What may have been lost in last week’s excitement surrounding the turf field was a vote by the MVRHS School Committee to support a nonbinding ballot question for voters to say whether they would support grass or synthetic turf.
We say, Finally. Let the voters decide. This should have happened long ago.
The details on how a vote would happen aren’t fully realized, but as most nonbinding resolutions work, this would likely become a ballot question at all six Island annual town elections, presumably in the spring, when towns are hosting town elections anyway. And it would presumably read something like, Should the schools build a synthetic turf field or maintain a grass surface?
Of course, “nonbinding” means there would be no law forcing anyone to follow the results. So in that sense, it’s useless. But considering the nastiness that the field dispute has spurred and how polarized the Island has become over the issue, the ballot could present the school committee with a mandate from voters.
As was voiced by the high school principal last week, the nastiness has become a distraction to education, and has led to poor morale among staff. Sources outside the meeting at the school have confirmed the sentiment.
The ballot measure, if it were held in the spring, would provide enough time for each side to present the pros and cons of grass or synthetic. The public would have an opportunity to better understand what concerns there may be with PFAS stemming from a synthetic field, and decide whether they are real or overinflated for themselves. Voters could better understand if it is possible to maintain a usable grass field. We encourage public forums and evidence-based presentations.
There are some outstanding questions, like how the vote will be interpreted. Will it be a straight-up, popular, all-or-nothing vote? Or will this be something akin to an electoral college, where different towns have more weight than others? Will Oak Bluffs — where the field would be built — get a bigger say?
The other question is whether Oak Bluffs will follow the results. With the planning board’s appeal likely moved to the wayside, there is still the town’s health board, which could implement a townwide moratorium on turf. How the school committee will get them to go along with this nonbinding resolution is anyone’s guess.
Regardless, the only way the nonbinding resolution will work is if there is buy-in from the school committee. They will have to stick to the results, whether they like them or not. Without buy-in, it’ll be another waste of time.
But it does represent an opportunity to end the bitterness. We encourage town clerks and select boards to support the idea, so that this can go before voters.
Dear Editor: In reading your editorial my major question is: Why have you never written an editorial in support of the field? I get it, as the editor, it is your purview to write whatever you wish but one of the reasons this has been so divided is that your paper hasn’t published anything supporting the reasons for the field, especially the facts. You post about PFAS being a problem but the evidence isn’t there to support the PFAS argument, yet you seem to ignore that. Why don’t you ever talk to those who support the project and write about their version of this “war”, as you call it. Will this paper publish an unbias article from those who support the project as you pursue this “island wide referendum”? If what you say is true, that there are two sides to this issue, why don’t you print what the supporters argue? Why don’t you talk to the coaches at the school? You know them, they are the ones who actually use the fields. Your bias continues to show, how about leveling the playing field within your paper and print the facts, and not just the fears.
Patrick– I am going to assume that you are addressing
the long term editorial opinion that has been expressed in
other editorials. The editorial that we are commenting
on here is quite neutral in regard to the field.
It mentions educating the public about “concerns”
of PFAS contamination. That is no way saying PFAS
are existant or not. It merely acknowledges that some
people are concerned about it. As I have said before,
I personally have reviewed the science and think PFAS
are not an issue. But I respect that some people do.
I am opposed for many other reasons.
But you ask that this paper print the “facts”
And what facts are those ?
We live in an age of uncertainty.
For instance, it’s a fact that there was no significant
voter fraud in the 2020 election.
But a significant portion of people think it’s a fact that
there was.
On this issue, we can’t even agree that there are higher
injury rates on turf fields.
I have, in the past, linked to numerous studies by numerous
agencies, medical professionals, hospitals and sports
organizations confirming that “fact”.
But if one person puts up one study by the manufacturer
of the turf stating otherwise then all bets are off about what
is fact and what is misinformation.
Look at the climate change debate….
But here is a verifiable fact, Patrick.
If you write a letter to the
editor or comment on this forum or any other
without violating any of the civility rules that the
moderators enforce,
your opinion and your “facts” will actually get
published.
The editorial here is about encouraging a non binding
island wide vote on this issue.
