The largest stretch of open beautiful lawn remaining along the Hudson River in New York City - and probably the only piece of scenic open land in Inwood Hill Park which still contains soil the Lenape first found there perhaps 3,000 years ago  -  is currently being destroyed for toxic astroturf: soccer has for decades been played at the site, shown in the photo, but has involved no physical structure excepting the goal posts. Now there is a massive project underway to build a fenced-in astroturf field  – even though it lies entirely within a flood plain and the nearest built structure to its northeast was devastated by Sandy –  including an 8” curb base, multiple entryways, seating, the astroturf field made of tufted nylon, with a coated silica sand infill, and an ugly stormwater retention area outside the field itself, currently totaling almost $9 million.

Can you make slurs against land itself?

In a memorably false moment, a representative for the NYC Parks Department, Kelli Jordan, recently ended his attempt to justify all this during a subcommittee hearing of the Manhattan Community Board 12 (10/8/24) stating – 

"This is not, like, part of the old growth forest of Inwood Hill Park. This is 100 year old landfill, that we would like to see people be able to use for a long time." 

Wow! First, let’s return to reality: so far as we know, this is in fact the only significant piece of open scenic land in Inwood Hill Park that was not added later. About 17% of the park's total current area (196 acres) was added in two events, in 1928 (9.5 acres) and 1936 (24 acres). Fortunately, the addition on the Hudson side was described in a clear, simple fashion at the time by the Parks Department (Annual Report of the Department of Parks, Borough of Manhattan, 1928, page 60): it ran for 1400 feet north from Dyckman Street, to about the center line of 212th street, and comprised an area of about 9.5 acres of new land. Here is their statement: 

Filling operations are now under way in Inwood Hill Park along the Hudson River waterfront, extending north from Dyckman Street to about the center line of 212th Street, approximately 1400 feet in length…….An approximate area of 9 ½ acres of new land has been added…… 

Thus, the northern tip of this added land was well south of their fenced-in astroturf, and none of it, of course, was ‘landfill’ in the modern sense: parks can be created above former landfills once enough time has passed, but you don’t move landfills around, and landfilling in the current sense of the word only began in the 1940s. 

So far as we know, not one single ounce of the land where they are installing toxic plastic crap is in any way, shape or form 'landfill’, which in common parlance today tends to connote garbage, and the irony of intentionally misusing this word landfill – almost like a racist-style slur against the very land itself – for what appears to be entirely original land going back to the roots of its proud Lenape past, is that in some countries now being overrun by toxic turfs, like the Netherlands, there are already mountains of  unrecyclable astroturf (which typically only lasts a decade) filling up their landfills! 

The Parks Department calls it land that "we would like to see people be able to use….."? Everybody has been able to use it, ever since the park first opened in 1926, but now they are putting it behind bars, such that no one can use it, except for a few soccer players, some of whom will likely become ill from doing so. And these denialists laughably speak about "for a long time," while we all know that rising sea levels will soon more directly threaten coastal flood plains everywhere (just for the permitting of this project – or any such project now – the 10ft. clearance above the water that the public is supposed to be assured of, for environmental protection from stormwaters, was really just 9.6ft., since the average high tide datums still use an “epoch” that ended in 2001 –  our laws have not kept up with the sea, and by the time they first replace their short-lived phony grass, you might already be getting cheated out of some 7 inches of your 10ft. buffer), and so these should clearly not be the sites of fresh development. Yet here the Lenape were tending to this land – which the Parks Department is about to deprive of both sunlight and oxygen –   probably 1,000 years before Jesus Christ! "Landfill that we would like to see people be able to use for a long time," really?  

Of course there was no environmental impact assessment!

NYC Parks Department plans to put down some 40,000 pounds of astroturf, plus perhaps another 400,000 pounds of infill, right on top of those soils, and right next to the only remaining salt marsh in Manhattan, considered by the Parks Department itself as one of their jewels. And, of course, they couldn't be bothered to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment! And it is obvious why: no responsible scientific organization would ever have approved of this utterly outrageous boondoggle. Have we all lost our minds? This should be fought, if they will not give up on this appalling project.

