Voters in CT town to decide whether to ban synthetic turf fields
A small group of residents organized a petition drive to put the question on the November ballot, and town officials this week concluded that campaign was successful: It generated enough signatures to force a referendum.
So along with all the municipal candidate choices on Election Day, voters will get to decide whether Glastonbury should have an ordinance banning new artificial turf fields.
A group of Glastonbury High School student athletes last year tried an online petition drive to support new synthetic turf fields, saying they reduce the risk of injuries and can be used in bad weather when natural grass fields are unplayable. But that initiative drew only 220 signatures.
Resident Dan Boughton, a leader of the campaign to call the referendum, has stressed that fighting against artificial turf doesn't mean opposing investment in local youth sports.
'We are supportive of providing and updating an infrastructure for our youth will have the means to engage in sports at both an intramural and competitive level,' he told the town council earlier this month. 'We can support the significant sports culture in town and we can do it without additional artificial turf fields.'
The debate over natural grass vs. synthetic turf has arisen in communities across the country over the past decade, including at least a half-dozen municipalities in Connecticut including Wethersfield, Westport, New Canaan, Norwalk and Stamford.
Critics say artificial turf is environmentally hazardous, contains potential carcinogens, and requires expensive replacement after a decade or so. Advocates say it's far more durable than natural grass and vastly less expensive to maintain, and also reject the health warnings as unfounded.
Boughton, a Checkerberry Lane resident, told the council that about 20 Glastonbury people circulated petitions in late spring and early summer to put the question in the voters' hands.
'Most people sided with our stance. Some people said we should move forward with adding two additional turf fields. Many people expressed frustration with a perceived excessive spending culture in town,' he told the council.
'What connected all of these views is that Glastonbury voters should be the final voice on this issue. And yes, I did get signatures from folks who are in favor of additional artificial turf fields,' he said.
Glastonbury's high school already has an artificial turf field; it won't be affected by the outcome of the November vote. But if the referendum passes, the town will automatically have a new ordinance prohibiting addition of any new ones on local school or municipal property.
'No additional artificial turf greater than 100 square feet, beyond the existing artificial turf field at Glastonbury High School, shall be permitted in any public place,' the referendum petition states.
Town Clerk Michelle Krampitz confirmed Friday that she had certified 1,297 petition signatures, more than the 1,262 required by town charter provisions.
The town has roughly 25,000 eligible voters. If at least 10% of them cast ballots in the Nov. 4 referendum and a majority vote 'yes,' the turf ban will be binding. If turnout is too low or if most voters reject the proposal, it would fail.
Boughton told councilors that even supporters of artificial turf were largely polite and receptive to the referendum idea.
'The vast majority of give and take on this issue has been positive. I can't think of more than one interaction where I've been treated rudely, and this is amongst hundreds of people I've spoken with.'
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Saquon Barkley 'shocked' to be named to Donald Trump's presidential sports council, says he won't be participating
President Donald Trump's White House announced on Aug. 1 first that Saquon Barkley would be a member of his newly formed council on sports, fitness, and nutrition. It appears that that was news to Barkley. Barkley said Monday that he was "shocked" that his name was included as a council member and that he will not be participating. The All-Pro Philadelphia Eagles running back addressed the subject with reporters at training camp Monday. [Join or create a Yahoo Fantasy Football league for the 2025 NFL season] "A couple of months ago, it was brought to my team about the council," Barkley said. "So, I'm not really too familiar with it. I felt like that I'm going to be super busy, so me and my family thought it probably was in our best interest to not accept that. "Was definitely a little shocked when my name was mentioned, but I'm assuming it's something great. So I appreciate it. But was a little shocked when my name was mentioned." The White House previously issued a news release about the council that named several prominent athletes and sports figures who would participate, Barkley included. "The council will include executive director Catherine Granito, chair Bryson DeChambeau, Saquon Barkley, Gary Bettman, Nick Bosa, Harrison Butker, Cody Campbell, Roger Goodell, Wayne Gretzky, Nelly Korda, Paul 'Triple H' Levesque, Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Mariano Rivera, Tony Romo, Annika Sörenstam, Tua Tagovailoa, Lawrence Taylor, Matthew Tkachuk, and Mariano Rivera," the statement reads. None of the other athletes named have said that they won't be participating. Taylor and "Triple H" flanked Trump during a news conference addressing the council. Barkley, a three-time Pro Bowler who earned NFL Offensive Player of the Year in 2024 during Philadelphia's run to the Super Bowl championship, has previously made public appearances with Trump. Barkley golfed with Trump in April in New Jersey, then flew with Trump to Washington D.C. and visited the White House ahead of the Eagles' official visit to commemorate their Super Bowl victory. Barkley's visit prompted criticism, to which he responded on social media that he respects the office of the president. "lol some people are really upset cause I played golfed and flew to the White House with the PRESIDENT, Barkley wrote. "Maybe I just respect the office, not a hard concept to understand. Just golfed with Obama not too long ago … and look forward to finishing my round with Trump! Now ya get out my mentions with all this politics and have amazing day.