To the Editor:
In his Nov. 29th Letter to the Editor (“Grass can’t be only answer”), Terry Donahue cited figures for field use at the high school that would indeed call for something other than (or in addition to) grass fields. Unfortunately, the numbers he cites are in error, and dramatically inflate the current use of their fields.
As confirmed in the meeting of the subcommittee on fields held on Dec. 6, the number of 2,266 field uses (slightly more than the 2,250 cited by Mr. Donahue) includes all 10 fields on the Island (the high school fields, two fields at West Tisbury School, one field at Oak Bluffs School, and Veterans Field), which comes to less than 230 uses per field. The number of usages required by the high school on their fields is 1,014 on six fields, or about 170 per field. Even if one includes the Island youth sports groups and summer sports camps that currently play on the high school fields, the total usage there amounts to 1,410, or about 235 per field. None of the more than 800 MV United soccer program usages take place at the high school, which accounts for almost all of the difference in the total usage figures. All of these numbers fall within the maximum recommended use of 250 for grass fields.
As a longtime member of the Island soccer community, I’ve listened with interest to the debate on the fields, and have tried to stay on the sidelines. There are pros and cons to each side’s arguments, there are conflicting studies on the relative merits and impact of grass vs. turf, and there has been a fair amount of hyperbole and emotion from both camps. Nonetheless, an accurate measurement of usage per field has been readily available from the start of the debate. I agree with Mr. Donahue that we should “look at the scientific facts of this issue, not just the emotion.” In this case, it would be more helpful to those who would like to make an informed decision on the matter to have accurate facts presented to us.
Richard Bennett
Chilmark