A conceptual, overhead rendering of the four renovated fields at Beach Chalet
It was early 2010 when we first heard about the plans to renovate the Beach Chalet soccer fields in Golden Gate Park. The City Fields Foundation, in conjunction with the City, proposed to fund a new soccer center at the existing site that would convert the playing fields to artificial turf, add lighting, renovate the restrooms, add a small playground, repave the parking area, and erect new fencing and seating areas for spectators.
The goal? More playing time for kids and adults. The proposed improvements would bring all four fields into use year-round and provide expanded hours into the early evening. Currently, the Beach Chalet fields can host 4,738 hours of annual play. The proposed renovations would add 9,582 hours of new play each year for both soccer and lacrosse players.
The process for approvals started off well for the project. In April 2011, the renovation was green-lighted by the Rec & Park Commission after nearly three hours of public comments from both sides of the issue. But this is San Francisco after all, so by May, Rec & Park bowed to the pressure of community groups and required City Fields Foundation to provide a full environmental impact report.
Opponents of the project raised concerns about the environmental impact that the replacement soccer center would have. How would birds be impacted by the new lights? Would light pollution from the lights ruin the sky for stargazers? What kinds of toxins are in artificial fields and will it harm children and animals? Why aren’t they using natural grass instead?
The process has dragged on and on, with appeal after appeal. And despite the plan being approved by the Planning Commission, the Recreation and Park Commission, the Board of Supervisors (nearly unanimous vote – that NEVER happens!) and the city’s Board of Appeals, the opponents made one last ditch effort to block the project by appealing to the Coastal Commission (a narrow slice of Golden Gate Park, which includes the fields, is within the coastal zone, which the commission oversees).
Today was the hearing and dozens of supporters and opponents turned out to voice their opinion to the commission, each given their 2 minutes to speak their mind.
One Richmond District parent, Jim Morris, took time off work to speak his support for the project at the Commission meeting in Marin. He arrived at 10am, spoke at 11:30am, and said when he left, they had nearly three more hours of testimony lined up.
Morris plays soccer in Golden Gate Park in his adult league, and his young daughter plays in a youth league. He said he supports the Beach Chalet fields renovation because there just aren’t enough soccer fields available in the city.
“My daughter’s team usually practices in the outfield of a baseball field. I have to protect them from baseballs coming at them from neighboring teams,” he said.
Morris said he has played games on the Crocker-Amazon fields, which were converted to turf by the City Fields Foundation in a previous project.
“Those fields are great to play on, and there’s such a great vibe in the community around that park since they went in.”
By the end of today’s meeting, the Coastal Commission agreed with what all the other city agencies have already stated – that the project should move forward – by unanimously voting to uphold the permit for Beach Chalet renovation.
And we’re really glad. We think there’s probably lots of kids and parents that will be cheering tonight about it too.
Sarah B.
An overhead view showing the renovated parking, playground and seating area.
Instead of tall bleachers, an 18-inch raised walkway featuring built-in spectator
benches runs across the center of the fields.
Common Sense 1 – NIMBYs 0
It was a close game, but Common Sense prevailed in the end.
Awesome, do it. Next project: Resurface Kezar!!
Another sad day for the beleaguered park… poor GGP, you coulda been a contender. Next up: Pave the Polo Fields!!
Tepid “hooray”–and only because of the turf & doubled hours
Will there be hidden (and indestructible) sprinklers to keep the outdoorsmen from overnighting on the lengthy 18″ high benches?
Are there daily pick up games at these fields?
Or are they all reserved for actual team practices and stuff?
@Didier – Yes, people do play pickup soccer there but I have never seen a posted schedule per se. Usually the weekday afternoons and weekend days are filled with youth teams, and in the evenings, adult teams. But it can vary.
Bravo. Finally.
Hooray!
Boycott the Gap and Old Navy, as the Fisher family pushed this project through with all their billions. The money Rec and Park spent on getting this project rammed down the throats of San Franciscans could’ve built a glorious soccer stadium in another spot. Sad day for Golden Gate Park when the corporations hold sway.