The naturalists in Inwood Hill Park’s Nature Center, next to the marsh, have been seeing oystercatchers there, of which there are only about 1500 breeding pair on the whole Atlantic and Gulf coasts (they are listed as vulnerable in NY). Since there are no more oysters, they are likely eating fiddler crabs there, in whose tissues any microplastics from the turf would easily accumulate and then spread to these birds, as well as to the black crested night herons, egrets, and yes, the bald eagles, which are still protected under multiple laws. 

We ran a simple experiment: as the high tide comes in, reverse currents are so strong there that it took all of four minutes to follow a plastic bottle taken from the Hudson, right at the mouth of the Harlem river, to where it went out of sight around the Henry Hudson Bridge, about halfway to the salt marsh, or roughly a third of the full trip from the toxic turf to the delicate marsh. In other words, it might take at most 15 minutes for the currents to bring microplastic pollutants from the turf (none of which would be removed by their lovely stormwater retention pit) to the marsh, whenever the high tide is coming in.  Here are the basics: nylon (and other synthetic textiles) is the largest source of microplastic in the world. They will lay down 40,000 pounds of nylon turf. Nylon is susceptible to degradation through hydrolysis – so whenever it gets wet, it can release microplastics. It’s a 15 minute ride from the nylon turf to the only salt marsh in the city. And, of course, no environmental assessment! 

Interestingly, the Bald Eagle Protection Act has apparently redefined what it means to disturb an eagle, to include anything that could, “bother a bald or golden eagle to the degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substant interfering with normal breeding….”

A primary concern with microplastics is that they cause endocrine system disruption. As the NIH put it, in a paper published last year, “manufacturing has dramatically increased the environmental impact of microplastics [MPs] and nanoplastics [NPs], making them a threat to marine and terrestrial biota because they contain endocrine disrupting chemicals [EDCs] and other harmful compounds. MPs and NPs have deleterious impacts on mammalian endocrine components such as hypothalamus, pituitary, thyroid, adrenal, testes, and ovaries.” So, knowingly allowing eagles to ingest microplastics could arguably – or at least should – be able to be interpreted as an illegal act of disturbing eagles. And this right by the spot where the Parks Department brought in four eagles to live, back in 2002. 

Corruption?

At the October 8 subcommittee meeting, in what could have been a comedy skit to parody corrupt bureaucracy, one resident wanted to learn more about what materials might be found in the turf. They tell her, contact the Parks Department, yes the Parks Department, they say, nodding their heads. One clerk tells her, if you just look at the Parks Department website, on the page for this project, it tells you who to contact to ask about this, and he kindly offers to let her take a picture of the webpage. Yet none of them tells the woman the obvious – that the person listed on that page also happens to be probably the most senior member of the Board of which she is asking the question! Steve Simon is a deeply entrenched figure at the NYC Parks Department – many have claimed he singlehandedly runs the whole NYC Parks Department – who also serves as the Chair of the Health and Environment committee at the Community Board (CB12), and he is also the Chief of Staff of the Borough Commissioner. Hmm?

Kelli Jordan opened his little speech by specifically warning people about this petition, deriding its ‘misinformation’ – about “the process, the project, the costs, the product,” he said. Well! We know from some investigative journalists that, for at least a short while, the Parks Department started telling residents that there would be no infill at all used with the turf (they sent a screenshot of the exchange). But then Parks Department suddenly changed again. It has, admittedly, been challenging to keep up with them, and keep our petition accurate! And the cost has been shifting widely! A piece last year in New York Magazine about hidden power, which referred to Steve Simon as one of the most powerful people in New York City, said he is famous for pulling funds “out of thin air,” and people who manage to perform such a feat repeatedly are usually.....well, you know.......and, with the price tag rising lately, he must have been working overtime on this little rabbit trick, with its funding partly drawn from the Mayor’s office! 

Clearly denying the founders’ wishes, the mission, the early actions, and the current identity of Inwood Hill Park?

The suggestion to make Inwood Hill into a park dates from the late 19th century, but it was only later, after the city had already surveyed the area and started plans to lay it all down with streets, that it was rescued by the New York Scenic and Historic Society. The drive was spearheaded by its highly energetic Vice President, Reginald Bolton. Bolton was an archeologist, historian, preservationist and prolific author, who had been conducting archeological digs in the area for some fifteen years at that point, finding many remains of Lenape life there. One might say that the impetus behind the park was two-fold: to preserve the land because of its great scenic beauty and unique geological formations; and because of its associations with the Lenape past. 