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Modi and Trump once called each other good friends. Now the US-India relationship is getting bumpy
NEW DELHI (AP) — They men shared bear hugs, showered praise on each other and made appearances side by side at stadium rallies — a big optics boost for two populist leaders with ideological similarities. Each called the other a good friend. In India, the bonhomie between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump was seen as a relationship like no other. That is, until a series of events gummed up the works. From Trump's tariffs and India's purchase of oil from Russia to a U.S. tilt towards Pakistan, friction between New Delhi and Washington has been hard to miss. And much of it has happened far from the corridors of power and, unsurprisingly, through Trump's posts on social media. It has left policy experts wondering whether the camaraderie the two leaders shared may be a thing of the past, even though Trump has stopped short of referring to Modi directly on social media. The dip in rapport, some say, puts a strategic bilateral relationship built over decades at risk. 'This is a testing time for the relationship,' said Ashok Malik, a former policy adviser in India's Foreign Ministry. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Simmering tensions over trade and tariffs The latest hiccup between India and the U.S. emerged last week when Trump announced that he was slapping 25% tariffs on India as well as an unspecified penalty because of India's purchasing of Russian oil. For New Delhi, such a move from its largest trading partner is expected to be felt across sectors, but it also led to a sense of unease in India — even more so when Trump, on social media, called India's economy 'dead.' Trump's recent statements reflect his frustration with the pace of trade talks with India, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal administration thinking. The Republican president has not been pursuing any strategic realignment with Pakistan, according to the official, but is instead trying to play hardball in negotiations. Trump doubled down on the pressure Monday with a fresh post on Truth Social, in which he accused India of buying 'massive amounts' of oil from Russia and then 'selling it on the Open Market for big profits.' 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA,' he said. The messaging appears to have stung Modi's administration, which has been hard-selling negotiations with Trump's team over a trade deal by balancing between India's protectionist system while also opening up the country's market to more American goods. Many expected India to react strongly considering Modi's carefully crafted reputation of strength. Instead, the announcement prompted a rather careful response from India's commerce minister, Piyush Goyal, who said the two countries are working towards a 'fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement.' India's Foreign Ministry also played down suggestions of any strain. However, experts in New Delhi wonder. 'Strenuous, uninterrupted and bipartisan efforts in both capitals over the past 25 years are being put at risk by not just the tariffs but by fast and loose statements and social media posts,' said Malik, who now heads the India chapter of The Asia Group, a U.S. advisory firm . Malik also said the trade deal the Indian side has offered to the U.S. is the 'most expansive in this country's history,' referring to reports that India was willing to open up to some American agricultural products. That is a politically sensitive issue for Modi, who faced a yearlong farmers' protest a few years ago. Trump appears to be tilting towards Pakistan The unraveling may have gained momentum over tariffs, but the tensions have been palpable for a while. Much of it has to do with Trump growing closer to Pakistan, India's nuclear rival in the neighborhood. In May, India and Pakistan traded a series of military strikes over a gun massacre in disputed Kashmir that New Delhi blamed Islamabad for. Pakistan denied the accusations. The four-day conflict made the possibility of a nuclear conflagration between the two sides seem real and the fighting only stopped when global powers intervened. But it was Trump's claims of mediation and an offer to work to provide a 'solution' regarding the dispute over Kashmir that made Modi's administration uneasy. Since then, Trump has repeated nearly two dozen times that he brokered peace between India and Pakistan. For Modi, that is a risky — even nervy — territory. Domestically, he has positioned himself as a leader who is tough on Pakistan. Internationally, he has made huge diplomatic efforts to isolate the country. So Trump's claims cut a deep wound, prompting a sense in India that the U.S. may no longer be