Synthetic Turf Takes the Field at Girsh Park

Grass is no longer greener thanks to the $1.25 million artificial soccer surface that just extended the field of play.

By Sonia Fernandez, Noozhawk Staff Writer | Published on 03.09.2009

(13)

For Pat O’Malley, the dedication of Girsh Park’s new Girsh-Hochman soccer field was the crowning moment of his labor of love. (Sonia Fernandez / Noozhawk photo)

Soccer fans, well-wishers and local dignitaries gathered at Girsh Park on Sunday afternoon to celebrate the opening of the park’s artificial turf soccer field.

“We believe that recreation is critical to our community’s well-being,” said Ryan Harrington, executive director of the Foundation for Girsh Park. “This facility is a symbol of healthy lifestyles, because soccer gets the kids running around, gets them excited, keeps them off the street, and they just have a lot of fun doing it.”

The ribbon-cutting of the Girsh-Hochman soccer field marked the success of a six-year effort to acquire an artificial turf field in the southeastern corner of the 25-acre private active recreation park. It is estimated that the soccer field, built to international standards, will save the popular but financially struggling park about $43,000 in maintenance costs, while raising extra revenue by allowing for more frequent play.

The idea for the artificial turf field came from Pat O’Malley, a former AYSO and adult soccer referee, who spent years researching artificial turf fields and trying to convince the park’s board of directors to invest in such a surface, and then campaigning for funds. Kim Schizas, from Wynmark Co. also put together a major effort to raise the money for the $1.25 million project.

Two years of fundraising (which is still ongoing) and several vital donations later, the park opened to an enthusiastic group of families and kids’ soccer teams that broke in the field.

Goleta Mayor Roger Aceves stands ready to “throw out” the first ball for the inaugural soccer match at Girsh Park’s new synthetic field. (Sonia Fernandez / Noozhawk photo)

“I think you’ll agree with me that this was a good way to spend your hard-earned tax dollars,” Goleta Mayor Roger Aceves said at Sunday’s ceremony. The city of Goleta contributed $250,000 to the artificial field effort, on top of regular contributions throughout the years for park maintenance.

Local soccer fans may even get a glimpse of some Santa Barbara County vs. city of Goleta soccer action, if 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf gets her way.

“I’ve challenged the city to a soccer match, now that we know we’re not going to fall down,” she said, referring to gopher holes that plague local grass fields. “Maybe we turn it into a fundraiser.”

The turf project received major funding from Goleta, the county, the Girsh-Hochman family, Robin and Reed Cederlof, Central Coast Soccer League, Nancy and Thomas Crawford, Deckers Outdoor Corp., Granite Construction Co., Hutton Foundation, Moser Foundation, Pacific Capital Bancorp and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Santa Barbara Foundation, Towbes Foundation, Williams-Corbett Foundation, Wood-Claeyssens Foundation and Wynmark Co.

Write to sfernandez@noozhawk.com

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» Owen Dell on 03.10.09 @ 04:36 AM

It is regrettable to see an entire community deceived by the false promises of plastic turf. Experience shows it is an environmental nightmare and a possible health hazard. It has been removed from a number of sites, and has left more than a few communities wishing they had never heard of the stuff.

One has only to google “artificial turf hazards” to uncover a myriad of problems: contamination from lead and other chemicals, non-recyclability, off-gassing, and other issues. Phony lawns contribute nothing to the environment, can be hazardous to play on, contribute to the urban heat island effect, offer no biofiltration, kill the soil beneath them, and are made from fossil fuels. They require water to keep them “clean,” yet there is concern about the buildup of hazardous organisms within the non-living carpet that is incapable of bioremediating them. Finally, phony lawns are a waste-stream nightmare at the end of their lifecycle (or maybe it should be called a death-cycle). Add it all up and you can see that the well-meaning folks who made this happen have created some real problems for the community and for the environment.

Living lawns are problematic, too, of course. There is no environmentally acceptable way to have a soccer field, but on balance a living turf is far superior to a plastic one.

It’s a shame that someone didn’t do a little homework before spending well over a million dollars on this boondoggle.

Owen Dell
landscape architect
author, “Sustainable Landscaping for Dummies”

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Debbie on 03.10.09 @ 04:52 AM

Great job Pat! Those fields were like playing in drought-stricken Africa sometimes, they were so spotty and dusty. Thanks for your efforts on behalf of so many.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Pat O'Malley on 03.10.09 @ 05:19 AM

Sonia,

Thanks so much for covering the event and the nice article!
The event ended at 6:15 and the coaches from both AYSO and Santa Barbara Soccer Club praised the new field.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Duane Ruth on 03.10.09 @ 03:00 PM

Well, I never read sustainable landscaping for dummies, but I can definitely say this.

There are no real issues about lead or off gassing related to artificial turf. There are also no real issues about “killing soil” - whatever that means in this context. Likewise with regard to supposed health hazards or heat island effects.

Google is not a scientific research tool and it has no ability to identify agenda drive clap trap from bonifide scientific articles that present unbiased, scientifically sound, reproducible results that are generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.

I challenge you to provide any credible references (i.e. more than the one fringe article hear and there that no one else seems to support) for these claims alleging such impending danger inherent in these widely used surface.

To say that artificial fields contributes nothing to the environment is certainly a narrow view of the term “contribute”. They contribute the removal of huge amounts of irrigation water, the removal of huge volumes of mow clippings, aka green waste, from being diverted into the landfills, the removal of huge amounts of tertiary pollution in the form of fertilizer, insecticides, and other chemicals, as well as petrol exhaust from mowers and other service vehicles.