I am for it because it’s obvious people on both sides
feel passionate about this, and I feel their opinion needs
to be heard. At least for now, we still have a democracy.
If it comes to being on a ballot, you and I will have the
opportunity to influence voters with our respective set
of facts, and let the best facts win.
It’s called a debate.
How about you ?
Are you for a non binding ballot question to gauge the
“mood” of the people ?
I disagree that this editorial is neutral, but yes, I am talking about any editorial made by this paper. The reason I say it isn’t neutral is the comment written about the “vote” “We say, Finally. Let the voters decide. This should have happened long ago.” If you are a supporter of the field this is not neutral. A vote should not be needed as the school has done everything they have been asked to do, and passed every test, to get the field approved and built. Never has any project on the island needed an island wide vote to be approved, and one shouldn’t be needed now. Follow the laws within the town of OB, which has been done. We are not one town, we are 6 towns and the current laws in OB say approve the field. Why do people keep moving the goal posts? To support a vote is not neutral. One last time, you and I have both provided studies about injury rates and there is no one study that anyone can use to make an absolute definitive that injury rates will be higher on “this” turf. However, not one study has ever been produced, anywhere, that PFAS contamination comes from turf fields. Turf fields have been around since the ’70’s, you mean the turf opponents couldn’t test the water under turf fields and find PFAS contamination directly related to the turf field? Heck, two grass fields in OB have been tested for PFAS and that testing has shown the presence of PFAS. Experts have stated, that removing this contaminated soil will actually improve the water quality under the turf. The science of the testing has shown that. Lastly, my question was to the editor, “will you write a supporting article leading up to a vote, if one was held?” It is not like there aren’t enough people who support the field they couldn’t talk to.
Not true donnie that any opinion will get published even when civil. George Brennan made it quite clear that opinions about climate change that are cynical will not be posted. He also offered vaguery on many other things that left it to him and his subjective judgment. I am not arguing with him post facto simply stating a fact.
andy you are correct to a point, I think Georges’
decision on that was a good one.
Cynical is one thing… I’m not sure that has
actually transferred over to Sam.
But there are some things that just don’t deserve
the space in a publication.
If someone were to write a letter to the editor
stating that the holocaust never happened and it
is a complete fabrication by Jews to justify
taking the land of the Palestinians, would you
object to a privately owned paper rejecting it ?
There have to be limits.
That’s just common sense.
And yes, I am comparing denying the Holocaust
with denying climate change. In my opinion
climate change will be either directly or indirectly be
responsible for the deaths of Billions of people and a mass
extinction event that will dwarf all others .
It clearly is directly responsible for many thousands of
deaths and indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands
of others.
Care to debate one of the major causes of the civil
war in Syria in this century ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_and_causes_of_the_Syrian_revolution#:~:text=%22%20(foreigners).-,Economic%20inequality,significant%20level%20of%20economic%20inequality.
note reason # 2
It is beyond obscene to bring into this discussion any Holocaust distortions which are no different than Holocaust denials. This is a discussion which is supposed to be about “turf wars” at the high school. Repeatedly displaying one’s extraordinary ignorance and intellectual misunderstandings over these last months about Jewish history, including the Holocaust, culture, ideology, honor, and the right to exist at all, is one thing. The antisemitic usurping of the horror of an actual genocide to fit a view of any justified war on anything or anyone is disgusting– and quite something else. For example, antisemites incorrectly throw around the word “genocide” as if it were a Frisbee. Promoting anyone’s arrogant but denied antisemitic views, over and over, is hardly worth responding to at this point, but silence is not an option–not in the antisemtic climate making it unsafe for Jewish people to go to temple or wear their Star of David necklace on a NYC subway. At Harvard, posters of kidnapped Israelis have things like “Still has its head” and “personally knows Epstein” are squibbled across the victims’ face.