its strategic partner. India insists that Kashmir is India's internal issue and had opposed any third-party intervention. Last week Modi appeared to dismiss Trump's claims after India's Opposition began demanding answers from him. Modi said that 'no country in the world stopped' the fighting between India and Pakistan, but he did not name Trump. Trump has also appeared to be warming up to Pakistan, even praising its counterterrorism efforts. Hours after levying tariffs on India, Trump announced a 'massive' oil exploration deal with Pakistan, saying that some day, India might have to buy oil from Islamabad. Earlier, he also hosted one of Pakistan's top military officials at a private lunch. Sreeram Sundar Chaulia, an expert at New Delhi's Jindal School of International Affairs, said Trump's sudden admiration for Pakistan as a great partner in counterterrorism has 'definitely soured' the mood in India. Chaulia said 'the best-case scenario is that this is just a passing Trump whim,' but he also warned that 'if financial and energy deals are indeed being struck between the U.S. and Pakistan, it will dent the U.S.-India strategic partnership and lead to loss of confidence in the U.S. in Indian eyes.' India's oil purchases from Russia are an irritant The strain in relations has also to do with oil. India had faced strong pressure from the Biden administration to cut back its oil purchases from Moscow during the early months of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Instead, India bought more, making it the second-biggest buyer of Russian oil after China. That pressure sputtered over time and the U.S. focused more on building strategic ties with India, which is seen as a bulwark against a rising China. Trump's threat to penalize India over oil, however, brought back those issues. On Sunday, the Trump administration made its frustrations over ties between India and Russia ever more public. Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House, accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, saying it was 'not acceptable.' Some experts, though, suspect Trump's remarks are mere pressure tactics. 'Given the wild fluctuations in Trump's policies,' Chaulia said, 'it may return to high fives and hugs again.' ___ Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed reporting. Sheikh Saaliq And Rajesh Roy, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: How markets will punish Trump if he fudges the economic data
President Trump is laying the groundwork for replacing real economic data with his own numbers. It's a terrible idea that will blow up in his face if he tries it — and cause the Trump presidency more damage than any legitimate numbers could. Trump fired the economist in charge of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Aug. 1 after the latest employment report showed a sharp slowdown in hiring. The problem isn't the data or the economists who produce it. The problem is that, right on schedule, Trump's disruptive policies are messing up the economy. His tariffs are raising costs and jamming up business operations with new inefficiencies. His workplace raids, meant to ensnare unauthorized migrants, are reducing the labor supply and leaving some companies disastrously short of workers. After firing the BLS commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, Trump said in a social media post that she 'rigged' the job numbers to make him look bad. Trump specifically cited revisions in the jobs data for May and June that cut total employment by 258,000. That put average job growth during the last three months at an anemic 35,000 — 80% below the average pace of job growth during Joe Biden's last year as president, an underperformance that Trump must find intolerable. There are legitimate concerns about the quality of the surveys BLS conducts to compute the jobs data. Those are huge surveys relying on accurate and complete responses from thousands of firms and regular people. The methodology is complicated. Trump's own cutbacks to the agency make mistakes more likely. One of the main reasons BLS revises the data in the first place is to provide more accuracy as it refines the results of a given month. The downward revisions for May and June were large, but hardly unprecedented. Trump isn't talking about any of that. The employment numbers aren't rigged, and the few serious economic people in Trump's administration — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House economist Kevin Hassett — ought to be telling him that. A lot of economic data is unflattering to Trump, however, and there's a good chance it will get worse as tariffs and migration raids further stifle the economy. Trump acts like he knows it, and has been thinking for some time about how to provide alternate data that's more flattering to the Trump economy. For most of his second term, Trump has been raging about Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, demanding that the Fed slash interest rates and musing about firing Powell. Trump has also floated the idea of appointing a 'shadow' Fed chair who would give more upbeat assessments of the economy than the Fed's sober analysis, and perhaps replace Powell when his term expires next Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, wants to change the way the government calculates economic growth. In June, the BLS, which also calculates inflation data, said it was reducing the collection of pricing data in some parts of the country. Starting Aug. 14, it will cut the number of wholesale prices it measures. The