The Reading Post accepts Letters to the Editor. All letters must be signed. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or not publish any letters received. Letters do not represent the views or opinions of the Post. editor@thereadingpost.com
Members of the Reading Community,
At Monday night’s town meeting, I attempted to convey what many in our community are feeling, that the community is becoming (if not already) unaffordable. More importantly, that town spending is heading toward another cliff and will ultimately require that an operational override (a Proposition 2.5 Override) within the next few years. We need only look to three local communities which in this last year all defeated operational overrides resulting in significant cuts in services (Melrose, North Reading and Stoneham). For Reading to think it is immune from this possibility, and for Town Meeting to not attempt to take proactive steps, is what I can only describe as “head in the sand” behavior. While it may not be popular to advocate for fiscal responsibility, it is prudent. But Monday night showed that Town Meeting has never met a dollar they didn’t like to spend.
One of the first items I attempted to look at was a project aimed at replacing the turf at Parker Middle school. Again, the purpose of my proposal (reducing the capital spend on planning for this project which would then eliminate the proposed debt spend starting in FY27) was to highlight that the community must make some hard choices when it comes to priorities. While my recommendation was drowned out by others, after the meeting I was talking to some other members, one of which brought up that there was evidence of higher rates of injury on artificial turf versus grass. Although I am not a medical professional/clinician, I have worked in the medical industry for over 25 years and have expertise in researching clinical topics. A quick search of pubmed identified over 405 articles dealing with artificial turf. The most valuable of those articles are often the consolidated reviews of other articles. I looked at several different systematic reviews and found 3 which in my opinion call into question the claim that replacing the turf with more artificial tuft is the best choice. I’ve included the links to these articles below and would suggest the town and school committee review this situation again and truly decide if their aim is to improve safety, that replacement of this field with another artificial turf field is the best choice. The article about the differences between rates of injury between boys and girls is especially concerning given that this field is used heavily by the girls’ soccer teams.
Reference Clinical Articles
- Lower Extremity Injury Rates on Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass Playing Surfaces: A Systematic Review (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35593739/)
- Abrasion injuries on artificial turf: A systematic review (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30503328/)
- Increased Risk of ACL Injury for Female but Not Male Soccer Players on Artificial Turf Versus Natural Grass: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35990873/)
If the above doesn’t change your mind, then don’t take my word for it, see what professional soccer players are saying. FIFA commissioned a study and the results were clear, natural turf (grass) is viewed as their preference to avoid shortening their career and avoid injury (https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/injuries-grass-vs-synthetic-turf).
Lastly, one might claim that the cost of maintenance for a grass field is higher (it is), but given the expense of artificial turf to start, in the long run the cost appears to be much less (https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/cost-grass-vs-synthetic-turf).
Respectfully Submitted,
John Sasso
Richards Rd
Pct. 2 Town Meeting Member