Climate change is not comparable to the Holocaust. A Jewish person should not have to remind a non-Jew of this fact of reality, but apparently, the antisemitic distortions and lies about the Holocaust, Israel, and the rights of Judaism to persist, are alive and well at the Martha’s Vineyard Times– in comments that are allowed, in letters to the editor, and even in a guest editorial.
donnie, plenty of people deny the holocaust. I am not one of them. However those people are allowed to comment because free speech is free speech and try not to mention the superfluous ”cry fire in a movie theatre cliche”. As for your billions upon billions hysteria, you are in no position to predict that. If you want to go the censuring route I would support stopping you from commenting anymore on your misguided proclamations of two state solution and Israeli genocide. No genocide is happening and you know it but you flail it from the rooftops. As for Sam, he lacks Brennan’s authority but is a much more reasonable and balanced person.
It is interesting that “the editor” makes a statement about whether the School Committee would abide by described island wide vote. First, as Patrick points out, the School Committee has already followed all current approval processes. Second, why does “the editor” put following the “vote” on the School Committee? If “the editor” was truly unbiased, the same question should have been posed to all town agencies?
Fully disagree. “The sum of the parts equals the whole” and the town of Oak Bluffs is but one. Anything that is a Potential risk to the health and well-being of island earth is an island issue – and all voices who wish to protect that good earth always matter.
Then I suggest you propose one island one town, until then, follow the laws of the town you are doing business. I didn’t get a say in the VH Vineyard wind build out at Packers. I think that could affect the health of the harbor. You can’t make up the rules as you go. You voted for the MVC to handle these decisions, they did, they voted yeah. No Island vote is warranted. That is democracy, you vote in those who make the decisions.
Through all of the twists and turns of this saga, and regardless of whatever recent event may have been the nominal topic of the editorial, your editorial conclusion always seems to be that the school needs to abandon the turf project. There were no editorials critical of the overstep by the OB Planning Board, and you never called for them to abide by the court’s ruling and end this, did you? Not a word about that attempt, or others both overt and covert, to undermine the authority of the MVC on this issue. When we have other town boards, or individual members thereof, seemingly working together to subvert a decision by the island-wide planning entity that was properly charged with reviewing the project – one would think it would be front page news. But, alas, not a peep from the island news outlets.
The call for a vote is just a red herring intended to distract and delay. Just the next in a series of tactics intended to inflict a death by a thousand cuts on the project. It’s almost offensive that you would think that your readership doesn’t realize this – but Islanders are smarter than you seem to think they are.
I’m not sure you understand the role of the MVC. When they approve a project it is by no means a done deal. They send it back to the town for further review. The town cannot lessen the conditions set by the MVC but can surely make them more stringent up to and including denying the project. The town always has the final say on the project.
John, yes but the town’s requirements have been met. The town can’t randomly reject a plan, it requires a reason and none exists. And more importantly, an all island vote has NEVER been taken in anything and to say one is needed now is absolutely ridiculous. That is the absolute role of the MVC. That’s why it was created so without it we’d need an all island vote for ALL DRIs. Please stop changing the rules because it doesn’t support your opinion.
There is no risk to the water supply, that is a scare tactic used and has been proven to not be an issue. As I’ve said, the current soils are at a higher risk of contamination than the field ever will be. You want safer water, install the field. Period.
“Regardless, the only way the non binding resolution will work is if there is buy-in from the school committee. They will have to stick with the results whether they like them or not” Without buy-in, it’ll be another waste of time” I take offense that it is only the school committee that would need to buy-in. All the folks who oppose this project, who have been relentlessly in opposition, who have been unwilling to stop litigation even when a decision was made by a judge allowing the project to move forward, THEY are the ones who need to have buy-in for a vote to mean anything. This paper once again spins a negative on the school committee, omitting any stance on the planning board or field funds opposition and their unrelenting inability to bow out with integrity. I say this project has passed MV COMMISIONs FULL and transparent review. It has stood up to science and it has overwhelmingly won. It has gone to court and it has won. The need to keep moving the bar and insinuate its the school committee who would need to buy-in is ridiculous and complete and utter biased reporting.
PS. thank you OB BOS and fin Com for your votes to stop the financial strain of this idea to continually to litigate.
Whose afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Doesn’t anyone want to know what the voters think? Does it matter? What’s the point of democracy?
Comments are closed.