I hope the Coastal Commission followed through on their written report and made sure that the artificial grass will not have the planned 2 feet of recycled tire pellets under it. Recycled tires aren’t allowed in landfills due to their high toxicity…. yet, Phil Ginsburg, (the blunder head director of SF Rec and Parks), claims the carcinogenic tire pellets are safe. He’s just a lawyer who happened to be Newsom’s running buddy and got a juicy appointment to his job….with no experience in park management whatsoever. He is good at making back room deals with political cronies with our public assets. His directorship will be remembered as the Dark Age for SF parks as the average citizen loses access to parks that they’ve supported with bonds/taxes all so Ginsburg can please the corporate few.
What a mess! GGP was intended to be an all-natural oasis in the middle of a city, but it continues to be slowly absorbed into the urban surroundings. The eastern part of the park was intended to be heavily recreational (de young, CAS, Big Rec, Kezar) with the western part being wild and untamed. At this rate there will be condos weaved through the park like the presidio in no time. I remember a few years back GGP was considering going up for landmark status which would of “freezed” the park in it’s current state. That would have prevented those problematic bike lanes from going in and now this. Park & rec can’t care for a jem like GGP and are all about squeezing every penny out of that beautiful park. Ex: The over the top outside lands music festival which literally fences off half of the park for a month and destroys the grass and shrubs.
GGP must obtain landmark status to save it from a city that doen’t appreciate it and uses it like a fair grounds. The same thing happened in NYC in the 80s. Central Park was abused and not taken care of properly, with brown grass and a thinning tree canopy until the city got it landmark status. The horse stables have been crumbling away for over a decade and there still is no plan of action. The same thing needs to happen here in SF, as politicians will always will choose money over what is right.
PUT GOLDEN GATE PARK UP FOR LANDMARK STATUS BEFORE ITS BUTCHERED!!!
GGP was intended to be an all-natural oasis in the middle of a city
Well, that explains the artificial waterfalls and fake rocks, then.
As one of those evil parents with kids who play soccer, I am pretty psyched.
I am concerned about the old tire pellets, though. We’ve played on fields like that before and that $hit’s kind of dirty and stinky.
A sad day. This project should never have seen the light of day. Each step of the way decision-makers let politics and cronyism rule. These fields are toxic and put our children at risk. The night lights will harm the wildlife and the enjoyment of the dark skies at Ocean Beach. Thousands of residents opposed this development, and experts gave sound, scientific reasons why it should not be approved. Viable alternatives were proposed. Nevertheless, the City Hall “family” and City Fields Foundation have held sway.
The good news is that it’s not over. There’s still a court case challenging the Environmental Impact Report. Here’s hoping cooler heads will prevail.
It’s kind of sad but highly entertaining watching the opponents to this project flounder in their attempts to derail it.
Kayvaan don’t worry, you’ll be entitled for some level of environmental protection soon. Don’t you know that kids are an endangered species in SF?
I recognize that this now is a fait accompli, but here’s a summary of the cogent arguments against:
1. Money: $6 million now and $200,000/year for project and artificial turf replacement costs. For dramatically less money, the City could install proper grass fields with gopher prevention and drainage that could be played on full time.
2. Adults, not kids: This is a classic bait and switch because promoters only talk about youth soccer but 80% of the increased playing time will be for adult leagues at night.
3. More money: Adults pay to play. So Parks and Rec spends “capital” money off one budget line they aren’t responsible for, but they put a bit more money into the operational budget that they do care about. This is no way to run a city.
4. The Golden Gate Park Master Plan: It expressly requires the western edge of the park to be kept “pastoral” and “sylvan”: turning the western end of the park into an artificial turf lit-up athletic facility is exactly the opposite.
5. Quality of play: Artificial turf results in inferior play (the ball just skids), joint and foot injuries, and staph infections. In the west end of Golden Gate Park, when the ground is often wet, you get better traction and fewer injuries with cleats in grass than with sneakers on wet rubber.
