Just days after the Martha’s Vineyard Regional High School committee voted to continue the appeal process over a synthetic turf field at the high school, the Oak Bluffs finance and advisory committee voiced their frustrations over the legal costs associated with the field, and discussed possible solutions on how to move the town forward.
Martha’s Vineyard Regional School District vs. the Town of Oak Bluffs Planning Board is currently ongoing in Massachusetts Land Court after the planning board rejected a request for a special permit for the synthetic turf field over concerns of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Since that litigation began, the school committee and the town of Oak Bluffs have spent $30,000 and $14,000 on legal fees, respectively.
At a meeting Thursday, members of the town’s finance and advisory committee raised concerns over the school’s open-ended budget for those legal costs (all Island towns contribute to the high school’s budget).
Although no motion was made, and no vote was taken by the finance committee on the subject, committee members shared their thoughts on the ongoing litigation.
“I think it’s absurd … You shouldn’t be using taxpayer dollars to sue [the planning board] unless there is obvious malfeasance of some sort on the part of planning, which I do not believe is even close to the case,” committee member Richard Weiss said.
He said that the entities involved in the litigation have developed “tunnel vision.”
“Somebody somewhere has to recognize that if you can’t have the plastic field, the worst case scenario is that it’s grass,” Weiss continued. “I do not understand this mission that it must be plastic, under any means necessary.”
Meanwhile, “the kids don’t have a field, and the taxpayers are paying for you two to sue each other,” he said.
School committee member and Tisbury resident Michael Watts, who voted for the continuation of the appeal last week, emphasized that the lawsuit is less about the material of the proposed athletic field, but based on the Dover amendment — legislation that allows properties with an educational component to bypass certain zoning bylaws. “My vote was to protect the rights of the school district in the long run,” he said.
Finance committee chair Sherry Countryman reiterated the charge of the finance committee.
“We’re looking at this from a financial point of view,” she said. “I don’t want to talk about the merits of the case, because I don’t think that’s necessary from where we’re sitting.”
Countryman shared that she has no preference regarding which side prevails in court.
But she urged school committee members not to continue the appeal process further. “It should have never gotten to this point,” Countryman said. “But you’ve gone there. Now stop.”
There ought to be “significant pressure” put on the two entities to work on a speedy resolution, she said. “It’s not good for either side to lose [in court]. It’s not good for O.B., it’s not good for the Island, it’s not good for the kids, it’s not good for any of us,“ Countryman said.
Although not seconded, Weiss suggested a motion that would recommend the two parties “cease and desist” with the legal costs, and encourage an out-of-court resolution.
“If I understand the school committee side, and I understand the planning board side, they’d both love to talk to each other,” Weiss said. “So go do it … Leave the lawyers at home, and go figure it out.”
You both will spend more on legal fees than the cost of the new field and still not have a field. And wait 2 or more years for that decision. Just have an island wide vote that cost $200, not $200,000 on legal. I hate simple solutions
Well, there certainly is tunnel vision, and that it’s coming from both sides. Let’s not lose sight of the legal issue about the Dover amendment. That is some thing worth spending money on to find out the correct interpretation. Years down the road that will be money well spent to know where the school actually stands on this issue. Taxpayers spend over $2 million a year to run the Martha’s Vineyard Commission and then when we disregard their decisions what is the point. Time to rethink the MVC.
Keep the fields all natural, all natural GMO grass seed, all natural fertilizers, all natural pesticides, all natural herbicides, all natural fuel for the mowing machines.
Medical personnel treat more injuries incurred on turf fields vs grass fields.
We have banned plastic bottles, plastic bags, and are horrified by PFAS and other forever chemicals in our water supplies here on MV. We must remember, we only have one aquifer with an increasing population.
Who is pushing for a turf field, anyway? Certainly not anyone who cares about our children and their families.
Why is educational money being spent to fight the medically wise decision of the OB Planning Board? We have so many “healthy” needs for our tax dollars. Just look at the town meeting warrants or ask the island teachers.
Please stop and prioritize health.