Bolton personally oversaw the opening ceremony of the park, on May 8, 1926, with an Indian celebration, including full headdress and costumes, a photo of the ceremony appearing in the New York Times. One oral historian noted that it was "as much a celebration of the Indian as of the park." Only a few months later, Bolton initiated his dream idea of having a “living history” project within the park, in which -  somewhat akin to what today’s Old Sturbridge Village in Massachusetts does with revolutionary American life -  actors would try to educate children into what daily life had been like for the Lenape. Frequently derided now for being politically incorrect, the project nevertheless grew from serious convictions about the importance of appreciating Native American culture, which was close to the Scenic Society’s inspiration for the park.

The Parks Department immediately showed its embrace of the Scenic Society’s goal of keeping the park in a wild scenic state. With the park less than four years old, the Parks Department Annual Report of 1930 (see page 6) noted something essential about its mission for Inwood Hill park: 

“It has been the aim of the Park Department to retain Inwood Hill Park as far as practicable in its original state as a beautiful piece of natural woodland overlooking the Hudson River.” 

In fact they removed almost a hundred built structures from the land in the first half decade of the park’s existence, in order to help bring this to fruition.  When that “landfill” was added in 1928, not only was it not intended to be used for sports, but the Parks Department also specifically noted that “at some future time it is intended to lay out and plan this park area to harmonize with the surrounding park land.”  

So, as far as the Native American aspect of the park, as already noted, they might be covering and destroying the only open scenic area with original soil in the park (Dyckman Fields and Gaelic Fields are certainly not original). And for the scenic aspect? It is much worse than most discussions of the project have taken account of, thus far.

Let's consider the Parks Department's own original intentions, and now imagine yourself walking on any of park's interior paths on the Hudson side, say in winter, when leaves are down. There will be almost nowhere left that the ugly new soccer stadium, with its seating, fencing and subgrade retention area, will not be in your view, if not central to it, before casting your eye out over the Hudson to the dramatic Palisades. Remember the Parks Department's original goal -  "to retain Inwood Hill Park as far as practicable in its original state" - and you realize at once that this project will of course kill the original intentions of the park as directly as is possible. There will be almost no views, at least in winter, of a "natural woodland overlooking the Hudson.”

Considered in its larger context, it becomes even more amazing. Regardless of questions concerning which side was purchased when, Rockefeller clearly understood that both sides of the Hudson needed each other, to together create something almost unique among major urban centers, and he spent an exorbitant amount to preserve the Palisades and create the Cloisters, such that they would complement each other across the river. Now  consider that view, looking towards Manhattan - all those Circle Line tourist boats, and even the view from the other side. That look of the northern tip of Manhattan appearing to be "a natural woodland" will be lost from everywhere offshore of Manhattan. Everyone will see this ugly fencing sticking up from the shore, the seating, etc. In this sense, when considering what was spent to preserve these views from both sides, then accounting for appreciation, and then including some metric to monetize aesthetic losses over time, out into the future, the total costs of the aesthetic destruction of this project could dwarf the $.5 billion or so market value of the property they are taking away from the public's free use.

Risking Children's Lives  

Astroturf raises obvious environmental and health concerns, such that it has already begun to be banned in many places worldwide. Boston no longer allows any astroturf on public park. Those trying to support this project seem to be making the claim that, because the infill used will not be made of crumb rubber, the turf is safe. This is utterly false: The Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center has recently noted that the EPA found literature claiming the safety of alternative infills "lacking or limited," and it has even made its own study (conducted by Mount Sinai with TURI, the Toxic Use Reduction Institute), in which almost all infill alternatives to crumb rubber that they tested released carcinogens and neurotoxins. Moreover, focusing on infill types is itself mistaken, from the outset - there is no question that the artificial grass blades themselves are part of the problem.

Now, the Community Board 12/Parks Department (they are indistinguishable, as far as this project goes, because of Simon’s major role in both at once) seem to be claiming that the turf itself is benign, because it has been “guaranteed free of PFAS” by its manufacturer. This is clearly untrue. Because they are using a nylon turf, microplastic pollution will be a certainty. Nylon is considered one the largest contributors globally of microplastic, and by some estimates 15% of all marine microplastics are now coming from turfs. Like with PFAS, microplastics are rapidly building up in the environment and in the tissues of organisms, including our own bodies. Indeed, the two problems are intertwined, in that PFAS can latch onto microplastics, and they are then co-transported. Thus, the turf itself is 100% certain not to be benign. 

