At the May 15th SMMUSD school board meeting, a stream of parents, scientists, community members and even some kindergarteners spoke out against the Boards’ plans to swap Franklin’s grass field for one made of synthetic (plastic) turf. The School Board voted 7-0 in favor of the synthetic turf field and against the overwhelming majority of community members’ opposition.
This project, tied to the recently passed QS bond measure, is part of a reimagining of the Franklin campus which brings newly designated TK classrooms, a new site configuration and yes, a synthetic grass field.
Why would they vote against the parents and the scientists and the children? The simple answer is that they don’t care what you think. They know what’s better for your children.
It sounds so provocative, but ultimately this action speaks to a maimed social contract; to wounds inflicted during the terrifying and uncertain landscape of the Covid era.
Something broke in us during Covid and nothing has been more personal or proximal than the schools. Our school board members suffered immeasurably, making hard decisions in the face of parents’ and community members’ searing outrage. It is not shocking that their take away is that they must make the hard decisions, despite the community’s opposition.
And on the May 15th meeting the School Board was once more put to the task of making a hard decision. Do they send the plan back to the architects and governmental agencies or do they move forward, knowing that synthetic turf is highly unsavory to parents and children?
Public comment was acknowledged and then things were turned over to Carey Upton, who wears many hats for the SMMUSD, including chief of operations, maintenance, transpiration and facilities use departments.
Mr. Upton, who I have argued many times is grossly under-qualified for his position(s), seems to also be in charge of selling these new projects to the community. He has been known to sit on outside panels discussing the benefits of synthetic turf, so he seems to be a true believer. He was quick to bring in a rep from the turf company, who was given ample time (unlike stake holders) to educate us all on how superior his product was and how the parents, scientists, and students were unfounded in their distaste for synthetic turf.
Mr. Upton argued that parents had ample time in the many community meetings to oppose these plans. He acknowledged a frustration that the community seems to only pay attention when plans become formalized—when they are difficult to change.
As the community watched this hard sales pitch, Mr. Upton had the desperation of a teenager trying to get his parents to just let them go to the concert. He kept insisting that they had to sign off today, now, or it would cost another two years and at least a million dollars.
And maybe he’s right? Maybe stopping the synthetic turf now throws the whole plan into purgatory? Maybe his desperation was somewhat founded?
But I kind of doubt it, and my doubt comes from one parent who got up and read a message written by a current Franklin teacher who said she did not want to publicly oppose the district, but had serious concerns about the synthetic turf. She suggested that it was better to wait, to get it right, rather than risk the functionality and safety of her students, and that made the most sense to me.
To Mr. Upton’s assertion that these were vetted plans, we have to remember that in the planning process these plans change and change and change again. There is no board meeting to speak up for or against anything until it is up for a vote. I also don’t believe parents were totally fine with synthetic turf until this moment.
Board Member, Laurie Lieberman, clearly internally at odds with a progressive anti-plastic ethos and a desire to not slow a building project, told community members:
“We all care about the environment, and we all care about microplastics…(turning to the audience) you can shake your head…But it’s true. It doesn’t mean we come out in the same place. But I feel like the best, the healthiest thing we can do is to be honest and try to look at facts and be honest about the concerns we hear…”
But it wasn’t an honest engagement that we witnessed. They voted to move forward; to expose children and the ocean to more microplastics—a clear contradiction that suggests however much this board cares, it cares about other things more.
And what are those other things?
Will Rogers, which is a notably less affluent and less densely populated school, already has a synthetic turf. So, what’s the big deal with Franklin? The Will Rogers’ principal came on to share her full approval for the synthetic turf, but soon after a parent shared that Will Roger’s parents had urged them to fight the turf, to stop it at all costs, citing their own children’s experiences.
As you might expect, the other more important thing is money. The schools get roughly $11-million (arguably $28-million) dollars each year from their allowing the city to use the school sites as “parks”. Santa Monica doesn’t have enough “green space”, so as we became denser, state agencies said we needed to solve this problem and a clever solution, the Joint Use agreement, came into being.
So, in order to solve problems that have more to do with development than our children, the school district and the city have made the school yards accrue far more use, creating the need for a novel solution; synthetic turf.
To add to this, synthetic turf is funded through the bonds. Whereas grass is maintained through the general budget, which is tighter. Again, our children are receiving synthetic turf for reasons that are tied to financial benefits that have little or nothing to do with them—Hence the parental outrage.
Oh, and about the turf, I don’t care what Mr. Upton says. My children have played many games at the synthetic fields at the airport and Belmar Parks, and I can tell you first hand that the stuff is disgusting. You come home covered in tiny shards of plastic, not to mention all of the other heat and water use issues.
Board member Jon Kean, furnishing ample evidence of his field use experience, cited his own injuries on both grass and synthetic turf, suggesting that there was no final solution here. So, why not side with the parents?
While enrollment is down (on a 10-year average) in the district, Franklin has nearly twice the number of students the state recommends for its campus size. This in the context of the loss of John Muir, a school with declining enrollment, and other school sites with space, suggests an underlying class issue; flight to the wealthier schools.
Rather than re-drawing school lines or finding other solutions for the overcrowding of Franklin, rather than the city building more parks and fields, rather than prioritizing a school around a field big enough to be functional, our children (not the boards, of course, because none of them currently have children at Franklin) will be playing on hot, sticky fake grass fields. Problem solved.
They will tell you that this is not final. They will tell you that this line of reasoning is one-sided, but as I watched Board Member Stacy Rouse mention the PCBs at Malibu that required millions in mitigation and Mr. Upton discussing water cannons to cool the fields down, I was struck by one singular moment: Board Member Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, with an irritation and impatience reminiscent of the days of Covid, clearly attempting to end the conversation, declared: “Madam chair, I would like to move the item, as it is presented by the district for approval. I would move the item now!”
In the last election no one dared to run against the three incumbents. Every two to four years their bonds are approved by voters. There is no opposition to the school board. Why should they listen? Why should they care what you think? Really? Why? So, they don’t.