Why I Say Yes to Turf
Posted: January 15th, 2009 | Author: James Glave | Filed under: Global Warming, Plastic, Transformational Change, top | Tags: vancouver magazine bowen island turf war artificial tur |
UPDATED: Readers of this blog may not all be familiar with a controversy that has swept my community in recent months. A plan is on the table to build a new artificial-turf sports field on the grounds of our community school. The proposal has sharply divided Bowen Island. For background, see the Bowen Island Municipality web site , and also the Vancouver magazine feature [.PDF File, 1MB] that I wrote about the project. Recently, someone asked on a public forum why someone who has so publicly identified himself as “green” is supporting the project. I wrote this post in response.
Many say they oppose the proposed artificial-turf field because of its perceived health risks, or its cost, or its relatively limited life expectancy, or its proposed location in a schoolyard where trees now stand, or the ecological burdens associated with plastic, its primary constituent material.
A side of me wonders, though, if these concerns are in fact mere supporting bullet points on a larger slide. To many of these opponents, I suspect the field represents something bigger than all of these complaints put together: It is a high-profile symbolic attack on the community’s treasured ruralism. It is a nuclear bomb in freefall with “urbanism” painted on the nose cone.
I haven’t been here long—only a few years—but it’s been long enough to come to love this place and everything that makes it what it is: The “dog of the year” float in the Bowfest parade each August. The used clothing, toy, and sports-gear fundraisers that roll a year’s worth of craigslist haggling into single day or weekend event. The volunteers at our wonderful library who rubber-stamp ink butterflies onto my kids’ hands. The rhubarb Pat sells from a wheelbarrow in front of the building center. The metalworker who spot-welded my stainless-steel lunchbox set back together, for $5 (thanks again, Peter). The self-serve fresh eggs in the fridge at Shady Acres Farm. The annual salmon release at the hatchery. The apple festival. And on and on. These are people and experiences and relationships and transactions that you won’t likely find in any of our region’s tract-home and strip-mall hinterlands, where the nights echo with car alarms instead of owls. These experiences emerge from the mutual trust, respect, and accountability that you find in a smaller, more intimate community. They are what urban planners are working desperately to replicate in other places.
Bowen Island is a respite from the world across the channel that seems increasingly ruled by liability, populated with sterile franchises and canned experiences, and suffused with the kind of soul-draining manufactured authenticity that you order from a Restoration Hardware website. Our little touches—our commitment to self-sufficiency, volunteerism, and our admiration for small-town quirk—remind us what is real, and what matters. These things constitute the very core of our identity. They are why all of us call this place home.
But these qualities do not in my mind excuse us from our responsibility to do what we can to help avert the single greatest challenge that has ever faced humanity. Our rurality does not give us a “hall pass” to opt out of responding to a global emergency that I promise you will touch each one of our lives in the coming years.
I’m sorry if it seems like I keep sounding an alarm, but that’s what you’re supposed to do in an emergency. “When you talk to the people at the sharp end of the climate business, scientists and policy-makers alike,” writes Gwynne Dyer in the introduction to his new book, “there is an air of suppressed panic in many of the conversations.” It’s so far a mostly-invisible threat, but it’s right here in plain sight. Climate change is going to hit us in ways we can’t even yet imagine right here on our island—it’s going to force us into moral dilemmas for which there are no winners, only wrenching compromises.
As a community, we famously band together in times of crisis. We open our wallets wide when one of the school custodians is battling cancer, or when the seniors’ housing complex needs a new plumbing system, or when one of our family’s children suffers severe burns and needs special care. Many of us volunteer for the fire department, and drop the fork mid-bite when the pager sounds. We’re pretty good at responding like this, at taking care of our own. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do.
But I fear we are ignoring a crisis of staggering proportions that will eventually, inevitably reach our shores. We are ignoring it today because we believe that it’s someone else’s fault, or we feel that someone else is working on the problem. We are ignoring it because it doesn’t yet have a familiar face, like our smiling custodian. And perhaps also because we gather that some of the things we could be doing to help fix it don’t neatly jibe with the leafy milieu that we defend so passionately.
As much as I love our rurality and character, to me it is a decidedly mixed blessing. We space ourselves quite far apart in this Eden. In a perfectly honest effort to connect more closely with nature, we tuck our homes deep into the woods. It’s private and peaceful out here. Yet—while some of us do work from home—it also means the vast majority of us remain utterly dependent on often-heavy vehicles, and an even heavier ferry, to travel great distances to shop, work, learn, and play. Those vehicles will realistically not be electrified for many years to come. And so, when you look at the data, and compare it with similar communities, our contribution to the problem—by very dint of our rurality—is enormous. Though I haven’t seen an analysis, I suspect our forestlands do not come close to soaking up all the heat-trapping gases coming out of our tailpipes.
I feel in my heart that we need to own this one. I believe we need to take some responsibility that some of the aspects of our place that we hold dear are, in fact, fanning the flames. We are not “greener” than mainlanders just because we look that color to those peering our way from across the channel. When it comes to the challenge that looms largest overhead, the hue is a tragic illusion. Because in reality, we’re browner.
Let me say here that I’m just as complicit as anyone else here. I like privacy as much as the next person—my forested property is almost an acre. And yes, I drive. But I’ve since arrived at a place in my head where I am ready to take some responsibility for my choices. Most of my friends think I’m a Chicken Little. They’re just not there yet. They tolerate me—they admire my energy and enthusiasm—but they’re interested in other things. That’s fine, I have other passions, too. I love to eat, for one thing. I love to kayak, to read with the kids, to hang out with my tolerant pals on games night with a bottle of wine, or three.
