Fuck all you liberals!


I hope you're only teaching them the sciences, and that someone else is doing the language arts.

Why are we landing our F-16s on turf fields? This is an outrage. Those jets will scorch the plastic, too.

jcman01 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Home school Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I home school my kids. Fuck public schools! I
> > still have to pay taxes so fuck it. Who gives a
> > shit how they spend the money they steal from
> me!
> > Fuck all you liberals!
>
>
> I hope you're only teaching them the sciences, and
> that someone else is doing the language arts.

Creationism is not a science. Those poor kids. Gonna grow up to be ignorant hate-filled crackers just like Dad.

the fuck? where i grew up we didn't have grass specialists or turf fields. we had grass fields, which the janitors mowed along with the rest of the grounds. if the choice is class size vs. playing surfaces, what say we spend the money on.. i don't know.. education?

chew this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was talking about discretionary spending and not
> about who I believe. I might believe we should
> spend money on neither of these things since they
> are both "discretionary".


Well, assuming money is going to be spent on one or the other (which is a pretty safe assumption) if in fact one was cheaper than the other in the long run, would you not choose that option?

Of course I would go with cheaper if, in fact, money is going to be spent no matter what. I think the question is about spending money on something that is discretionary when we are cutting "into the bone" (not my words).

"Do you believe a "grass specialist" who says a grass field is cheaper and has the same utility as a turf field (even on a day like today, where a single team using it would probably tear it up beyond usable condition)?

Or do you believe a "turf specialist" who says a turf field offers better utility (especially on days like today) at a comparable cost to a comparable grass field?"


I'll tell you one thing. A bunch of the "turf specialists" either own the companies that sell the turf or own stock in those companies (I found their analyses online). The grass specialist cited above is a researcher at a university.

They should hire (competent) bus mechanics instead. Garza said at the last school board that 261 buses wouldn't start Wednesday morning.

who are the specialists? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Do you believe a "grass specialist" who says a
> grass field is cheaper and has the same utility as
> a turf field (even on a day like today, where a
> single team using it would probably tear it up
> beyond usable condition)?
>
> Or do you believe a "turf specialist" who says a
> turf field offers better utility (especially on
> days like today) at a comparable cost to a
> comparable grass field?"
>
>
> I'll tell you one thing. A bunch of the "turf
> specialists" either own the companies that sell
> the turf or own stock in those companies (I found
> their analyses online). The grass specialist
> cited above is a researcher at a university.


I'll tell you one thing, as well.

Are you convinced that simply because someone is a researcher at a university doesn't mean they might not have an agenda to "further" their research?

Say I'm a "golf researcher"...am I gonna come up with a bunch of studies and results that say golf is a waste of time, and nobody should play it?

I doubt it.

Do you REALLY believe that if there was a university based researcher for artificial turf (say at a school that was big into plastics, or petroleum based products, or whatever artificial turf may be made out of) they would come up with study after study showing that artificial turf is more expensive than grass?

Money, dear boy/girl. Doesn't matter where you work, or who you work for...everybody needs it.

Quote

Money, dear boy/girl. Doesn't matter where you work, or who you work for...everybody needs it.

nah that's too cynical. the assertion holds true sometimes, but to impose that as a rule would mean that there's never any difference between the credibility of two given sources.

Let's hope that credibility still counts for something . . . or we're all screwed all the time. If your credibility comes into question (which it will if your research is full of holes), nobody is going to give you money for anything. Plenty of people have made the mistake of believing that they should lie for the money. It doesn't usually end very well.

agree Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's hope that credibility still counts for
> something . . . or we're all screwed all the time.
> If your credibility comes into question (which it
> will if your research is full of holes), nobody is
> going to give you money for anything. Plenty of
> people have made the mistake of believing that
> they should lie for the money. It doesn't usually
> end very well.


Your thinking kind of implies there is an absolute, unassailable truth with anything.

There are 2 sides with nearly everything...abortion, religion, war, criminal and civil court cases, the best car or football team, etc. Doesn't have to mean anybody is lying, just means they are crafting an argument using different tools available to them...stats, emotive tools...different arguments and logic.

And if you don't think some (most) are motivated by money and personal gain, their own parochial self interest, to craft an argument that benefits their cause or belief, well, I almost feel sorry for you.

So, who is lying? The guy who has made an educational career of "grass study" and has a study showing that grass is cheaper than turf, or the guy who has made a career of "turf study" and has studies showing that turf is cheaper than grass?

Prrobably depends a great deal on who YOU want to believe, I would suspect!

Well, I think the pro-turf people have to make their case. They put out this report full of unsubstantiated claims. The worst one is their grandiose resolution that all County residents benefit from these fields. Huh?

I also think the fact this is getting so much debate says there's something else going on. We don't see the pro-science people arguing for a linear accelerator or anything like that. No, this is the funny nexus between the fixation on high school sports and the noblesse oblige of the wealthy and their sports clubs.

Your thinking kind of implies there is an absolute, unassailable truth with anything.

>Yes, the "truth" often depends upon what questions are being asked and what someone is looking for. Sure, life is complicated.

