Northwood News ♦ October 2007

Getting What We Want for North Four Corners Park

By Carole A. Barth

In September, Park and Planning released a revised set of options for North Four Corners Park.  They have asked for public input by October 12th and plan to go back to the Planning Board in late November.  The next opportunity for comment would be at the Planning Board meeting, but it is extremely unlikely that MNCPPC will change its decision.  In other words, we need to strongly voice our concerns to the County Council (county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov) and the County Executive (ocemail@montgomerycountymd.gov).

If you have not received a copy of the options, they are on the Parks website at www.montgomeryplanning.org/community/silverspring/public_projects/ fourcorners_park.shtm [URL updated from the printed newsletter].

The revised options are substantially different from what was presented at Park and Planning’s June meeting.  For example, there is a new alternative (Alternative 4) that contains no fields at all and which would reclassify the park from a neighborhood park to a local park.  (Local parks supposedly serve more than one neighborhood but these designations are actually completely arbitrary.)  This new alternative goes farther than the one we presented four years ago.  (Our plan kept the existing youth-only practice field at its current size with the goals removed.)  As a Civic Association, we have not formally considered a no-field option.

Of course, we need not limit our choice to the alternatives as currently packaged by MNCPPC staff.  We could, for example, say we’d like to keep the existing field as it is, have a “passive” park on the new parcel, and change the designation to local park.  I think, however, what’s most important is to advocate for what we want and clearly state what we don’t want.

For four years we have said:

• We want minimal improvements on the new parcel to provide a family-friendly park which preserves the essential attractive character of the site.
• We want to keep the rolling hills and the 175-year-old walnut tree.
• We want to keep the large oak trees near the existing parking lot.
• We want to keep the rec center.
• We do not want a large soccer field anywhere in the park.
• We do not want adult teams and/or large groups using the existing small field.
• We do not want to expand the parking in front of the rec center.

It’s important to be clear, because MNCPPC continues to misrepresent the facts.  For example, they talk about “removing active use areas from proximity to neighboring streets and homes” as if Timberwood Avenue was in Timbuktu and not part of NFCCA.  When they talk about the “need” for large soccer fields, their vision includes all of down-county and soccer players from all over the region.  When they “looked” for alternative sites for large fields, their tunnel vision was centered on North Four Corners Park.

Fundamentally, the Council and County Executive have to weigh these proposals against everything else that will be proposed for the FY09-FY14 Capital Improvement Program.  Hopefully, as they do, they will consider the following points:

• The methodology MNCPPC used to calculate the need for soccer fields has never been fully subjected to public scrutiny.
• Poor field conditions and a tortuous reservation system mean that existing fields in the county are not efficiently utilized.
• When polled., county residents rated “passive” open space activities above sports.
• The Four Corners area has already lost the Kay Tract trees to Blair High School (and its fields), while new in-fill housing is removing the last few open lots.  Where is the plan to redress our nature deficit?
• Poor management, inadequate policing, and nearly nonexistent maintenance are the norm at most of MNCPPC’s existing facilities; adding more facilities in such a situation is simply irresponsible.
• The projected cost of this project ($6 million and counting) could buy a lot more than one soccer field if a more appropriate site or sites were selected.   ■