Despite the statewide focus on the blue wave in the recent elections, closest race in a Connecticut town wasn’t between a Democrat and Republican — it was grass vs. artificial turf on local sports fields.
The outcome was close in Glastonbury’s, and that fit the pattern seen in communities around the country where parents, coaches, taxpayers groups and environmentalists disagree over the safest, least toxic and most economical surface for new sports fields.
Both sides contend that science and research is on their side, and so far there’s no widespread, clear shift in support either way. Avon, Bethel and Fairfield installed large turf fields in the past few years, while Norwalk and Wethersfield decided to stay with real grass.
Still, the anti-turf contingent in Glastonbury is looking to find common ground with turf advocates, and despite the Election Day loss is vowing to stay involved with the issue.
Glastonbury’s referendum illustrated just how passionate and divided voters are: Residents rejected the referendum to ban any future synthetic turf fields, but by a relatively small margin: 5,599 to 4,924. It was easily the most closely contested item on the ballot: Voters chose Democrats by 1,400 votes or more in all races, and approved two other referendum by better than 4-1 ratios.
The difference was partly a spirited social media back-and-forth that dominated Glastonbury-related Facebook pages in the weeks before the vote.
The group seeking the ban, the Grassroots Coalition, earlier in the year petitioned the town to get a November referendum, and dominated the summer and early fall with calls for residents to vote for only natural grass fields in the future.
Using the slogan “The grass may be fake, but the harm is very real,” the group called for voters to prohibit any new turf fields on town-owned properties including schools and parks. It cited the arguments that are heard around the country: Synthetic turf can contain PFAS and carcinogens, creates risks of athletes suffering burns in extreme heat, and is difficult and costly to dispose of in an environmentally sound way.
There appeared to be little opposition until late summer, when local sports leagues, popular coaches and others pushed back hard, with the Glastonbury Youth Football Association describing the referendum as “an incredibly broad overreach that poses an existential threat to competitive athletics in Glastonbury and must be defeated.”
That side argued that synthetic fields are money-savers because they don’t require frequent maintenance or watering, don’t take on toxic chemicals from fertilizers or weed killers, and greatly expand access for teams because turf fields can be used after or even during routine rains. Nationally, the business council of synthetic turf manufacturers and installers contends that turf keeps more than 100 million tires out of landfill because it uses recycled, shredded rubber.
Glastonbury may plan to replace its single artificial turf field next year, and the Grassroots Coalition said it’s looking to be part of those conversations.
“During the give and take, the pro turf community repeatedly stated that the grass playing fields in Glastonbury are in poor condition,” said Dan Boughton, an organizer of the group. “This is an area where the Grassroots Coalition would be willing to get involved with the sports community, the Board of Education and the town council to address the needs to keep our youth playing on safe grass fields.”
Boughton noted that the schools administration has said any new turf fields will be free of PRFA and that they’ll be able to be fully recycled at the end of their lifespan.
“These comments and the follow-through on their implementation needs to be a high priority,” Boughton said. “The Grassroots Coalition will lobby for a chain of custody documentation to reveal where all components of the replaced field end up.”