There are 2 sides with nearly everything...abortion, religion, war, criminal and civil court cases, the best car or football team, etc. Doesn't have to mean anybody is lying, just means they are crafting an argument using different tools available to them...stats, emotive tools...different arguments and logic.

> Yes, this is a debatable topic---turf vs. grass--- and arguments are made using different tools. I think we should throw out the "emotive tools" and self interest in the argument, but many have a hard time doing that. Sometimes that has to happen---you can't always get a Jaguar when a Prius will work.

And if you don't think some (most) are motivated by money and personal gain, their own parochial self interest, to craft an argument that benefits their cause or belief, well, I almost feel sorry for you.

> I never said that these are not some of the interests. I only said that credibility is important in any debate. I do think you need to give some evidence if you believe the university researcher is not credible (find evidence that he works for a grass seed company or something instead of immediately assuming that he is not credible). You never gave a link to one of your "turf specialists" so that we can see if the other argument is credible or not. Why didn't you if your side has an airtight argument?

So, who is lying? The guy who has made an educational career of "grass study" and has a study showing that grass is cheaper than turf, or the guy who has made a career of "turf study" and has studies showing that turf is cheaper than grass?

> I don't know. Please give a link to your "turf specialist" so that we can check him out. Also please find evidence that the "grass specialist" is motivated by less than honorable interests because I'm sure that someone who works at a university and has a lucrative educational career (right) is lying. You seem to assume so. I almost feel sorry for you.

Prrobably depends a great deal on who YOU want to believe, I would suspect!

>Exactly. You want to believe someone that you have not given a link for.

I really understand why people try to get whatever they can out of the government (all that self interest and personal gain motivating them)---because they have seen what money has been spent on before and they figure it was wasted on dumb stuff, so why shouldn't I get the stuff I want? The problem is that we are not rich enough for everyone to get the stuff they want. Don't act surprised that you have to put together a logical argument to convince people to buy your stuff. You need non-selfish, credible EVIDENCE and we haven't seen it.

Grass was fine for the last hundred years, what happened? Oh, I know, fucking illegals are using it up just like everything else. They will play all day, any day, any weather. Stand on the corner 'till noon, buy six-pack, play soccer. Rinse, repeat.

Is there anything you won't blame on minorities?

I don't think minorities want the turf fields. The demand comes from the athletics contingents in the schools as well as the various sports clubs. There is also an obvious emphasis on sports from people like Karen Garza.

We did not buy science books, we have kids packed into trailers with no toilets, we have falling test scores, but we have turf fields. How, do tell, do these turf fields prepare our kids for the future?

VIRGINIAN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grass was fine for the last hundred years, what
> happened? Oh, I know, fucking illegals are using
> it up just like everything else. They will play
> all day, any day, any weather. Stand on the corner
> 'till noon, buy six-pack, play soccer. Rinse,
> repeat.


How many other things were "fine" for a hundred years?

Horse and Carriage as opposed to cars?

No clothes dryers? No internet? Radios and no TV's?

Books, no kindle?

Times, they do a-change.

Wave of the future, baby, get with it, or stand around complaining about how things were.

Turf = Football Madness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We did not buy science books, we have kids packed
> into trailers with no toilets, we have falling
> test scores, but we have turf fields. How, do
> tell, do these turf fields prepare our kids for
> the future?


Well, perhaps they are cheaper and/or provide a greater utility.

Therefore, we could use the money saved to buy those things, or, have healthier kids because of the greater utility and usage provided by turf.

I am awaiting someone to send a link for a study done by a "grass specialist"...I wonder what those, ahem, "results" might show.

Home school Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I home school my kids. Fuck public schools! I
> still have to pay taxes so fuck it. Who gives a
> shit how they spend the money they steal from me!
> Fuck all you liberals!

Get out of our fucking county, you ignorant asswipe. Go eat chickenheads in some god-forsaken goober backwater and leave the adult world alone.

Home school Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I home school my kids. Fuck public schools! I
> still have to pay taxes so fuck it. Who gives a
> shit how they spend the money they steal from me!
> Fuck all you liberals!

LICK MY BALLS. Your children are going to suffer socially for the rest of their lives all because you're a pompous asshole who thinks you're better than. Your kids would probably earn back on your tax money in the future if they had the social skills that allow people to excel in the working world. But you kind of shot yourself in the foot there. Thanks for the turf.

When there is no money to maintain the turf? Then you can't use it at all, it is just a plastic wasteland. At least grass fields grow back.

and what happens… Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When there is no money to maintain the turf? Then
> you can't use it at all, it is just a plastic
> wasteland. At least grass fields grow back.


I pretty sure that "when there is no money to maintain the turf", school, and school sports, will be the least of our worries.

I suspect at that point, we will be evolving into some stage of hunger games or some other silly post apocalyptic scenario.

I am going to start agitating for a linear accelerator at at least one high school. That school will give up its athletic facilities to make room for the accelerator. I'm sure the money will come from somewhere. If there are sports kids at that school, they can transfer to another school. The presence of a linear accelerator will stamp Fairfax as a world leader in science education. It will also deflate the "all the money got spent on sports" arguments of the anti-turf contingent out there.

Just like the turf fields, people can pay for access to the linear accelerator for their own purposes, such as making enriched uranium or maybe just using it to build a collection of subatomic particles.