Some opponents have characterized the turf project as a failure of our collective imagination. If we work at it enough, they argue, we can come up with an alternate solution that is more in keeping with how we do things around here. One of the protest signs that went up last year near the proposed project site seemed to articulate this with the single word “hope.”
So let’s set aside the thousands hundreds of hours of work put in by volunteers and local professionals exploring the options, volunteers and professionals who love this community passionately. And permit me to do some hoping of my own for a moment. My dream for our island is that the more we grow—and the fact of the matter is that we will grow —that we also grow even more “local” and self-reliant along the way. That even with more people, we retain the connectedness that defines us.
I also dream that we will become increasingly resilient to the dramatic changes to our lifestyles that lie ahead. I think we can redefine what “rural” means, by owning the idea as much through the strength of our relationships as our rambling country lanes and 10-acre lots each dotted with a single-family home. The new information we now have about the mess we are all in compels us to revisit many of the patterns and entitlements that we hold sacred, things that we see as our “right.”
It also compels us to prepare and adapt, and we are already starting this by building a desperately-needed new fire station. This is critical infrastructure, as important as setting aside spaces to grow much of our own food, and putting in place systems to harvest potable rainwater from our rooftops. Given the sheer scale of this global crisis, and the speed at which it approaches us, we need to think more broadly about infrastructure to include a broad range of community amenities here on the island.
It’s understandable that many of us would feel affronted and offended by a turf field. Yes, you might find one in the city, or in a suburb. But it urbanization? No. God help us if we someday grow big enough to attract a fast-food outlet. New amenities represent change, and they are an admission that we are growing, and that perhaps new people are coming who want to do different things, and who don’t wish to travel to the mainland on manic errand-filled days because they’re stressful and hard on families. But in my mind these facilities—like the proposed field—and the people that will use them are not the thin edge of the wedge, they are not the beginning of the end. Rather, they are individual pieces that together will create a genuine new kind of complete community , one that sends less carbon into the atmosphere because we will have almost everything we need right here and wont need to turn a key in an ignition to reach.
We need to become more than a woodsy outpost in Howe Sound, where we get to enjoy the deer and herons, but still take regular spacewalks to the jobs and activities on the mainland. It is not only possible, it is inevitable. Not only is it “the right thing to do,” but as our car-and-ferry habit gets more and more expensive, as our food gets more and more expensive, it will also be the only thing to do.
We fancy ourselves as rugged and self-reliant because we have woodstoves, chainsaws, winches, and generators. But we’re kidding ourselves. True self-sufficiency means that we have a complete community, that we have a genuinely broad range of services on the island to support our diverse and growing population. It means we have more opportunities to stay, play, learn, shop, and age “in place.” It means affordable housing. It means low-energy buildings. It means investments in infrastructure that allow us to thrive.
I will probably never play on the artificial turf field; I’m not a team sports kind of guy, and my kids haven’t shown much interest either, despite my best efforts. And for what it’s worth, I have a very complicated relationship with plastic, something I’ve written about . But I also acknowledge that our lives are surrounded by the stuff. I work out on a petroleum-based surface twice a week at our island’s Tae Kwon Do studio. I am touching it to write this story. I know all about the seabirds with bellies full of Bic lighters .
But when I think about the investments that I feel we need to start putting in place to serve our community into the coming years, to create an atmosphere of responsible self-reliance, the benefits of the proposed illuminated turf field in my mind far outweigh its aesthetic, financial, and ecological costs.
Let’s continue to build on our strengths: our couples, our singles, our seniors, our families, our youth, our volunteers. And let’s stop excusing ourselves from a growing moral obligation because we’re a “different” place blessed with an unique character. We have the same obligation to get off our asses and do something about this crisis as anyone else. The more pieces we put in place today—the richer the variety of offerings and opportunities we make available to our citizens—even if they aren’t perfect, even if some of them don’t align with our ideas of what we’re supposed to be “all about,” the stronger and more resilient we will be as we enter the coming storms.
Feb 9 Update: On January 26, Bowen Island Municipal Council voted four to three to proceed with the turf project as proposed, including roughed-in wiring and conduit for future lighting. The resolution comes with subjects concerning cost, but given the economic climate–contractors are, all of a sudden, desperate for projects–it seems likely that the turf field will actually be built. In the wake of the decision, a number of the project’s opponents have formed a fledgling grassroots organization called Rural Green. Its members “seek to live responsibly in a way that retains [their] community spirit and the natural rural lifestyle [they] cherish. “
Agreed!
Well, James. You know I love you (and John) but I strenuously disagree.
I think it’s unfair to characterize the views of those who oppose the artificial field as “these concerns are in fact mere supporting bullet points on a larger slide”. I would point out that, contrary to your assertion it is, in fact, the proponents of the artificial field who have framed their support in a much larger, ambiguous, motherhoodandapplepie way. This is amply illustrated by looking at the titles of the two competing petitions, one of which you cite. The opponents have launched an petition to augment the previous hand-signed petition presented to Council last summer. It is called “Opposed the Synthetic Grass Field at BICS”. Pretty concise and clear, I’d say. The proponents of the artificial field have their petition titled “Say Yes to Recreation on Bowen Island”. Like anyone is going to say “No” to something as supportable as that? We ARE talking about a specific, contentious project with far-reaching environmental and social implications. I think it’s important to be clear about this particular issue, in this particular geographical, social and ecological context.