And it should also be added that third-party testing of many turf products claiming to be “PFAS free” has often found the claims to be untrue. And if they didn’t do any environmental impact assessment at all, do you think that they would ever test the products involved to see if the manufacturer was telling the truth? Of course not. 

As Mount Sinai's position statement on astroturf reads: 

• A recent study identified per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, aka “Teflon chemicals”), a class of more than 5000 chemicals linked to numerous health problems including cancer, nervous system toxicity, immune dysfunction, thyroid, and cardiovascular disease in the plastic grass blades......... 

Further, there is also a matting that comes between the phony grass and the infill, which the same Mount Sinai study also found to leach PFAS. Thus far, so far as we know, nothing public about the matting for this project has been released at all.

And as Mount Sinai put it succinctly, since the EPA for the first time enacted legally enforceable limits on six PFAS just this year (April, 2024)

• To allow the installation of PFAS-containing surfaces would be extremely short-sighted as further restrictions and regulations on these chemicals are likely to come. 

Further, temperatures on artificial turfs can become absurdly high in summer, regardless of infill type, sometimes going above 180F in tests. While turfs with crumb rubber are the worst for this, all synthetic turfs become very hot.  Both the turf surfaces and the air temperature at head height can become extremely elevated, making it not only a contributor to the urban 'heat island effect' but also another grave health risk for players, especially younger ones: as Mount Sinai noted,  "Children are less able to regulate their body temperature than adults, making them particularly susceptible to conditions of extreme heat." And burns are a problem, too.

To the extent that the turf infill is also important, what will be used in this case? The current plan for this awful project is to use silica sand, which is one of the very worst options. Even on the website of a company that sells it (Extreme Green Synthetic Turfs, see here), they note that the best feature of silica sand is that it is about the cheapest infill option.  But they note its obvious negatives: 

• it tends to attach easily to skin (thus, all the leached chemicals are likely to be transported via the infill)
• it stinks, literally
• "Lastly, some people may experience allergic reactions when exposed to sand infill. Depending on the type of sand used in artificial turf, some sand-based infill types are prone to developing mold. Silica-coated sand options have also been known to create silica dust, which has been shown to lead to health concerns for those who have prolonged exposure." 

This last point should be of particular interest to everyone - it points to an equal health risk for everyone in and around the park, not just the soccer players themselves, and silica dust is exceedingly dangerous, with higher toxicity than asbestos: it is known to cause (see the American Lung Association website for more information) - 

• Lung cancer: Silica dust is a carcinogen that can lead to lung cancer. The risk of cancer increases with long-term or repeated exposure.  
• Silicosis: This irreversible condition causes the lungs to scar and stiffen, making it difficult to breathe. A lung transplant is the only cure for silicosis.  
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): Silica dust exposure can increase the risk of COPD, such as emphysema.  
• Kidney disease: Silica dust exposure can lead to kidney disease.  
• Bacterial infections: Silica dust exposure increases the risk of bacterial infections, such as tuberculosis. 

Thus, justifiable fears about the turf, the matting and the infill used for this project have not at all been resolved by the Parks Department. It would be hard to name a more inappropriate or insensitive project in any of the New York City parks in recent memory: toxic turf will be placed precisely where it will be most environmentally damaging, and the smallest number of people will ‘benefit’, while depriving an infinitely larger number of people from being able to enjoy what must be one of the most special and rarified spots left in it. 

In the early 90s, legislation was passed to rename the natural wooded parts of Inwood Hill Park “Shorakapok”, the name given to the area by the Lenape. But Shorakapok also means “the edge of the river,” and while the legislation involved the wooded parts of the park, the edge of the river was clearly of central importance to the Lenape. The site by the river is geographically unique in the city – and uniquely bad for astroturf. The most vertical part of the city is the ridge running along the western side of the island from around the George Washington bridge up to around the proposed site. While there is no environmental “good side” to artificial turf, among the worst of its negative impacts are perturbations to surficial hydrology, and the only significant plain to the west of the ridge, coming right between it and the Hudson, is around the proposed site, thus making it probably the worst possible site in the city for astroturf, especially a nylon one, in that artificial turfs both prevent soils from performing their normal hydrological function, and also leach out some of their chemicals into the environment whenever they become inundated. Nylon easily suffers hydrolysis when wet, so this turf will likely release more of its chemicals than most, right in one of the city's most sensitive spots. The retention system they are installing makes no difference at all for this pollution. 

