Commentary: Philanthropy or Science?
A discussion of the motivations behind donations
By Bill Schubart
There are lots of ways to give.
One can donate to a nonprofit for purely altruistic reasons that support a common good.
One can donate to a nonprofit to establish authority over it, i.e., “here’s $10 million to build a new gym at your college. Now, fire those leftist liberals in the economics department.”
Or one can donate to a nonprofit to advance one’s own vision devoid of mission consistency or community input. Such is the case, I believe, with Eli Goldsmith-Lesser’s decision to install at CVU high school a $5.5 million artificial turf field, bleachers, concession stand, lighting and an expanded parking lot with ADA designed access to Field B, which is currently natural grass.
Lesser-Goldsmith, a resident of Charlotte, one of the towns within the Champlain Valley School District (CVSD), is the owner and operator of Healthy Living in South Burlington and Williston, Vermont, and Saratoga Springs, New York. In a personal conversation with him, he conveyed to me his commitment to develop a major regional athletic hub for CVU that will, he says, expand team participation, family and community engagement and be a potential source of rental revenue.
In a press release last fall, Lesser-Goldsmith said, “In addition to athletics, the new field would serve as the school’s only space large enough for all students to gather outdoors for events, performances, and school-wide activities. … This project will bring people together for years to come.” When he presented the proposal to the public for the first time on April 8, he made several mentions of the “joy” it will bring to the community.
On April 10, Responsible Growth Hinesburg sponsored a panel discussion at Carpenter-Carse library featuring well-qualified environmentalist scientists and community leaders to explore shared concerns regarding the installation of an artificial turf field at CVU. Several presenters spoke in favor of reconstructing the playing fields, but with appropriate drainage, natural soil and organic grass.
Panelists included: Marguerite Adelman, Vermont PFAS Coalition Coordinator; Kyla Bennett, former EPA Wetlands Enforcement Coordinator; David Bond, professor at Bennington College; and Irene Wrenner, Vermont State Senator for Chittenden North in 2023-24 and a co-sponsor of what became Act 131 – the ban on manufacturing and installing artificial turf containing PFAS (“forever chemicals”) in Vermont.
“When we think about artificial turf, in some ways, it’s akin to installing an effluent pipe of a plastics plant in the heart of our community,” suggested Bond who has led efforts to respond to the discovery of PFAS in Bennington.” Bond further reminded the audience of the $34 million Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics settlement in 2021 in which the Teflon plastics manufacturer agreed to compensate the community for damage to wells and water systems. A report from Bennington College showed the facilities’ airborne pollution left “a definable plume of elevated PFOA levels” in soil throughout an area that “appears to cover approximately 120 square miles,” extending to North Bennington, Bennington and Shaftsbury, according to the state Department of Environmental Conservation.
The discussion ran amost entirely against the proposal. One presenter cited an article in The Guardian indicating that athletes who play on artificial turf are more likely to be coated with higher levels of toxic PFAs “forever chemicals.”
Hinesburg resident Marie Eddy posted a video on the local Front Porch Forum that made a strong case against installation of artificial turf.
This March 10 letter to the Nantucket school board from Ph.D. Diana Zuckerman of The National Center for Health Research was quoted widely and made clear the scientific concerns around artificial turf and the inadequate testing for “forever chemicals.”
On April 14, the CVSD board held a regular meeting at which some members of the community and students weighed in, both in favor and in opposition to the installation of artificial turf. (The linked story in The Record includes a Media Factory video; testimony begins at the 47 minute mark.) A repeated question was whether the board or community at large would have much of a voice in the details of the proposal and whether it would solely be a CVSD board decision, despite the fact that the community below – Hinesburg – could be impacted by the decision.
Put simply, is the decision institutional or community-driven given that the science indicates both could be impacted by the installation? Patrick Brook drains the fields above CVU into the central village. Could PFAS “forever chemicals” flow into the village and leach into the town water system and aquifer from which many local wells also draw water?
The underlying issue, though, is whether a $5.5 million personal vision of a local philanthropist be the determinant of a community’s future or, should their generosity be subject to what science tells us? And does the raw power of a $5.5 million gift outweigh the need for scientific investigation into the long-term safety of the donor’s vision for his or her community?
Finally, how much personal satisfaction does $5.5 million buy, and at what cost to the common good?
[Related articles: Schoolboard Begins Debate on Turf Fields, CVU Turf Field: The Proposal is Presented, and CVU Turf Field: The Concerns Are Many]