Yes, there are opportunity costs for supporting this project. The fire hall upgrades and other infrastructure projects such as a community/arts centre have much more broad support and better protect those environmental vulnerabilities you correctly identify in your commentary. This is your blog, not mine. I’ll just copy what I wrote on the Care2 petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-to-turf-at-BICS
“We have so many more options to improve our existing playing field or develop others (on municipal land) and the comparatively small grant for this artificial field will look miniscule when the 10-20 year lifecycle costs are added in. We know that plastic is not good for our children. We know that plastic is a petroleum product and we are supposed to being REDUCING our consumption, not INCREASING it, with the understanding that we will have to find a place and pay for the dumping of this field every 7-8 years. Can’t we learn from the mistakes of other communities? Just say “No”. Then get on with something healthy.”
Peace, Love and Justice, babies.
As I’ve said to you before, good writing takes courage. Again, you’ve showed yours in spades. It takes a brave person to take on a taboo subject in a small town – especially in a place like Bowen where most of us aren’t willing to look deeper than what we see on the surface (or, to use a beautiful metaphor penned by VF’s James Wolcott: to get past the peroxide to the deep dark roots of things).
Well done.
I just don’t understand the need for year round outdoor team sport playing surface. As someonewho played a fall field sport in high school and university (field hockey), I spent the other seasons doing indoor and outdoor track, floor hockey, volleyball, basketball. We still had super stars who got full ride athetic scholarships in soccer and field hockey. On top of that, the proposed field is only practice size and will not significantly reduce our star soccer athletes going to town for games.
I sometimes play on the turf field at work and end up with little bits of rubber all over my socks everytime. Because I walk straight into our change rooms the ill effects of these bits of rubber is minimal, but on Bowen near the school? No thanks. A decent basketball court and the other upgrades are badly needed, but not a practice size turf pitch.
I support lighting the field as long as we also put in lights on the tennis courts and basketball court. I don’t understand the crazy priority suddenly placed on soccer. It’s a fine sport and everything but it’s not the only one.
Oh, great writing, as usual. You da man!
Well, that was worth waiting for… very good, very good… I am ‘on the fence’, as I think I have said, in an admittedly pathetic attempt to avoid being punched/slapped/yelled at, et al, in some situations. I have friends who feel strongly, AND that’s O-K! It’s all good.
PLASTIC, as a word, conjures up thoughts of chinese chemicals leaching into our spring water and perhaps into our water table. (It cannot be #7 or, hmm … one of the other ones including the ‘iffy’ one)… well, you have written about this too and we all know… but now I think on it, I would like to see the chemical make-up of the blasted carpet.
I thought this was about 6-8 trees.
Last summer I saw signs reading,”Save The Trees”. Is this still an issue? ALL trees are special, yes, but, no, they will not suck up what we put out fume-wise. (gagging in the ferry line).
Anyway, I don’t have kids that will be using this but I would imagine those that do might prefer to attract games over here instead of shipping them out ‘over there’ all the time.
I have friends on the ‘nay’ side (quite strongly,eek!) and I am being a chicken, but I’m relatively new here; own a piece of the pie though, so have a say, and I say I need to know more before saying anything. (shameless fence sitter!!)
In your blog/article, you are suggesting we look at the bigger picture here on Bowen Island, and not be distracted with fighting over the small stuff in fears that will loose the floodgates on the present Eden that is our pseudo rural home?
I will educate myself on this turf thing. If it’s that big a deal to the young people and the school, it’s only a small part of the island; less space than is being cleared and built up over by King Edwards Bay… and all the other developments, pending construction.
We live on a small and beautiful part of the world here and it is frightening to see it turned into a suburb. There are, at the same time hordes of young people who could benefit from this. What do they want? They are not stupid by a long shot and are our future.
Let them vote after a short, unbiased tutorial. I wouldn’t mind sitting in.
Before I go on, (too much) I am going to contact my friend who is strongly against this and find out what’s quite so reprehensible about it.
If I hear something ghastly, I’ll put my vote in.
Good blog, as it raises the outlook on things. to the bigger picture.
Face what’s happening and deal with it. It’s unstoppable even if the turf is overruled.
We will have to become a separate country and let no one in.
(sorry, fever talking)
Thanx for this James.
Awesome article, James (but what else would anyone expect of you?). I won’t be at Saturday’s meeting… will be at the Golf Course for the first time this year!
I voted in favour of the turf (on the petition). I won’t have any kids playing on it (or the old one for that matter) but I respect the HUNDREDS of hours put in by some very dedicated islander’s and their opinion. They are not going to recommend anything that will hurt or infect their neighbours.
Also, In deference to Lisa, she has to remember where $300,000 of the municipality’s share of the cost comes from. Not from taxes but from one of our best developers on the island!
Thanks murray, I adjusted the volunteer-hours number as you suggest.
James thank you for being the voice of reason in this very sensitive issue.
Not sure I buy into the argument that an artificial turf field increases our self reliance in any way. When the world ends, as you intimate, it will be an irrelevance. Wouldn’t it be better supporting the replanting of the school field into wheat and providing exercise opportunity by drafting all the sports players in sowers and reapers - good exercise too.
If one claims that having this will reduce our emissions, it may be right. But its a zero-sum equation as visiting teams will create exactly the same amount of emissions coming to Bowen when they have to drive to H/Bay and then take the ferry.
Some proponents posit that it will be good for the economy to have more visitors - these visitors will be marginal contributors as they leg it up the hill then leg it straight back off after the game so they can return to their normality in the world.