6. Drinking water: Water from directly underneath the soccer fields will soon be pumped up for use in western San Francisco, and the Environmental Report did not review the impact of dozens of tons of ground up tires leaching their toxins into our drinking water.
7. Traffic: No impact? Hah!
8. Light effect: Constant fog reflects the light everywhere.
9. Schools: City policy encourages use of school facilities during non-school hours, but this was ignored.
10. Golden Gate Park: It bears the brunt of millions of people every year: there is a limit to its carrying capacity and people should be invited elsewhere, such as to McLaren Park.
Great news. I am shocked common sense prevailed. I look forward to playing pickup soccer games, league games, and practicing with my kids for years to come. Together with the remodel of the Murphy Windmill and cottage, the soccer field project should also help reduce the ‘creepiness’ factor that has plagued the southwest corner of GGP for years.
WOW! In a world that is really needing to go green in light of weather change, crazies have decided to plant plastic turf because maintenance of sod is problematic. San Francisco should be ashamed.
Hooray for more petty crime and light pollution! My back window looks out at that area. I’m so glad I live near the ocean to see bright lights. Thanks!
A pretty awesome display of govt power in ramroding this through. It only took so long because of opposition to it. The weak and spineless Rec & Park Commission and SF Planning Commission ignored the governing document for GG Park, that would be the GGP Master Plan which said lighting can only be installed for safety purposes, not to turn day into night. So from the getgo, this project was a massive violation of City policy by being a massive violation of the text and spirit of the GGP master plan.
And when Michael Krasney of Forum asked Ginsburg why it shouldn’t be put to a vote, he said that wasn’t necessary.
So the powers that be ignore the park’s master plan and then make sure – short of getting 50,000 signatures to put it on the ballot – it’s not on the ballot where the ppl of SF could have a say in this. All the hearings were public comments were given were a joke because Ginsburg worked with soccer coaches to have thousands of kids testify for it.
It’s convenient to be able to ignore master plans that essentially prohibit the massive changes you want and it’s convenient to keep the power to do the massive changes in only a few people’s hands.
They knew better than to put this on the ballot because democracy – real democracy, not the hearings that were jokes with Ginsburg’s antics – would probably have sinked this thing once voters realized how this thing was a massive violation of the park’s master plan (finished in 1998 after 10 years of work on it including lots of citizen input).
Don Fisher scores from the grave while the environment of GGP takes a shot to the heart.
YAY! I think it’s great that kids won’t have to play on shitty fields filled with holes that aren’t even available all the time because the grass has to grow back. More playing time, better seats, better lighting, renovated bathrooms are all great things to be happening. Golden Gate Park is not “natural” to begin with – it was created from sand dunes 100 years ago. I’m fully in favor of this.
Normally I would not be in favor of putting artificial turf fields in Golden Gate park. However, having coached youth soccer for 7 years and having my kids participate in soccer, lacrosse and baseball, I know how difficult it is to get field time for any team in San Francisco and am happy that these fields will be made more useful.
Many other fields in the city have already been changed to turf. In most of those areas area close by remain natural grass fields. The same is true at the Beach Chalet. The whole West end of the park is not being covered in turf despite what the opponents argue. There is still grass on the Golden Gate Golf Course and the Polo Fields remain grass after being completely re worked. At Crocker Amazon there are turf fields as well as grass field. Even Kimbell has a small grass field on the other side of Geary. In my mind the fields in other parts of the City are less desirable. Most are very close to heavy transportation corridors and are subject to bus, truck and auto exhaust. The Beach Chalet fields should have better air quality as the prevailing winds are from the West and North.
Kids and adults in the City need additional places to participate in team sports. The Beach Chalet fields have been there since about 1933 as a place for organized sports. They are a great resource, but the weather makes them unusable for a good portion of the year.
Great. All-night stadium lighting. That’s going to be oh-so-tranquil in the park now.