They contribute to the environment by allowing the environment to be enjoyed by people with grass allergies for example- creating usable spaces that can handle heavy use- thereby reducing the amount of acreage needed for dedicated park lands that require more and more resources to maintain as they pollute.

A dead or dormant soccer field that is dry, weeds and grass is not contributing much to the environment either, not in the sense you are describing and yet it screams for water, maintenance and care.

With obesity up to staggering levels among children, with video games and the internet and TV eating up their activity time- it’s a wonder that anyone would complain about a solution that gives kids a clean, safe place to play and provides that same place for so many more kids.

There are many hundreds of millions of sq. ft. of synthetic grass in wide use around the world- tens of millions of people of all ages use these products regularly and there is not a single reported case of anyone being injured by them in any of the ways you are describing.

It’s truly the big lie and the “hypothetical problem” in search of some shred of confirming evidence amidst a sea of evidence quite to the contrary.

I say bravo to this man and his group of fellow supporters who have put their time, effort and resources into improving the lives of the community members who use that field.

I did wince at the price- and by contacting SYNLawn and AstroTurf- he major manufacturers of synthetic grass and artificial turf respectively, they might be able to improve the quality and price of projects like this in the future.

For synthetic landscape grass, putting green, pet and playground applications - http://www.synlawn.com

For sports field applications of all kinds http://www.astroturfusa.com

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Katie on 03.10.09 @ 03:21 PM

So, will the teams who put up with the dirt for years get to play on the new field or will it go to the highest bidder?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Owen Dell on 03.10.09 @ 04:04 PM

Duane Ruth is wrong on many counts. There is plenty of evidence for the claims I make. Whatever research tool you use you will find them. It’s not my job to do your homework for you.

I understand that you and others feel there are advantages to phony turf, but I and many other professionals are convinced that they are a big sell job and an environmental mess. You may disagree with me, but if you look into the facts you will find that I am right.

I hate to have to belittle the efforts of good people trying to help improve the community, but as someone who knows a bit about these matters it wouldn’t be right for me to flinch from telling the truth. I make my remarks in the hopes that other well-meaning people won’t make the same mistake.

Oh, and just because there are millions of square feet of plastic lawn in the world, thanks to the lies of slick sales people, doesn’t make it right.

Anyone looking at your claims will find that most or all of them are without basis in fact. It’s true that living lawns are frequently mismanaged and are the cause of their own massive amounts of pollution and other problems. I personally and professionally deplore the overuse of lawn and anyone who knows me is well aware that I’m the farthest thing from an apologist for turf. But plastic lawns are a step backward from this, i.e. something even worse than real turf, if that can be imagined.

Respectfully,
Owen Dell

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» irish on 03.10.09 @ 04:06 PM

For a very thorough discussion on the pros and cons of artificial turf, go to larchmont gazette. com. A very affluent community back East has been debating the use of artificial turf for months. They just lost a school bond issue over it, but it was more a matter of economics than safety. Yet, they at least are having the discussion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Thank you! on 03.10.09 @ 04:19 PM

A big thanks to all who were involved in this project. In spite of several of the above posters, the majority of us in Santa Barbara and Goleta who have kids who use these fields are truly grateful for all the hardwork and dedication that went into this project.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Thanks Pat and the Foundation on 03.10.09 @ 05:12 PM

Great improvement over what the kids had been playing on last year. Thanks to all involved.

PS…had you actually planted it in sod, or seed, Owen & Co. would be throwing a fit over the amount of water used, fertilizer, carbon monoxide fumes from the lawn mowers, and whether the gardeners were paid a living wage.
You will never make some people happy, but you made those of us that actually use the fields very happy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» motormouth on 03.10.09 @ 06:52 PM

Bravo for the field. One should expect a little bias from an author with a book titled Sustainable Landscaping for Dummies. Your arguments and comparisons are weak however. “There is no environmentally acceptable way to have a soccer field, but on balance a living turf is far superior to a plastic one.”

Have you ever played soccer on the beach? Plenty of injuries happen on grass fields, there’s no conclusive evidence to support grass vs. turf (new and improved) related injuries.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Zach M. on 03.11.09 @ 06:25 PM

Hey Grandpa,

Great job on the field, it looks sweet!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Tim Murphy on 03.11.09 @ 06:42 PM

The world is a better place because of folks like Pat O’Malley and the countless volunteers and public officials who understand the importance of investing in our communities, in our youth and in recreation. As it is written, we reap what we sow and this field will yield plenty.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Jason on 03.20.09 @ 12:28 PM

You may want to consider this company since crumb rubber and lead contaiminated turf will be banned in the next couple years and most current fields will have to be replaced because of the negative health and negative environmental effects. The U.S. Turf Company is the only company that actually cares about environment and child and athlete safety. All the other companies just try to make a buck using cheap lead filled turf fibres and old ground up oil soaked tires as infill. U.S. Turf Company has a system that costs just as much or even less. The GEN-5 Synthetic Turf System. Their products are 100% recyclable, lead and heavy metal free, permeable so the water drains freely right through the turf, and DO NOT use old ground up tires for infill! Thats right completely RUBBER FREE! For more information or a free Informative CD regarding their products and company, call 877-391-8873 or 480-391-8873. Please look them up on-line at http://www.usturfco.com

You don't have permission to flag this entry.