As a graduate student at the University of Toronto who was involved in the decision to replace the back campus grass playing fields with two synthetic turf fields, I feel I must comment on how the decision came about.

For the past two years, I have been one of 10 elected students to sit on the University of Toronto’s Council of Athletics and Recreation (CAR). Collectively, the 10 elected student members represent all of the students from the various faculties and colleges at the University of Toronto. In addition to student representation, the committee also includes representation from faculty members, administrative staff, alumni and facility users. CAR has jurisdiction over co-curricular programs and intramural sports at the University of Toronto and is responsible for all athletic and recreation policy. However, the most important role the committee has is to decide how to spend the money collected from students on athletic and recreation purposes.

One constant agenda item at all committee meetings for the past two years has been the ongoing debate over whether replace the back campus playing fields’ grass with an artificial surface. Anyone who had an opinion was welcome to attend the meetings and share their views with us and many did. We heard compelling arguments for going forward with the replacement and for keeping the status quo, and a variation thereof. It is important to stress that this has been an ongoing debate for two years — half the University of Toronto life for a typical undergraduate student.

The decision to install the artificial turf was well thought-out, researched, non-political and in the best interest of the majority of current and future University of Toronto students. This recommendation then worked its way through the various layers of the University of Toronto governance process, which is also open to the public, and led to the ultimate decision to replace the fields. In fact, once the final motion was passed by the University of Toronto Governing Council (the highest level of governance at the university) the city aligned with our decision and committed funds for the project to move ahead as scheduled.

At no time during the two year CAR debate on what to do with the back campus fields did Adam Vaughan or any other member of Toronto City council attend a meeting or express an opinion. It is extremely unfortunate now that Vaughan, claiming to represent his constituents, is trying to stop the project. I find it personally galling that, as one of his constituents who has been involved with the decision, I never received any correspondence from my representative asking for my opinion on whether or not this project should move forward.

What is most frustrating watching the unfolding events is how politicians like Vaughan are simply dismissing all the hard work, fact-finding and research completed by the CAR committee for the good of the majority of University of Toronto students, replacing it with rumour and fear-mongering. The indisputable facts remain: the city and the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games committee is helping fund the University of Toronto to provide world-class facilities for specific sports for the upcoming Games.

Once these Games are over, these world-class facilities will be open to the public and all students at the university. There will be no new lights, tall fences or inflatable domes impacting any historical views. The current grass fields do not provide a viable year-round venue for students; having synthetic turf in place of grass will allow intramural sports and varsity athletics to be played into the winter. In fact, the planned synthetic fields will increase usage time by almost 300 per cent. For those that say, “A little mud doesn’t hurt,” come out in late spring and have a look at these fields and see students crammed into one small corner because it is the only safe place to play. Clearly, Vaughan has never walked through the field during the muddy season.

The approved plan does not impact any of the surrounding trees or plants, it simply replaces the grass. We changed the original plan to meet students’ outcry to save the trees and this satisfied them. Going forward, pesticide and herbicide use to try and maintain this muddy field will be reduced dramatically and no biocides will be sprayed on these new fields. And from a historical or heritage perspective, we are truly excited that future students will be able to enjoy athletic activities on these new fields knowing that this space has been used in previous years by some of the best athletes in the world, notably including those from the upcoming Pan Am/Parapan Am Games.

And if students just want to lounge on real grass, all they need to do is walk 50 metres to the south and enjoy the wonderful surroundings of the front campus fields, equal in size to those of back campus and in pristine condition compared to those in the back campus.

These were just some of the facts that my fellow CAR committee members and I used to evaluate and eventually recommend the removal of the grass on back campus field for synthetic turf. To find out now that study and reason could be overturned by the emotional response of a few who did not even take the time to do minimal research seems ludicrous. But living in Toronto and watching with great interest the ongoing debate regarding traffic congestion, I am beginning to understand how we got ourselves in such a mass transit mess. Depending on the outcome of the vote Tuesday, we may be revisiting the grass field debate in 10 years after one of U of T’s future students slowly sinks and disappears into the mud.

Jason Lacombe is a University of Toronto graduate student and CAR Committee student representative, Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education.