I am neither strongly pro nor anti (although vaguely leaning to the no side by default) but arguments about emissions and economic benefit are, to me, spurious and irrelevant.
After 16 years on Bowen, I’ve seen too many “Our kids will die if we don’t have bike park, skateboard, park swimming pool, etc.” - you name it. Seems, in general, they’ve survived quite handily all these years. This is all about parental angst .
Oh dear, did I really write that , I’m becoming one of THEM
James, very well written. My challenge with all that you say here is how you tie all these important issues to accepting an artificial turf field. It’s like the in-favor petition itself, if you agree with “stay and play” then vote in favor of the turf. I agree with stay and play I do not agree with artificial turf. If you were to spend more time with me you may find I am equally or more inclined toward chicken littlism. Well, the sky is falling and filled with things artificial. I could go further, then it would become a rant. Just think, be small, be natural… everything else is an entitlement.
Hey Paul R., I’ve seen that counter-argument suggesting that visiting teams coming in from off-island will cancel out the benefits. Frankly, it’s horseshit; my kids aren’t in soccer, but I suspect that’s just not going to happen very often. Fair enough about the lights: I’m going to see them, too.
And Peter, as I say, I know it’s plastic, and I know we’re trying to get rid of the stuff. In a perfect world we’d all recruit our sports-loving families into growing wheat at BICS or failing that, source ourselves a soccer field made of hemp. We don’t live in a perfect world, and IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Please don’t tell me that you oppose this because we don’t need more plastic. Everyone involved in this knows it is an imperfect solution. The woman who has led this project volunteered part of just about every saturday this summer helping out at one of our island’s organic farms. I know because I was there with her.
My link to emissions is simply this: If we have more options to do the things we want to do here (ie play soccer on turf, which lots of people want to do), and the money is available to put these facilities in, then for god’s sakes put them in, so we one less excuse to go over there and merrily fart into the atmosphere all the way along. I’d say the same thing about the community center, and just about everything else on the books that adds options and value to the community.
The cost of a “natural” grass field, designed, built and maintained to the same level of virtual year-round, all-weather endurance as the proposed synthetic field would bankrupt us in very short order. Compare the constant specific and technical attention by highly skilled and expensive groundskeepers compared to the occasional sweeping by a purpose built vacuum-groomer machine driven by anyone capable of driving a golf-cart.
James, for me it’s not about it being plastic… its about it NOT being natural. I’d actually be in favour of the greenskeeper, even if it did cost more. It would provide employment and connect the community knowledge back to what we need to be doing is tending our beloved planet in natural ways… I’m curious, why did you volunteer at an organic farm? Was it to learn more about natural gardening? Why not a natural field for the same reason? Given your vacuum-groomer position I guess you are in favour of leaf blowers over a rake. All this said, my position remains the same. We need to return back to what is natural. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.
I think we do need to disagree. This is an era of transition we are in, and not everyone is there with you yet. To shut down something that will give joy and happiness because it it not “natural’ is a slippery slope. (Have you mothballed your own vehicle yet?) We’re just in different places on this one, and that’s totally cool.
ps death to leaf-blowers.
Looks like I mixed James and Richards comments. Sorry about that… but when I do mix the two, why don’t all the people who want to play soccer in the off season volunteer to maintain a natural field… they would also learn a great deal about maintaining our environment is natural ways. Gosh, I might even volunteer for that…
ps… family of 4.5, we’re down to one WV Golf… only used to shuttle kids on island. Mothballed the other car two years ago.
James, it seems we agree on the emission non-issue then.
My (mis?) understanding was that proponents say we have to have this because visiting teams won’t come here due to field conditions and that they always had to go there.
How about locating the field out in CRC, Cowan’s or KEB - if developers’ are going to fund it let’s put it where they are planning to put the future population. There’s a good community contribution. They’re going to cut down the trees anyway there.
Now I am really tilting at windmills!
Our field is unusable for all but a couple months of the year. Those who still want to play/practice soccer - or any other team sport - after the rains start must travel to west van to do so. And they do, in droves.
Future population growth, and amenities, should be in the cove, which should be densified as a walkable and bikeable village. (But we don’t like density because it is not “rural.”) Also, the grant that would fund the project requires that it be on School District 45 property, which means BICS. The committee looked at eight-12 other alternate sites on the property and recommended this one.
P.S. Maybe realtors should be required to get a consent form from anyone moving here that acknowledges the list of facilities NOT available and that they have to sign that they have considered this.
Then the realtors can use the “just 20 minutes to downtown” line to close the deal, because all the facilities you need are just across the water.
Yeah I know… just kidding
James, by using that argument you would support a swimming pool on Bowen. This is the one single amenity that would actually cause people not to have to travel. We cannot afford it of course. Remember many people use these trips across town for other purposes too.
There is no need for Bowen to become a totally self-sustaining community IMHO. We are too close to Vancouver and its maybe greener for us to share the already built facilities than to keep duplicating them for what are relatively small groups.
No man is an island - even if he/she lives on one.
If there was a grant available for a swimming pool — as this turf project is largely funded by grant — you bet your ozone-filtration system I would support a public swimming pool on bowen. If bowen taxpayers are shouldering the cost then I agree with you.
The money is sitting there to do this thing, it’s in the bank, but we wont do it because it involves cutting down 14 second-growth trees that kids play under, or because they’ll get cancer from the plastic, or because its not a creative enough solution.
Unless we replace the Capliano with a clipper ship, it’s not greener for bowenites to travel to vancouver’s facilities. It just isn’t. So level with me, why are you really averse to the idea of a more complete community?
