Northwood News ♦ October 2004

Residents Speak Out for North Four Corners Park

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (MNCPPC) held its third public meeting to discuss alternative facilities plans for the North Four Corners Local Park on Thursday, Sept. 23.  Area residents packed the meeting room to overflowing with a crowd of attendees standing in the hallway or listening through the windows.  The attendees represented the diverse population who live in our neighborhood — young families, working couples, elderly, Whites, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, longtime residents, and recent arrivals.  With one voice, they reaffirmed the community’s dissatisfaction with the planning process, the proposed facilities, and the inability of the Parks Department to address in a substantive manner any of the problems raised by residents over the last two years.

The last public meeting was held in June 2003.  During the intervening 14 months, the Parks Department staff decided to expand the project’s scope to include the existing eight-acre park as well as the six-acre addition.  In August, an announcement for the Sept. 23 meeting was mailed to selected residents along with plans for the entire park.  The MNCPPC website page for the project continued to show plans only for the six-acre addition and had a statement that the plans for the entire park would not be available until after the final opportunity for public comment had past.

During the two years that this planning effort has gone on, the NFCCA has adopted a position that supports a low-impact development site design that would minimize additional user traffic for the six-acre addition.  This is in recognition of the excessive crowds being allowed to use the existing park facilities which have resulted in problems with overflow parking, loose trash, human defecation, and verbal harassment of residents living near the park or who try to use it.  The community’s proposals also are felt to be more realistic given the current budgetary situation for parks maintenance and permitting practices for the existing facilities.

On Aug. 29, NFCCA sent a letter to MNCPPC Chair Derick Berlage objecting to timing of the public meeting, the poor quality of information made available on the proposed alternatives, and the cumulative failure of the Parks Department staff to allow for meaningful public participation in the planning decisions.  No response was received from Mr. Berlage or MNCPPC to any of these concerns.

Present at the Sept. 23 meeting were several Parks Department staff, including Mike Riley, Division Chief, MNCPPC Park Development; representatives from the Silver Spring Regional Services Center and Silver Spring Recreation Advisory Board; and County Council Member Nancy Floreen’s chief of staff, Merrill Steiner.  NFCCA board members Charles Pritchard, Jim Zepp, and Ken Hawkins spoke, along with many residents who have attended the previous public meetings and the many NFCCA meetings on this issue.

The statements made by individual residents were intelligent and informed about the issues, articulate in expressing the depth of our concerns and commitment to the park, and impressive in the strong agreement throughout the community (which included representatives from Burnt Mills and South Four Corners) in preserving the natural landscape of the six-acre addition while restoring the existing park to its previous status as a neighborhood amenity.  A petition signed by all of the Royalton Road residents was presented which opposes the construction of a proposed parking lot at the park’s entrance on that street.  By a show of hands, none of the attendees supported the additional soccer field and parking lots proposed by the Parks Department staff.

Serious questions were raised about the evidence for additional sports facilities.  For example, a chart was shown which indicated that 180 requests for soccer field reservations had been refused for the Spring 2004.  When asked how many requests were accepted during the same period, the staff didn’t know.

Mr. Riley expressed his surprise at the community’s position and the unanimous support with which it is held.  When asked about the future steps in the planning process, he indicated that the staff would continue to revise the park plans.  He was noncommittal about whether another public meeting would be held before the submission of any final plans to the Planning Commission.  When asked about using a community-based planning process to arrive at more acceptable solutions, he indicated that it is not a usual practice for his division to actively involve residents in planning.

The large attendance and the quality of the residents’ comments were an extremely impressive demonstration of the community’s commitment and capabilities to address this issue.  Unfortunately, it appears that we cannot relax our vigilance and will probably be required to continually reaffirm our concerns and position as the park plan moves through reviews by the Planning Commission and County Council.   ■