This article states that, “school committee member and Tisbury resident Michael Watts, who voted for the continuation of the appeal last week, emphasized that the lawsuit is less about the material of the proposed athletic field, but based on the Dover amendment — legislation that allows properties with an educational component to bypass certain zoning bylaws. “My vote was to protect the rights of the school district in the long run,” he said.”
So it seems that the driving issue is no longer even about the choice of material – plastic or grass. Instead it has become a matter of Principle: to protect the power of the Dover amendment to overrule any local objections, such as the OB planning board, and the many thousands of us who are vehemently opposed to a plastic field. Poof goes Democracy.
The lust to win on a Political Principle is powerful, and it seeks to override the Precautionary Principle at any cost.
We have to counter such dangerous thinking with overwhelming evidence that a plastic field is just plain bad, wrong and unwise, and that therefore this lawsuit has to stop, right now.
There are certain FACTS that have been proven by science, and been presented on all media, and that we, as an informed community, probably all know something about.
FACT: All petroleum-based plastics are made from toxic materials.
FACT: Under stress, these plastics disintegrate and slough off minute plastic nano particles (0.001 – 0.1 micrometer). A plastic field would be unavoidably exposed to highest levels of severe UV, extreme heat (160f), and hard abrasion by the players.
FACT: When running, kicking, falling on the plastic field, our highschool students would inevitably and unavoidably absorb exceptionally high doses of these toxic nano particles, inhaling deep into their lungs, entering the blood stream through open pores of hot skin and through nasty abrasions.
FACT: The pressure of heavy rains will inevitably move the toxic nano particles down through the porous sandy soil and down to the groundwater, less than 100 feet below the field surface – our only source of drinkingwater.
FACT: These toxic plastic nano particles penetrate our blood-brain barrier and DNA, cause obesity, inflammation, cardio vascular diseases, hormone disruption, abnormal sexual development, birth defects, cancers. (National Institute of Health: “Due to their unique physicochemical properties, nanoparticles (NPs) have the tendency to cross the blood–placental barrier and reach the fetus, leading to various fetal abnormalities.”) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8003602/
Anyone can understand that those playing on this plastic field would inevitably absorb hundreds times more of these toxins than through normal exposure. Even the downwind spectators would be heavily exposed.
So, we have to ask: why take the risk? Why, really?
Whom among us is willing to expose our young ones to such immense risk of severe harm? Genetic harm, which they will pass on to their children. Please please google it.
Those of you on the school committee who are still defending the right of the school committee to override the ruling of the planning board and the strong objections from thousands of us – You are defending the right of the school committee to put in a plastic field, in spite of all the many known and unknown risks. Please read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920297/
So, the school committee may have that right – but surely that right comes with the responsibility to do what carries the least risk of causing harm to our health and our economy.
AND HERE’S SOMETHING WE ALL WONDER: it seems that grass is better in so many ways, so why are you even considering plastic?
Everyone agrees that grass is much cooler and nicer to play on, causes far less skin abrasions, carry none of the health risks of plastic – AND grass is cheaper!
Looking ahead just 11 year, it is obvious that grass is much less costly than plastic – a grass field is forever if maintained the way our local experts have proven so successfully for several years at several of our schools. It would be done with the latest best proven technologies and methods, organically and sustainably, with solar-powered electric equipment, of course.
A brandnew grass field would probably be even better than the best so far, and would be maintained in optimal revolving, organic, non-polluting, beneficial ways. And it would absorb tons of CO2 annually, and would also emit fresh oxygen to greatly benefit the players.
And it would never need to be removed and recycled.
Whereas a plastic field would be worn out within 10 years, and the cost of removal, replacement and recycling (if they ever figure out how to do it) of all those (how many?) tons of toxic plastic wastes is totally unknown, but we do know enough to know that it will be immensely costly. And, think about this: our kids are the ones who will have to pay for it.
Please learn more about the research and findings, and then please consider the possibility that the scientific evidence may indeed be real cause for alarm, and that there is indeed high risk of severe health consequences, and also a very high risk of immense expenses within 10 years of installation. This truly is a case that demands the use of the Precautionary Principle.
Let’s have public meetings with clear fact-based presentations showing the pros and cons of plastic vs. grass, and indepth debates and discussions, and refreshments! And then, yes, let’s vote on it!
Comments are closed.