James, I’m beginning to think you suffer from some cognitive dissonance. You have this blog and all this stuff about being eco, yet when I ask why you volunteered for an organic garden or suggest that those in favour of a quality off season field volunteer to maintain it. And that this volunteering may connect them to eco based practices you go strangely silent. Don’t you think it would be a good idea for all those who want a quality field volunteer to maintain it? Wouldn’t this practice connect people more to community and sustainability? Could people become better at their chosen sport if they also have to maintain the infrastructure to help them excel?
Although I do not think this qualifies as something for a ‘more complete community’ I’m not really averse to the principle of it I have no objection to the synthetic turf per se. I would have thought we had far more important things to spend the money on.
What I am averse to was the almost fait-accompli deal that was delivered by the proponents - and they nearly got it done. However many would say that the only way to get anything done is by that method because of what has happened since.
Given the existing development and development proposals, if approved, will shift the balance of population to the other side of the island there’s no reason not to build fields and another village over there. Maybe its a great marketing idea to surround the field with townhouses.
Since I do have a NIMBY issue on the lights, I would vote no purely out of selfish interest.
BTW did I ever tell you what I’d do with the Cove and Artisan Square if were King?
Sorry to go strangely silent, I’ve spend a lot of time listening and interviewing people on all sides of this, but not even a quarter of a percent of time that the volunteer community reps have. I try to listen, and I have done a lot of it on this one and arrived at the conclusions I spool together above.
From what I understand, there is no such thing as a “natural field” that can realistically be maintained by volunteers in the shoulder seasons. The problem is not lack of attention to the surface of the present field, but drainage beneath it. You’d need to completely excavate the site and regrade it and install piping and reseed it to the tune of a lot of money. And even then, there is so much demand for the field at all times that the over-usage simply kills the grass, and turns it to mud, and you are back to square one. I know that parks spends a small fortune just trying to keep the current field viable, and it is still ends up full of holes. It is a community resource that is stretched very very thin.
The project’s opponents insist the field is deserted every time they (drive) past it. That is likely because it is so frequently closed to recover due to its over-use.
It would be nice if everyone turned the calendar to October and said, collectively, “oh well, I guess outside team sports are done for the year, the earth has other things for us to enjoy now.” But they don’t. They put their cleats in the car and drive to West Vancouver. This is the reality. We need to give them another option, short of telling them not to play, which will fail.
If you want to talk about the spirit of volunteers carrying the day, call up some of the gang at the Bowen Football Club. Because they’re pretty much all volunteering the whole organization. It’s not a business for anyone. It’s a passion. But that group is feeling pretty beaten down right now, and I think that’s a shame. They’re getting bullied by a
small and vocal groupgroup with feelings as passionate as mine.who think they speak for everyone.And that is not what this island is “supposed to be about.” [Paul R. is right; this remark crosses the line. I apologize. The opponents of this project are vocal, but I have no idea if they are the minority or not.]My wife and I participated in an experimental, limited-edition CSA program this summer. We are, like you, enthusiastic about growing our own food on our own property — the garden around the eco-shed is largely edible - but also about giving as many opportunities as possible for local growers to succeed and thrive. We would like to share what we learn via the bowen2020.ca wiki. You are very welcome to contribute an article there yourself if you like.
That’s the pot calling the kettle black. “They’re getting bullied by a small and vocal group who think they speak for everyone.“ - And are the soccer folks not a small and vocal group that are speaking for themselves and a like-minded minority?
That’s how these conversations degenerate. I`m outta here
It’s not the soccer club that is leading this, Paul. It’s the muni, thriough parks and rec, and the school district. The club was invited to join the conversation as “stakeholders” — because they were obvious beneficiaries of the field. I’ve done the research ans this holds up.
Keeping a professional groundskeeper as a pet to allow some to feel rural is beyond expensive. The alternative: a significantly lower skill set required to pilot a turf machine. This task is something anyone could pickup in an afternoon. Given the labour market available, this choice makes sense.
Richard, I’m curious why you would consider a good groundskeeper a pet. Interesting view of the world. One that I certainly hope is in decline. I was trying to take a more positive view and suggesting that if those who want a quality field, that is also available on the shoulder seasons, they should pay for it themselves or put together a field maintenance association where they take their passionate energy and volunteer. My guess is there is at least 100 families who are committed to a quality field. These 100 families should each volunteer 52 hours a year (1 hr per week is very small) to maintain the field. With a natural upgrade [irrigation upgrade included (and I'm sure we could find municipal money for that if it isn't already available)] and 5200 hrs of available volunteer effort should keep the field in pretty darn good shape.
Peter you have obviously chosen to miss the point. Oh well.
There is enough very well substantiated data in this argument from many incredibly well informed people on the so called ‘plastic turf’ field to publish at least five readable books. Most of this, while interesting to academics, wastes time and inevitably leads to the building of whatever was originally presented as being as good as vegetables for kids. Anything that relies on scientific and monitory support to be realized will ALWAYS be completed. It’s merely a matter of continual adjustment until the so called ‘facts’ look acceptable.
THIS IS ABOUT ‘PERSONAL PREFERENCES’ OF ISLANDERS. IF ENOUGH OF US DON’T WANT THIS PLASTIC PERVERSION ON THE ISLAND THEN IT IS THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATIVE DUTY TO KILL IT!
