iRead the following article.

The town council is weighing a proposal to replace the grass playing fields at Riverside Park with artificial turf, and residents are sharply divided. The proposal's strongest advocate is Dana Okonkwo, the town's recreation director. She argues that natural grass simply cannot keep up with demand. "Every spring the fields are closed for weeks because they are too wet, and by August they are worn down to dirt," she says. "A turf field can be played on from morning to night, in almost any weather, without needing time to recover." Okonkwo estimates that turf would roughly triple the available playing hours, easing a chronic shortage that currently forces some youth teams to practise on gravel lots or in the next town over. She adds that turf requires no watering, mowing, or fertilizer, which she says would save the town thousands of dollars a year and conserve water during increasingly dry summers. Not everyone is persuaded. Helen Voss, a parent and member of a local environmental group, worries the plan trades one problem for several new ones. "On a hot day, a turf field can be twenty degrees warmer than grass — hot enough to burn a child's hands," she says. Voss also points to the tiny rubber pellets used as infill, which wash into storm drains and nearby creeks, and to the expense of replacing the entire surface every eight to ten years. "Grass repairs itself. It just grows back," she says. "We should be fixing the drainage, not paving over a park." Okonkwo counters that modern infill materials are far cleaner than the recycled-tire crumb used a decade ago, and that better drainage alone would never solve the capacity problem. Voss remains unconvinced, noting that "cleaner is not the same as clean." Ravi Mehta, who coaches two youth soccer teams, sees merit on both sides. "My players would love a field that is always open," he admits, "but I do wonder what we are putting under their feet." The council will hold a public consultation before its vote in the spring.