the staff of the Ridgewood blog
RIDGEWOOD, NJ – Across the United States, cities and towns are increasingly swapping out natural grass fields for synthetic turf, igniting a heated debate over sports, health, the environment, and the use of public funds.
In Ridgewood, New Jersey, a sports-loving community just 15 miles from Manhattan, this debate has reached a boiling point. Youth sports leagues, desperate for more year-round playing time, have pushed hard for artificial turf, arguing it’s weather-resistant, requires less day-to-day maintenance, and can handle heavy use without turning into mud pits.
But not everyone is cheering for team turf. Environmentalists, scientists, and concerned parents are raising alarms over the hidden costs of plastic fields. Synthetic turf is made of plastic blades and crumb rubber, which can heat up dangerously in summer, shed microplastics, flood easily, and must be replaced every few years, driving up long-term costs. Critics also point to potential chemical exposure risks, especially for children playing on these surfaces.
The Ridgewood Turf Wars
In Ridgewood, the turf battle has spilled into public meetings, local blogs, and even coaching careers. Some coaches have allegedly faced backlash for opposing turf, while youth sports leagues—powerful voices in the community—lobby hard for more synthetic fields.
“It’s a sports-crazed town with sports-crazed parents and kids,” said Mark Sullivan, a Ridgewood resident and former youth coach. “Competition for field time is like trying to get Springsteen tickets.”
Former Council member Lorraine Reynolds, who opposed turf fields, says the sports lobby is powerful. “Some leaders just shrugged and said, ‘My kids played on turf—they’re fine,’” she recalled.
Even Ridgewood Mayor Paul Vagianos once opposed turf, citing its high replacement costs after storms. But by 2024, he flipped his stance, saying:
“We do not have the Yankee Stadium grounds crew to keep our fields fresh and green. We are doing what the entire country does for high-use fields—we are using artificial turf.”
Big Business & Big Numbers
This local debate mirrors a national trend fueled by a multibillion-dollar turf industry. Companies like FieldTurf—owned by major investors including Berkshire Hathaway—have installed over 19,000 turf fields nationwide. In New Jersey alone, FieldTurf has laid more than 60 million square feet, enough to cover Central Park twice.
Industry groups like the Synthetic Turf Council push back against bans, claiming turf is safe and efficient. But cities like Boston and some municipalities in California and Connecticut have effectively banned or restricted turf due to environmental and health concerns.
What’s Next? Grass vs. Plastic
The question remains: Is plastic turf really better than natural grass? While synthetic fields offer all-weather playability and short-term convenience, critics argue they bring hidden costs, environmental risks, and health questions that communities can’t afford to ignore.
For Ridgewood and other towns across America, the turf wars aren’t just about sports—they’re about how communities choose to invest in their future, their children, and their environment.
Follow the Ridgewood blog has a brand-new new X account, we tweet good sh$t
https://twitter.com/TRBNJNews
https://truthsocial.com/@theridgewoodblog
https://mewe.com/jamesfoytlin.74/posts
#news #follow #media #trending #viral #newsupdate #currentaffairs #BergenCountyNews #NJBreakingNews #NJHeadlines #NJTopStories
Turf is obviously easier to maintain. Why is this such a weirdly opposed issue. It is so clearly better
By “turf” I think you actually mean Artificial Turf.
As a parent of three kids who long ago who participated in every sport available to Ridgewood kids, look to the health of the present generation of sports minded kids. Simply put, grass is better for kids, and ultimately cheaper than artificial turf, although vast amounts of money are being spent to convince people that it is better than grass. Nonsense!
Oh, it makes sense. If grass doesn’t present the same risks as contact with artificial turf, and if its ultimately cheaper, and if vast amounts of money are being spent to convince people otherwise, then we can easily dismiss a pure profit motive. And since it’s seemingly a lose-lose (kids’ health impacted and cost inefficient), we can assume that they must really want your kids inhaling and absorbing and digesting micro turf because any potential fallout from that is more valuable than the cost of the turf. See? Perfectly reasonable. Sometimes you just have to talk it out.
Artificial turf in flood zones has been a financial disaster. It’s time for it to be bulldozed and reverted back to natural grass.
This is part of an article that appeared on page 1 of the Sunday, July 27, New York Times, with photos.