James, while I disagree with proponents’ insistence that an artificial field is the only viable solution, if they can raise the funds privately, including installation, maintenance and disposal, — then fine. Like other club amenities, residents have a choice to join, pay for the upkeep, or not to join.
If they can locate it where the rest of us, who consider it a bit of an abomination for varied reasons, are not forced to enjoy it’s ambiance every time we drive to the Cove — it hopefully will fade into Bowen history as an “out-of-sight”, “out-of-mind” issue.
My bigger concern, related to sustainability and “being green” is this: I believe that small communities such as ours need to seriously re-evaluate how much of nearby urban intrastructure, amenities and services we should be attempting to duplicate in our small footprint. This approach of cloning communities surrounding urban centres with the same amenities must have a more detrimental impact on our local environment than an occasional trip in a car, ferry or bus — 1 hour away.
Cars and travel are not the only measure of our “carbon footprint” that should be considered when making decisions affecting the character and livability of our community. I believe most people would continue to travel off island anyway if only for change of scenery and something different to do. Should we bring more of what people do and visit on the mainland back to Bowen in the form of facilities, amenities, services and franchises — where does it stop - how is that Green?
I truly believe that the destinations of choice in the future will be those who manage (against overwhelming odds) to retain their native, natural and cultural identities. This urbanized homogenization of communities the world over is a blight!
My childhood home of Sechelt is a good example of bad community choices. It used to have a unique character and local products — now it is utterly swamped in big box stores, cineplexes, trinket kiosks and national franchises. I still try to appreciate it but it is so different and less than what it was - in my opinion. People want to enjoy an authentically local experience when they visit. Let’s see how we can achieve that while still providing the convenience of essential and necessary services on-island.
Many see the artificial field as the thin-edge of creeping (no, galloping) urbanization and, to the nature nuts, as another insult to Mother Earth in a never-ending series of insults.
Call it irrational or tell people to “get real” but for example — if a small, vocal group of “say-no-to-everything” didn’t advocate for preservation of Stanley Park way back then — yuppies wouldn’t be taking their power-walk in nature every morning and the skyline would be very different. Many examples of this. In times ahead, the “no and slow” faction will be appreciated rather than reviled by our future community leaders for preserving the treasures of tomorrow.
My thoughts, for what its worth.
Wynn
When there is so much ’silence’ from the school admin people who worked on this thing and our admin people who are supposed to be listening, I get a sinking feeling that this field is going to be built and that this discussion is irrelevant. I’ll be tremendously disappointed if this is manipulated to a point where it ‘looks’ like there isn’t enough real resistance to the project and it goes ahead.
As Van so clearly articulated, this NOT about money, it is NOT about science, it is NOT about being green. It should be perfectly clear to everyone by now what it is really all about. Van and others have nailed the reasons for opposing the field. (reread the above with an open heart and a receptive imagination.)
I lived in Deep Cove for several years, starting back when it still could be called a fishing ‘village’. Nothing that was added over twenty or so years enhanced the ‘village’ atmosphere and today it resembles any one of a thousand small communities with sidewalks and streetlights and no anchoring in the bay. Ironically, the only thing that added charm and richness was the little theatre and art gallery. We could learn something from it. Wisely, they did not attempt to make the building serve five different uses. I left when they extended the diesel bus schedule to run too late past midnight.
Wynn, that is a great comment. I think we have more in common than we know. I want to respond, but before I do, I want to try and find out a bit more about what happened in Sechelt. Seems like an excellent comparison with a few different twists. Give me a couple of days.
I look forward to your views, James.
Another thought about the subject of “change”. I know I was a little ticked by the no petition introduction that stated….”those who say no to everything for the sake of saying no….”.
Um, no.
Those of us who have lived on the island for more than 3 or 4 years have witnessed a LOT of changes to this island — some I consider positive and some not — but got them anyway.
Over the last 10 years in particular (I’ve been here for about 14 yrs), the pace and face of change on Bowen has been considerable in the areas of both public and private development, and accelerating. For those who moved here less than 5 years ago, with the exception of a construction boom of private housing and developments — maybe not so much change.
It may explain why people see the issue of accepting change so differently.
It seems a bit disrespectful to me to dismiss the concerns of longer term residents as “no-sayers to everything new”. I think it is more accurate to say that not all change is good change — if the community we all love is to be recognizable in the next 10 years. And people know this — they are not stupid and not short-sighted in their view — they plan to be here 10, 20, 30 years hence and want to still love Bowen.
Wynn
Wynn, I respect yours views and can see where you are coming from, however, after living on the island for 30 years and raising a family here, I feel change is progress. Bowen has always been very cautious in regards to change and prehaps the newer residents are speeding the process up a little and that personally makes me happy. I am very involved in recreation and feel it is part of our healthy lifestyle as a community. Our family spent a total of 20 years with 3 boys playing in the West Vancouver Soccer Club and of course baseball, which half their games where played here in beautiful Snug Cove. Now just don’t get me started on that swimming pool.
Hi James,
An excellent bit of writing, and I must say I agree with you whole heartedly. The turf really is not the issue, nor is it the bell weather of the direction Bowen will take in the future. Rather, it appears to be a flash point around which opposing island sensibilities can gather. Frankly, whether we go synthetic turf or natural is not going to make any difference in our future on Bowen, what will make a difference is a thousand decisions that gradually lead to less GHG emissions locally and less reliance on trips to the city for work, play, recreation, shopping, education, and well, daily life. Whether islanders (long standing or new) like it or not, we need to do things differently, and simply trying to get everyone to just do things the old way and hope it gets better is not going to work.