This city’s politicians are just corrupt scum that love money. It’s not about extending play time for kids, it’s about extending their dollar. F**K Park & Rec and the supes for what they have done.
I don’t understand how anyone can think it’s OK to pave over 10 acres of Golden Gate Park and add 60 foot high sports lights. Golden Gate Park, esp. the western part, was designed to enable us to enjoy nature…grass, birds, trees, night skies sprinkled with stars. So now what do we have: plastic grass laced with toxic tire crumb; high-intensity lights; fewer animals; dimmer stars. John McLaren must be rolling over in his grave. It’s especially disheartening b’cse there are other places where these fields could have been built with much less disruption. SF used to be the City that knew how. No more.
Another comment: In case you haven’t seen the news, heat trapping carbon dioxide in our earth’s atmosphere reached levels today that haven’t been seen in millions of years. The removal of carbon dioxide sequestering grass and trees and it’s replacement with plastic and ground up rubber tires that off-gas toxic fumes adds to this damage. Every single one of us is responsbile for doing as much as possible to clean up the mess we’re creating.
Shame on the City’s leaders, the California Coastal Commission and all their supporters including Sen. Feinstein, Congresswoman Pelosi, Senator Mark Leno and Assemblyman Phil Ting. Let’s send them a message that we won’t take this any more. Call them, email them, buttonhole them at meetings, and ask them why they supported this environmental disaster.
Oh, Robert. No one is “paving” over anything. Golden Gate Park is not just for the precious birds. It is for people too. The birds will be fine, trust me. The park has hosted recreational activities and sporting activities since it opened. On the very site in question, soccer and other field sports have been enjoyed by thousands of residents, young and old, for many decades. Participants in sports & physical recreation are more healthy than those who do not. Do we want healthy citizens or not? McLaren was a Scotsman so he probably loved soccer. There will still be plenty of overgrown bushes and trees in the western end for all to enjoy or skulk about.
Finally, now that you’ve blamed a renovated soccer field with causing Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and the demise of life on earth….well you either win the argument, or a prize for best hyperbole on the internet.
Don’t forget we owe this project to Stupidvisor MAR! He claims he’s an environmentalist but when the vote comes around to stand up to the Phil Ginsburg privatization machine, MAR caves everytime!
To the establishment parrots on this thread, which represents at least 70% of the posts ;
The coordinated, effective violent destruction of the destroyers of public lands, has the highest probability of being effective, and ipso facto will ultimately be the only option left. This ongoing hybridization between the corporate state and the political state continues its rapid flow into our communities unabated (supervisor/congressional districts being the logical sub structures of our communities).
I know establishment types don’t like obscure metaphors, vernaculars, and that is all the more reason to wield them in posts such as this.
.o/
I hadn’t heard that Feinstein, Ting, Pelosi, and Leno supported it. Robert (or anyone else) what is your source for this info? I knew Mar had supported it (no more support for Mar from me – he didn’t get my vote in his re-election race because of his support for this when I did vote for him when he was first elected – I will work to defeat him from now on).
Robert, I think if we invest in kids sports, there is a better chance that they grow up to lead healthy lifestyle, thus depending less on cars. Should be a good thing for the environment, dwarfing the negative of the removal of some grass. Right?
BTW, have any of the opponent of the fields seen the state of Little Rec fields? It’s absolutely terrible: sprinklers sticking out, patches of grass missing, standing water after rain, etc. How can anybody say that it’s better than the artificial field is beyond me.
Re. Bill’s question: At the CCC hearing, several Commissioners stated they’d received letters of support from Feinstein et al. In addition, the Staff Report contains letters from these legislators supporting the project.
Has it occurred to anyone else that if the folks who created the GGNRA several decades ago had tried to do it today, they probably would have failed? As songmeister Leonard Cohen said: “I’ve seen the future brother, it is murder.”
