Lebo Citizens reader and frequent commenter, Charlotte Stephenson spoke about the problems associated with artificial turf at a recent ESB meeting. With her permission, I have published Charlotte's letter below.
Dear Fellow Concerned Mt. Lebanon Residents:
The video of the April 10 Environmental Sustainability Board meeting is now available to watch on the www.mtlebanon.org website.
There are many reasons why this project is not good for our community and they range from the threat to public health to wasteful economic policy and improper ethical political procedures [Kristen Linfante told a bold faced lie when she stated the ESB was behind the project] in play where certain Commissioners are supporting pet projects in spite of the common good. Did you know that our municipal employee is fundraising for a local non-profit agency to secure funding for this project? Yes, your tax dollars are at work there.
Please send this to friends or neighbors who are not aware of what is in the works for us. Working together, perhaps we can change the course on this problem situation in our community.
Thank You,
Charlotte StephensonJust as James Cannon III came forward with his Keeping It Real presentation, I hope more men get involved and express their concerns with toxic turf. It appears to me that the SAB, Commission, and Municipal staff seem to be more receptive to men. Come on, Dads. We need your help.
16 comments:
I forgot to add that this is the first video recorded ESB meeting. Mt. Lebanon staff finally cooperated.
Elaine
What is the Commission's official opinion & position regarding potential health and safety risks associated with the turf system they intend to install at Wildcat/Middle? Not just the opinion of 1, 3, or 4 of them, but the Commission as a body and the Municipality as a governmental unit! And just what is that position or opinion based upon....their own personal due diligence and research (literature, studies, science, epidemiology), that of only staff, and/or expert independent consultants, or just the turf supplier(s)?
5:09 If you listened to Stephenson's comments at the ESB meeting and her effort to find that our, you would see that they have not done their due diligence nor do they intend to. They just want to push the project through and wish the health and safety issue would just go away.
5:09 here. I did listen to her comments. Those were rhetorical questions and need to be asked directly to the Commission with their official position on record.
Another nebulous item is the funding for the new turf. Currently, the plan is for 25% of the funding to come from non-Municipal sources (contributions). Of course, we heard that when the athletic community made a gesture to contribute $8,000,000 for the High School Renovation project.
Somehow in the mist and fog that ensued the offer, the Board was duped into putting the items into the budget; and since they were in the budget the athletic community felt that there was no need to produce the funds (because now it was in the budget).
I sensed from watching the Commission meeting that we're going to go down the same road all over again...
Not mentioned in the non-public share of artificial turf is any solid commitment to cover removal of the worn out turf in 8 years or its replacement cost.
Most likely, taxpayers will foot the entire bill.
Is it widely known that the Mt Lebanon School District filed suit against W.R. Grace and Company in 1992 claiming that the asbestos contained within the materials used in a high school addition was "potentially hazardous"?
The turf materials ARE "potentially hazardous" and the commission has been told this in public.
6:09 PM the so called "Bendel turf presentation", a/k/a the SAB turf presentation of last Nov., did not include the disposal cost of turf at the 8th. year replacement point at all. A not insignificant omission. The presentation did include replacement and maintenance costs in an attempted lifecycle cost layout over 16 years. It's all on the Muni website, under the Rec Dept.
I believe it says there is only at a minimum commitment of $12,000 annually by the sports groups towards replacement.
In 8 years that minimum could only be around $96,000.
A far cry from the cost of $500,000+ or more to replace the turf the balance of which will be carried by the taxpayers.
7:20 PM, I told them on Jan. 14, 2014. "Whoa," says the EPA. UPDATED
Then Mr. Franklin came back with Appeasing a select few?
I told them on Feb. 11, 2014. My message to the Commission
Guys, you really need to get involved. The Daves seem to be more responsive to men. I dare not call them misogynists because that would be slanderous.
Elaine
W. R. Grace got off with a slap on the wrist in the District's asbestos lawsuit that was settled in 1995.
We had two kinds of asbestos and didn't remove either kind so the lawsuit settlement was modest compared to the claim. Reed Smith represented W. R. Grace and our solicitor's office had difficulty in court. The Reed Smith lawyers were out drinking the night of the decision because they couldn't believe they won the case. I know because I was in the bar room where they were drinking.
Maybe we can ask potential contributors to agree to share any liability for adverse health effects from the turf?
The sports groups aren't being open with parents, are they? "Full disclosure- playing on artificial turf may be hazardous to your child's health." Seems to me like those contributors are already liable.
Elaine
I'm not sure about the contributors being liable but I believe the commissioners can be held personally liable for enabling dangerous tire-drum with toxic poisons.
Also, if the 140 degree temperatures burn a child or disfigure him then the commissioners who voted for the turf could be held personally liable especially since the warnings were well communicated on this blog. Did Mr. Silverman vote for turf?
Maybe we can compromise. If Dave and Dave force feed the community something we don't want, then they should agree to put up signs around the field that state "WARNING--Playing on this artificial surface could be hazardous to your health". Oh, what's that Dave and Dave? No precedent for that? Ha. Wanna bet?
"Let's hear from the men too."
Won't the revised Home Rule Charter make our elected officials gender blind?
Post a Comment