I would like to respectfully challenge Wynn, who has articulated nicely some of the perspective of long time islanders, and their hesitation about change. Looking back in time, this coast had very little change for thousands of years. In the last 75 years, Bowen as seen substantial change, but nothing as dramatic as the last ten years. So it is not hard to understand the concern about change
I found Wynn’s comments about Sechelt particularly appropriate. We currently live in Whistler and will be moving to Bowen to semi-retire in a year or so. That makes us newcomers and the last thing we should be doing is telling long timers what to do. So consider this a perspective rather than advice. When we were searching for a place to retire to, we wanted to be accessible from Vancouver, in a climate that would support gardening for much of the year, and to be close to the water. We also needed something we could afford. The Sunshine Coast was quite affordable at the time and we went there to look around. We came back thinking it just didn’t feel right for us, we felt no sense of community. It was exactly what Wynn identified, the shopping malls and big box stores in Sechelt that really put us over the edge. To shorten the story, two years later we were able to buy a place on Bowen. We love it.
Bowen has so much that needs to be protected, and there does seem to be consensus on the island about the value of its rural character, its island charm, its slower pace, a respect for nature, privacy, and a simpler life. If this is what most on Bowen came for, and want to preserve, then why are we so divided over the best way forward? Why do we have the change and no change camps? I suspect it reveals a lack of discussion and understanding as to exactly what change means. If it meant becoming like Sechelt, that certainly would not be something I would support.
That is why I found James’ piece so compelling. It is about respecting values that would take us in the opposite direction that Sechelt has gone. Wynn talks about the need for an occasional trip to the city to fulfill certain needs, for a change, and asks what is wrong with that, won’t people still want to do that even if they have more services on Bowen. Of course they will. But James is talking about the daily commute to the mainland, and the daily reverse commute to work on Bowen. These commutes are going to increase unless we become a little more self sufficient, unless we improve the local economy, unless we can house that diverse collection of families, couples and individuals that make up a community.
We are not talking about “urbanized homogenization”. We are talking about a larger population on the island (which is inevitable) but less car trips, less vehicular ferry traffic, less services imported from the mainland and eventually, less food as we build a stronger local food economy. This is the change that will protect the Bowen we all love, not turn it into Sechelt or any other homogenized car based community. It does not mean no cars, no ferry, no trips, no fun, it just means less trips, more local character and yes……more fun.
But it is going to require some changes that strike fear in the hearts of the long standing ruralists. It means a stronger, denser, commercial core. It means some pockets of density here and there with townhomes, and yes some small apartments. We need to build neighbourhood, not more single family homes spread all over the island. In fact, I wish we could find a way to stop that. We have enough single family homes. I wish someone could explain to me why we need more in order to preserve our unique island character.
We need diversity, not expansion.
We need more discussions like this one. More forums. More pot lucks. I hope we can, as a community, find a way to do that.
Tim
Back for another careful nibble at the opinion pie….:-)
Thanks for your thoughtful views, Sharon and Tim. It is nice to explore ideas and perceptions in a detailed and thoughtful way without the drama (although that has its place, too).
First of all, I am not against density, in fact I am for density if it results in more affordable, diverse housing contained within a smaller land footprint. Much better than sprawl — whether housing developments or strip malls (or “villages” by a different name).
For example, I agree that much of the Cove needs not only density but maintenance and intelligent redesign on a fundamental scale. I’m not an urban planner, so I don’t presume to say how, however, I don’t particularly want it to look like Whistler or what seems to have been adopted as the de rigueur design for all “places where tourists come”. Instantly identifiable, predictable and dull. I like both my urban and rural places a bit on the untamed, raw and kooky side - ahem, and retaining a mere facade of the original function of a place as a tourist attraction goes into my “abominable” file along with getting up close and personal with artificial turf and 40′ high flood lights.
I don’t see myself as an “old timer” at all. There are many others who landed here long before me and some who think these changes are long overdue as Sharon expressed. However, as you pointed out, there has been a lot more change on Bowen compressed into the last 10 years than every before. Presently, there are so many agents of change advocating for their particular change for the island that everybody is feeling the pressure — from our elected government and municipal staff to the herons in the Cove, the red-legged frog and the native cedars who are drying up as our rainforest canopy is thinned out and removed for housing.
This island IS being stressed by the pace and nature of some of the change and residents are fighting back. This is a natural reaction and, hopefully, with very careful management of change and a long-term view, we can ensure this and our other islands are places where we still want to live and visit 10, 20, 30 years in the future. A long term view is absolutely essential. Those we elect must be so clear that that cannot make decisions for all based on the issue of the day. A community’s character, uniqueness and natural environment is a difficult or impossible thing to restore, once lost.
Sechelt didn’t get where it is overnight.
What you see (or don’t see) there now is a result of many, small, incremental decisions that were made over many years, by many different people, for many different reasons (many of them $$$ based). As each person agreed to this proposal, this building, this mall, this initiative, this project, this development — I am sure they were not visualizing the end result today. I believe these decision-makers either didn’t consider the long-term view or didn’t see anything of value being lost as a result of it , which is even more disturbing.
I am not trying to ‘dis” Sechelt by the way. I am sure it still has a vibrant cultural and artistic identify among the many residents there — I am only commenting on what I see superficially and experience now when I drive the highway to Sechelt and its urban landscape.
But, I agree with Tim. More discussion, community gatherings and potlucks would benefit the community, be fun and perhaps lead to more understanding of the different views. Understanding anothers’ views and needs, however, doesn’t necessarily lead to agreement.
