'Without proper precautions Warwick’s culture and environmental integrity is potentially at stake'

My name is Vidar Hageman and I am the senior class president at Warwick Valley High School.

I am writing this letter to address the people of Warwick on an issue that may affect us for decades to come. That issue is the potential installation of two turf fields in the school district.

I don’t come to this issue as an opponent of the turf fields and, as a football player, I have no desire to promote or encourage anti-sports cynicism.

I intend to layout questions and concerns that have not been answered and to bring awareness to a student body and a town that has been lulled into thinking turf fields are a pitch perfect idea.

The first question that has to be asked is: Why 10 million dollars are being spent on athletic improvements?

Instead we could be using that money to save families the burden of buying $100 Texas Instrument calculators in to make sure they pass classes. A failure to invest in the student’s education would be an absurdity on its face and should be seen for the negligence it is.

We’re supposed to sit by and praise allegedly tax neutral policy, while there are no numbers out on how we will pay for replacing these turf fields every ten years (1.2 million dollars in Middletown) as required or what will happen if the project goes over budget.

Why does the music program have to beg for auditorium improvements, overall funding and support for years only to have their wishes tied to the aspirations and success of the athletic program?

Why do necessary improvements for sanitation and the auditorium have to be tied to aesthetic improvements for the athletic program?

Warwick historically is a farming town and one connected to its environment. Is adding turf not just another step to taking future generations away from their environment?

Why does the district support implementing a material (crumb rubber, PFAS chemicals) that can potentially lead to toxic runoff into local waterways and, according to The Washington Post, contain potentially carcinogenic material.

Why are there not discussions of potential alternatives like corkonut infill, sod, the addition of sand or improved irrigation?

According to a Penn State study , turf fields get up 55 degrees hotter than the actual temperature. On just an 80 degree day the field could be unusable, how does that equal 24/7 use as cited by the administration?

The USA Women’s soccer team has spoken out on multiple occasions about the negativity of turf. They’re not the only ones multiple athletes on all levels have issues with turf fields including but not limited to extreme heat.

Does this not serve as a warning sign for what athletes will exposed to and how their opinions of turf fields will likely change as the field wears down?

Why has it been left out that, according to a UC Berkeley study, in order to maintain turf fields many institutions use harmful pesticides and herbicides? Has the issue of how to keep bacterial infections at bay been addressed as turf fields ultimately lead to more burns and exposed skin?

Why has the student body been kept in the dark, with the exception of a couple pictures and a white board? People have a right to be educated on what’s happening with their money.

Without proper precautions Warwick’s culture and environmental integrity is potentially at stake.

I urge the people to vote their conscience and in the best interest of the community on December 18th.

Vidar Hageman

Warwick