Eric, Replacing natural grass with artificial turf is tantamount to replacing the grass with asphalt. This was not a win-lose situation. The fields could have been renovated and gopher proofed for a lot less money than this project will cost. And if this project is really for kids, why are there going to be lights on until 10 pm 365 days/year? Not for the kids, that’s for sure.
This project is a multimillion dollar development that will permanently alter the western edge of Golden Gate Park and the adjoining Ocean Beach area. For what??? A few more hours of play time? Given all the alternative sites that could be built, including W. Sunset and McLaren Park, there was no need for this project. By all accounts, this part of the park was intended to be as much like nature as possible. Concrete, plastic, tire crumbs and 150,000 watts of light do not meet that definition. Are we living in a world of so much artifice that we can’t perceive the difference between grass that needs to be mowed and plastic turf that needs to be cleaned with soap and water? How sad, how very, very sad.
And what kind of message does this send to our kids and grandkids? That artificial everything is an improvement over nature? That’s not a world I want my kids to inherit. And let’s not forget that the fields are toxic. Do you want your children swallowing and inhaling carbon black, phthalates, and heavy metals? For reasons known only to those who voted for this debacle, good science, common sense and a real concern for the environment were trumped by the will of a small number of elitists. How sad, how very, very sad.
Oh, and thank you for the prize for the best hyperbole on the ‘net.
We’re a rich City and can afford grass. I hate turf. We pay cops 50% more than nearby cities, jail nonviolent offenders at 50k per, spend $200 million on homeless most of whom aren’t from here, we have tons of money and then can’t afford real grass? I’m fine with it being lit and open 24/7, but please make it natural grass.
Here’s another reason the Park should not be paved over:
According to an article in the New York Times: The Earth’s soil “contains almost one-third of all living organisms, according to the European Union’s Joint Research Center. . . Soil is the foundation on which the house of terrestrial biodiversity is built. Without robust soil ecosystems, the world’s food web would be in trouble.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/opinion/sunday/the-hidden-world-of-soil-under-our-feet.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Why is this project inappropriate? Let us count the ways.
SAN FRANCISCO FACES RECORD RECREATION DEFICIT!!! PER CAPITA PLAYING TIME COLLAPSES! GOAL SHORTAGES ALREADY REPORTED! EXTRA EXTRA!!! READ ALL ABOUT IT!
Of course I jest, but the lust people have for this project is a little weird. Especially at $14M, and considering that we have plenty of other more pressing issues in this neighborhood/city/state/country/planet.
For full disclosure I have a view of this area and have lived within a few blocks of this location for over a decade. 60ft high stadium lights seem way out of place on a variety of levels. But this is not just a NIMBY issue- people come from all over the region and world to enjoy this wild and more natural side of the city of San Francisco. Think of the campfires on the beach where one could feel a sense of escape if not for the massive glow of this recreation megacomplex (stadium lights for 3 fields = megacomplex). Ocean Beach and GGNRA bears impressive wildlife- especially birds, and there’s simpy no question that this is going to have real ecological impacts beyond the aesthetic damage.
And so what if the Coastal Commission got bought and sold (again)? If you think that’s a victory for common sense you may want to grab your plate and come on over the adults’ table to try and catch up. It’s a victory for shady deals and influence peddlers who have evidently ginned up the modern huns (i.e. the new hordes of suburbanites) with no small amount of success.
As a surfer would much rather the city allocate $14M to DE-PAVING the avenues instead of further paving GGP. But I guess soccer-as-recreation is more important than the many thousands of people who surf OB each year and our very real need for more permeable surface within the city’s western watersheds to reduce toxic runoff at the beach. If you don’t know that’s already a real and sometimes acute health problem for a big population of us who have a passion for surfing as “recreation”. Portions of the beach have been closed in the last year because the drainage right behind this field is overflowing during rains and spilling significant amounts of raw sewage onto the sand and into the sea. The a new expanse of astrosurf is going to exacerbate that situation as we get sea level rise and increasing extreme weather in the coming decades.