For example, I doubt I ever will adapt to or be able to pass by an artificial field with floodlights in the heart of our Snug Cove without a painful prick to my psyche. Which is one reason I don’t want it in such a central and visible location. The other reason is that it somehow changes the visual message of our Snug Cove port of entry — our “sense of place”. It says “welcome to an urban environment where artificial grass is normal and nice”. Not!
Agreement is difficult if one person’s idea of nature is a groomed park with gravel paths, signage and benches, while another’s is preservation of vanishing remnants of the wild BC coast mainly for the benefit of non-human inhabitants. But we can try.
Wynn
Wow. it’s great to read this ongoing conversation and I agree, mostly, it isn’t really about the turf field. Its about values, history, ruralness, community, slowness, progress, etc… Our family again watched “being caribou” last night, and this really drove it home for me. We need to get back to natural ways of being. We need to slow way down if we are wanting to save so many things I hear people hold close to their heart. We need to consider both the long term upstream and downstream impacts of our decisions. I’ve mostly heard downstream arguments in this turf war, what are the upstream costs/benefits of producing turf fields? What are the upstream costs/benefits of a natural field? I just feel that a turf field has a lot of non-natural upstream costs. My value system (and desire of a place based on natural solutions) tells me a turf field is short sighted and doesn’t honor the upstream and downstream. It doesn’t honor what so many came to Bowen Island seeking… halogen lights, synthetic turf !?!… go beyond almost green, go green, live with the natural rhythms of your surroundings. Get your hands dirty creating a connection with natural turf, volunteer your time to create a playing field your families desire…
[...] commenter on another blog posting on this site drew my attention to the District of Sechelt, his hometown, located on B.C.’s famous [...]
Mr Glave. I love you. In an passive aggressive kind of way. Buy me a beer next time we meet in the pub and perhaps we can get beyond that.
I think I understand your pain. As an Islander, and as a dedicated environmentalist, and with the full understanding of the immense carbon footprint that you impose on the world by living in the luxury that island living affords, you must wake up screaming every night.
This plastic field which you are attempting to apply as a bandaid to the gaping wound of your guilt, just won’t do the job.
Hey David, thanks for weighing in. Guilt. Yes, it is a burden.
I love you, and I love your work. Not in a passive-aggressive kind of way. You’re an inspiration!
Aside: I really don’t consider myself an “environmentalist,” in fact the word kind of gives me hives. The problem with that term is it places this thing called “the environment” (which we are meant to understand as forests, oceans, air, rivers, etc) into a “box,” and suggests they are something we need to worry about, along with all these other “boxes” in our lives, like healthcare, and the economy, and the commute, and national security, and the rent cheque and so on. The word implies that we are somehow outside and above the ecosystems around us when in fact we are them and they are us. It implies a moral purity that doesn’t exist. It’s just so much messier than that. I wish I had a better descriptor to replace it… Maybe over beers we will come up with something.
Maybe we should all get together in the pub one night and sift through some of this junk. What say ye?
You are killing me with your kindness in a very PA kinda way James. I forgive you and I will pray for you.
Yes, I would like to meet and sift the junk.
Hey, James, we were just researching for an article with Christopher Gavigan, Healthy Child, Healthy World. They had some serious comments against letting any child play on artificial turf. Hope you have not seen it yet, if so, sorry. Please let us know if we can connect the two of you. Good luck. Love your words. Almost as much as your purpose.
Peace, Joe and Julia, Blue Planet Green Living.com
http://healthychild.org/blog/comments/artificial_turf_fields_pose_safety_issues/
When it comes down to the rubber crunch this is all about the public and council being mislead and buying into the b.s.. The Mayor and two councillors have admitted to a flawed process. Options were limited and ’steered’. All the facts were not presented and it’s been a steam-rolled decision flattening options by means of things like an on-line pro-turf petition with too many anonymous signatures.
Where’s the notion of a grass field with some of the sods around that stand up to torture (go to Hawaii where there’s grass that can be driven on over and over in the wet jungle side that leaves hardly a trace of the impact). Permaculture techniques could put Bowen at the forefront of sustainable efforts and eliminate the need for pesticides, herbacides and chemical fertilizers.
Astro-turf is simply not what it’s cracked up to be , maintenance wise. Fields have to be disinfected because of high bacterial counts. Watering IS required in the summer as the plastic generates a temperature of ten degrees on average higher then the air. Most turf fields are equipped with hand sanitizers so (especially the children) don’t place their hands in their mouth after and get an infection.
Most important, to offset the Greenhouse Gas Emmissions from artificial turf a mathematical formula exists that equates the number of trees needed to be planted to do this. By looking at the figures I’d say the field in question would need at least 500 trees to make up for this carbon neutrality.
Parks and Rec argued that artificial turf would reduce the amount of travel to the mainland to play soccer, yet the B.I. Football (soccer) Club joined the North Shore Youth Soccer Association which will increase the trips into town!!!
But we were never told these things and had little room to ask. If grass must be mowed and watered, divots replaced, artificial grass must be cleansed, watered, vacuumed, stitched.
Switch to the ideal: permacultured grass with volunteers from universities and colleges taking part, as well as high school , middle and elementary children learning the values of companion planting and growing the new trees in select places. Having the Earth honoured instead of disregarded.
Yes, there is still time to stop the project. Look at what’s being done, why, a space has been dug that would allow a field proper drainage….that field could be fake grass or real.
Is that really too much for people to handle?
From an unknown source, “We’ve had the acrylic wool pulled over our eyes”.