Artificial turf, artificial controversy
IN OUR OPINION, Bruce Mohl’s short piece “Artificial Preservation” tries to create artificial controversy.
Mohl finds fault with the fact that several communities are approving projects using last summer’s legislative amendments to the Community Preservation Act (CPA). One of those amendments lifted the restriction on the use of CPA funds to rehabilitate outdoor recreational facilities, but prohibited the acquisition of artificial turf for athletic fields with CPA funds.
Instead, Mohl should be praising state legislators for listening to and responding to community needs. The changes to CPA were common sense amendments, long sought by communities across the state, both large and small, and supported by the majority of state legislators on both sides of the aisle. The recreation amendment made sense, both fiscally and from an environmental perspective; rehabilitating existing infrastructure costs less, conserves energy and preserves resources.
What’s so controversial about that?Stuart Saginor is the executive director of the Community Preservation Coalition.