The soccer lobby seems to be saying they can’t enjoy themselves without creating new tax burdens and additional pollution problems for people already dealing with a physical health risk. Call it NIMBY if you want, but what we need in this community are people ready to actually address pollution and protect what precious little open space we have left inside the city limits.
At least that’s the community I stand for.
Besides: isn’t there better space away from sensitive coastal habitat? I’m all for creative solutions for the currently situation of the fields, but I’m not willing to accept any old urbanization boondoggle of my local park as an alternative.
Oh, and if it matters I have a kid who could definitely use these fields. But I’m not so selfish as to pit his recreational needs against the integrity of the coastal ecosystem and try to justify it as somehow doing it “for the children”. As messed up as the habitat is around here, there is a still a reasonable pulse of biodiversity and ecosystems services happening along the western edge of San Francisco. And I suggest to everyone that even in its degraded form the OB habitat zone is really valuable to a lot of people who live adjacent to it, and the millions of people who visit it as well. In that context the soccer moms represent a very narrow set of interests. What about the 90+% of us who use the park and don’t *gasp* play soccer?
And if you can’t appreciate what’s special about the environment out here that then I worry about the values you are passing along to your children. They already face a tough future in large part because of the increasingly troubled state of the environment, let’s don’t model short-sighted behavior in your own back yard. There is an excellent chance that Susie/Billy isn’t going to play pro soccer. What they are really going to need when they grow up are principles, and I don’t mean the Bend It Like Beckham variety.
You betcha’ George. I especially like your last paragraph where you ask what this project teaches our children about what’s important. The legal case challenging this project is ongoing. Let’s all hope for the best.
What upsets me most about this debate is the crazy rhetoric coming from both sides. I am in favor of the turf fields even though I would prefer that my kids play on grass. Even if SF had the money to maintain grass fields they would not be available for the same number of hours because of weather issues and the limited amount of playing hours that any grass field can withstand.
Anyone who believes there are more surfers at Ocean Beach on an annual basis than people playing soccer in just Golden Gate park is ignoring the facts. There may be thousands of surfers who use the beach each year. However, there are probably over a 1000 people who use the current Beach Chalet fields on a single weekend.
San Francisco is an urban environment with a good selection of open space and outdoor areas. Providing places for the residents to engage in recreational activities keeps them from having to travel/drive to neighboring counties where facilities are more accessible. The harm to the environment caused by additional travel outside of SF probably offsets the environmental impact of the new turf fields. I have not been able to find any data, but there are up sides and down sides to every urban project.
All the complaints about the lights appear to ignore the fact that the lights will not be on 24 hours a day. I’m not sure what the cut off time for the lighting is scheduled to be, but I doubt it is later than 10:00 p.m.
These fields are not being installed on pristine land. For the most part they are hidden behind thick brush and are only seen by those who are going to use the fields for organized activities. Walking up JFK or MLK from the beach you would never see these field.
I would be opposed to putting these turf fields at Crissy Field, in the Presidio or at the Polo Fields. However, I believe the Beach Chalet location with reasonable access and hidden from most non-users by heavy brush is one of the better options.
Joe, those of us opposed to this project in Golden Gate Park support soccer, especially for kids, as much as anyone. But this development in the Golden Gate Park is not appropriate. More important, we proposed an alternative site at West Sunset which even the City’s Environmental Impact Report said was a better choice since it provides comparable playing time without impacting the historical and naturalistic qualities of Golden Gate Park. That’s why we’re all so frustrated and dismayed that the decision makers have OK’d this project. It makes no sense to destroy 10 acres of grass in Golden Gate Park and erect 60 foot high lights adjoining the beach when there’s a comparable site that doesn’t create serious problems. We’ve never, never been told why W. Sunset was not acceptable. Sure, hours of playing time were thrown around, but they were not substantiated. And based on our calculus, playing time with the win-win alternative would have been as good as, if not better, than the proposed project.