Did you not know, turfs have better drainage than soil?

Now, in one of the biggest whoppers of the recent subcommittee meeting, the Parks Department made the audacious claim that turfs are actually better for drainage than soils! Kelli Jordan said:

“The drainage is arguably improved compared to what was there prior, which essentially was fill.”

If one can joke, concern about where water is going might depend on what's in it.........Without a turf, its microplastics can never drain into the Hudson river. With turf, almost 100% of any released microplastics will drain directly into the Hudson river, just slowed up a bit by short-term storage in their retention system. 

Soils act like filters, almost like the tissues of an organ. In both cases – with the natural field and with their ‘superior’ turf drainage system – any filtering is done by microbes in the soil, as well as by interactions with rocks, either in the soil or at the bottom of their pit. But it will be an entirely different filtering, of course, in the two cases. Since many laws pertaining to stormwater were initially intended to deal with things like nitrogen runoff, let’s just take a tiny look at that, to give an idea: in the natural field, because there is much aerobic chemistry, it leads to nitrification, and biologically available nitrogen. In their stormwater system, on the other hand, since the environment is essential benthic – i.e., like the bottom of a lake, as the enclosed area fills up with water after a storm – it will be primarily anaerobic and lead to denitrification, releasing various nitrogen gas compounds. So, it is a very different filtering. And all kinds of complex interactions and differences, of increased methanogenesis, pH differences, etc, would need to be considered to really compare these two things – but in all that complexity, you can rest assured of one simple fact: these folks have certainly not studied the matter! 

And a much bigger problem, of course, is that neither soils nor rocks, unfortunately, can help deal things like microplastics, PFAS, etc. But again, they will not be added if you don’t put the turf down in the first place! Again, with turf, almost 100% of any released microplastics will be draining into the Hudson river. Ah, so wait, then, maybe he’s right, after all? I guess that’s pretty efficient drainage for you!

Equity and Inequity

Until now, anyone who wanted to play soccer on the natural grass could happily do so, and everyone else could enjoy the beautiful views there at all other times. For something like 95% percent of the time that the park is open, no soccer matches take place. Over the course of a year, the number of people who have been playing soccer there is probably in the hundreds, possibly a thousand at most. Millions of New Yorkers and other visitors to the city were able to come and enjoy this special place. It is being treated by the Community Board, the City Council, and the Parks Department as though having this open space directly on the river was of no intrinsic value whatsoever to anyone. Just ‘landfill’! 

The Community Board resolution approving the project spoke of the current natural grass field as being “uneven with ruts and pits, poor drainage, an inferior surface area, (and) limited seating.” But there were no obvious ruts and pits visible at the site at all, as the photo showed, and work could easily be done to make the field more even for playing. 

To repeat, 95% of the time there are no games being played, and yet no one else will ever be able to sit and enjoy having a picnic there, none of our dogs will be able to sniff the grass there any longer, to reward a tiny number of people who sometimes hold soccer matches there. 

The Parks Department likes to state that Inwood Hill Park's salt marsh attracts some 150 species of birds, but this marsh, directly on the opposite side of the ridge from the soccer field, is just a few wing flaps from the planned astroturf, and those 150 species will be even more sensitive to its leaching carcinogens than we are. Is that equity? 

This is an incredibly anti-democratic and incredibly anti-environmental project to the very core and is an atrocious misuse of public funds. No one at all will really benefit from this destructive project. Everyone will lose, even the soccer players themselves, whether they realize it or not now. 

So I ask you today, locals, New Yorkers, and everyone else who does realize it, to join me in opposing this astroturf project in Inwood Hill Park! Seek alternatives for healthy sport and renovation that keep in mind the treasure we hold in this park. It's also about preserving not just a park, but a chunk of our city's origins. Please sign this petition and let’s make our voices reverberate: let’s save Inwood Hill Park from this all-too-typical nightmare.