Maret field PFAS vs Deal
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
There's this whole controversy bubbling over again in Chevy Chase DC. For a while now, there have been a bunch of neighbors opposed to the new Maret athletic field at ECC. First they tried to block it by holding up the trees and open space as a public good. Most of the trees were dead though and what weren't were either saved and transplanted or were the "Tree of Heaven" weed trees that host the spotted laternfly anyway. After that effort failed, then the people created a fuss around the PFAS (plastic turf).
Now, I agree with them that installing a bunch of plastic turf is a real terrible idea among terrible ideas - it is, after all, part of the Rock Creek park watershed and god knows we've all been trying to clean that up for decades. No one wants Maret/ECC to put in PFAS there. Or PFAS at anywhere else. And so our ANC (3/4G) has drafted up a resolution stating that they would prefer that Maret move forward with some type of natural grass and also calling for a ban city wide on PFAS, including other area sites. Now, the people involved with the ECC/Maret site think this is bananas and that the ANC is I guess being paid off by Maret or some stupid tinfoil hat thing like that. They're all "this is super urgent, please instead pass this one resolution led by ANC Bruce Sherman (who basically campaigned on this issue as a member of 'Friends of the Field')" that is super pointed at Maret. So... you all want to hear urgent? Legit, right now, and for the past week or so Alice Deal and the city have been converting it's grass field into a PFAS laden thing. Have we heard one freaking peep from the Maret/ECC anti people about this? Not a chance. Yet the resolution that most of the rest of the ANC 3/4G supports would have pointed to this project as a "no" as well. This resolution could have been passed a month ago, if Bruce and the 'Friends of the Field' people wouldn't have been acting in bad faith and wanting to stick it to Maret so much and instead accepted the friendly amendments of the rest of the ANC on extending the notice across the city. And if it had been passed then, then the ANC would have something to point to to the Mayor and to the local School Board lead about how bad this stuff is and how it doesn't belong in the Rock Creek Park watershed (which Deal is ALSO in). The moratorium offered by the ANC would have potentially stopped this Deal project. Bags of artificial turf sitting behind Deal. 
Some more 
A zoom in on the label from the right hand side of the picture above in case you don't believe its PFAS. 
And here's it being spread on the field. 
|
Anonymous
| The Maret thing is just a NIMBY ply to stop a project the immediate neighbors don't like. |
Anonymous
| Interesting. I'm all about looking into whether artificial turf is environmentally destructive. Many, many DC government funded sites have it, so a ban would have widespread budget ramifications. |
Anonymous
| Relying on grass fields destroys kid sports in DC. They close at any hint of rain. Turf fields mean kids can play unless there’s thunder/lightening. Replacing grass with turf is not a universally bad idea. |
Anonymous
Microclover? |
Anonymous
| PVC doesn't contain any carbon-fluorine bonds. It's not a PFAS. |
Anonymous
If you had three times as many grass fields, you could spread the wear and tear around more. That would make the fields hold up to rain better. |
Anonymous
Some PVC are not PFAS, but some are. The ones that aren't are generally produced using even worse chemicals for health like mercury or abestos. See this report summarizing an analysis of the industry and product by an European commission. Emphasis on pages 7-12 with a section on PFAS based production of PVC as the "newer" tech to produce PVC by the industry. |
Anonymous
I don’t understand this. We lived in dc for years, and the grass fields closed a ridiculous amount of times. We moved to nova, and they really only close when there’s thunder or lightening. Yes, by the end of a soccer or lacrosse season the fields look horrible and have lots of dirt patches, but I’ll take that any day over my kids playing in chopped up tire parts laden with chemicals. |
Anonymous
| I don’t really have an opinion on artificial turf v grass (except to say that turf makes it much hotter and we are all in denial of the steps DC needs to take to address hotter weather now). But yes, OP what you are seeing is the insanity of NIMBYs. All they want to do is obstruct whatever particular thing that they have gotten obsessive about, and they will make any and all absurd arguments about it. |
Anonymous
Now this is the type of neighborhood controversy that you don't get on the Chevy Chase Listserv!
|
Anonymous
| Deal is in a different ANC. |
Anonymous
| Deal's fields are turf and have been for at least 8 years. |
Anonymous
Right, came here to say this. I don't know anything about the Maret field situation, but it's not like Deal is taking out grass and putting in turf. One of my kids goes to Deal and the other one will soon and frequently has rec games on that field, and I'm all for the turf, it's way better than trying to play in mud. |
Anonymous
No you would have to have one field for games but could only play once or twice a week. The fertilizer and weed killers are harmful to the environment, pets and anyone who plays on the field. Some are listed as cancer causing. The maintenance issue and environmental impacts of grass field are worst vs artificial fields. |