And let’s not forget the toxic turf. The alternative we proposed for W. Sunset was artificial turf with organic, non-toxic cushioning. The fields that were approved in Golden Gate Park will use tons of ground up rubber tires that get in the mouths, lungs, and under the skin of players. Even Po Bronson, Director of the Viking Soccer League, said he comes home with black underclothes after a soccer game. There are many harmful chemicals in this tire crumb that are carcinogenic, disrupt endocrine function, can be neurotoxic, and cause respiratory problems. Why, oh why, would a parent want his kid playing on this stuff several days/week for many years?
Soccer is important, but safe soccer is even more important. By sending our children out to play on these fields we’re needlessly putting them at risk. The long-term consequences of these fields can be devastating. It’s just not worth it.
I also wish they weren’t using the tires. My son has played on fields like that before and they stink and he came home covered in black smudges and complaining that his eyes were stinging. It just looked terribly toxic.
I’m not against the entire development but can’t we still push for a less toxic surface?
kayvaan you’re right, it is terribly toxic.
Below is an excerpt from a consultant’s report was submitted on March 28, 2006 by Ardea Consulting (Woodland, CA) to the Turfgrass Producers International (East Dundee, IL) that was titled, An Assessment of Environmental Toxicity and Potential Contamination from Artificial Turf using Shredded or Crumb Rubber. The report discusses the toxicity of tire rubber and small rubber particles from tires.
It’s a 43 page report that can be read here:
http://www.ardeacon.com/pdf/Assessment_Environmental_Toxicity_Report.pdf
Here’s what the report says about the toxicity of tire and tire particles on aquatic organisms (page 17):
********* start of excerpt ********
Aquatic Toxicity
Laboratory research has been performed to determine whether substances toxic to aquatic
organisms could be leached from tire rubber. Both whole tires were soaked in water, and tire pieces were used. Organisms were exposed to just the leachate, or were exposed to the water with the tire rubber present.
In one study, tires were cut into 5 to 10-cm pieces with a ratio of 200 g of tire material to 1 L of water. Almost all rainbow trout fry exposed in this manner died in the first 24 hours and most of the remainder died within the following 24 hours. Water was replaced and same tire scraps were extracted over a 52-day period, leading to similar mortality throughout the entire period. When the tests were repeated with the same water, but the tire scraps removed, the water was still toxic to fish indicating the toxic substance from the tire was water soluble (Goudey and Barton 1992).
In a related study, Daphnia and Ceriodaphnia, two species of freshwater invertebrates commonly used for toxicity testing, were exposed in small containers with 1 scrap of tire and 10 mL of water. A single organism was exposed within each test vessel. Ceriodaphnia were highly sensitive with 100% mortality occurring within 24 hrs. Daphnia were not as sensitive, and showed different sensitivities to different brands of tires. Two tire types had no discernable effect, two other brands caused 100% mortality and an additional two brands produced 60 to 70% mortality after 48 hours. The results were the same whether or not the tire pieces remained within the test vessels (Goudey and Barton 1992).
********* end of excerpt *********
So yeah thanks to particular politicians and some heads of City agencies that pushed this, we now have over 300 tons of tiny toxic oil-based tire particles in our lovely GG Park – a big area of it that will anything but lovely if this thing happens.
When one reads the excerpt above, it’d be surprising if your son’s eyes weren’t stinging from this toxic material. I do hope we all make it a point to punish harshly every politician that had anything to do with pushing this toxification of GG Park.
Our family lives right next door to Kimbell Field in the Western Addition and avoid it because (a) it stinks, (b) everytime we go there we come home with tiny black plastic pieces stuck to our clothes and shoes, and (c) when you fall down on the grass it hurts, really hurts, because, well, it’s not real grass. Here’s what needs to be emphasized and made clear: this material used to line the field is extremely toxic and has no place in our public park, especially when it is right across the street from the ocean. This plastic material will inevitably find its way into the water, (not to mention the food chain) and goes against everything this so-called Green City stands for. The slant of this article is unfortunate, in that it looks at the issue without considering its wider ramifications.