agency says staffing shortages are the main reason it's dialing back data collection. Trump, of course, has slashed staffing at myriad government agencies as part of the so-called DOGE efficiency commission's work. Trump makes no secret of seeking to exert maximum control over all facets of government, including agencies established to be independent of political manipulation. He could very well co-op economic data by putting loyalists in charge of the relevant agencies and instructing them to make the data friendlier. He clearly wants a Federal Reserve that will juice the economy on his command, and if he appoints the right people for the rest of his presidential term, he might get that too. If any of that happens, it will backfire, maybe spectacularly. The simple reality is that nobody, not even the president, can fool markets, at least not for very long. Official government data is important, but businesses, investors, and consumers rely on thousands of data points that tell them almost everything they need to know about how the economy's doing. Presidents have tried many times to generate a counternarrative meant to persuade voters they're better off than they think they are. It never works. Ordinary workers know how far their paycheck stretches and whether they're getting ahead or falling behind. Most can tell you that without knowing whether the inflation or unemployment rate is going up or down. Businesses know what's happening with their order book and cash flow, and spend more or less accordingly. Investors read pricing signals the government can't control and buy, sell, or hedge based on what they see. The bond market is the ultimate arbiter of economic truth, and right now it's expressing concerns about the Trump economy and Trump's own policies. Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, points out there's a 'risk' or 'fear' premium in markets right now that's pushing long-term interest rates about 0.65 percentage points higher than they'd otherwise be. That interest rate premium is the extra amount investors demand in order to lock up their money in longer-term bonds. It compensates them for what they think is the risk of higher inflation in the future, along with uncertainty over other factors that could affect the value of their investments. The current term premium is not historically high. But it's higher than it has been for most of the last 15 years. And not all of it involves Trump's policies. Last fall, for instance, long-term rates rose by about a full point while the Fed was cutting short-term rates by a full point. That was a very unusual move, suggesting investors foresaw higher inflation over a five- to 10-year time frame and demanded higher rates to buy bonds maturing during that time. Still, Trump has inherited a dyspeptic bond market, and his tariffs clearly contribute to inflation expectations because they're a tax on imports that literally raises prices paid by businesses and consumers. Another problem is the massive amount of US government borrowing, which may finally be approaching unsustainable levels. If or when the day arrives when there aren't enough buyers for Treasury securities, the only outcome can be higher rates for all bonds to entice buyers. And higher long-term interest rates raise costs for every business or consumer borrowing money. The weird pricing action from last fall shows that if Trump did manage to force the Fed to slash short-term rates, long-term rates might actually rise, because investors would anticipate higher inflation due to looser monetary policy. Trump doesn't care about short-term rates, which only apply to banks making overnight loans. What he really wants is lower long-term rates, so that businesses and consumers borrow and spend more, stoking growth. Trying to force that to happen would probably have the opposite effect. The same thing would happen if Trump tried to fool the world by publishing bogus data showing the economy doing better than it really is. Every serious investor would know it's a sham. Uncertainty would worsen as opacity on some facets of the economy replaced transparency. That would cause upward pressure on the interest rate risk premium, pushing rates higher. Brusuelas's data shows a risk premium of more than 2 percentage points during some periods during the last 25 years. If there were such a premium today, the typical mortgage rate would be more than 8%, instead of 6.7%. In 2008, during the financial crisis, the term premium approached 4%, which would push interest rates today above 10%. That's the range, or trouble, Trump could cause in bond markets if he tries to manipulate the economy and fails. Would it cause a recession? Nobody knows, but that may be the wrong question. Americans are in a foul mood largely because they think management of the economy stinks and they feel prosperity slipping away. When Joe Biden was president, he repeatedly touted record job growth and other things going right, convincing approximately nobody that they were better off than their personal finances led them to believe. Americans want to feel like they're getting ahead at home and at work. Legitimate data won't convince them if they don't see it happening in their own lives, and bogus data won't do any better. Consumer attitudes have been at recessionary levels for much of the last five years, and if Trump starts producing doctored data, it may depress people even more. Truth has value, even to Trump. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. Sign in to access your portfolio
