Letter: Vote 'no' on park proposal
Editor:
I would like to respond to the recent letter by Brian M. Van Dam, Sr., chairman, Scarborough Community Services and Recreation Advisory Board and Nancy Gaudet, member, park subcommittee on the proposed Black Point Community Park.
The letter stated that the 1999 Attitude Survey, page 44, lists the three most important projects for the town. First is the “creation of pedestrian and bicycle access.” Second, “a community center” and third, “purchasing undeveloped land for preservation or passive recreation."
The reality is that the proposal does nothing to address these items. The development of the “park,” with a 50 to 70 foot sidewalk, only addresses the safety issue for a few residents. There are a number of children and adults that would still have to walk in the roads to access the “park” on Fogg Road or Highland Avenue. I am afraid that a car will hit someone trying to access the “park.”
Also, the creation of athletic fields with organized sporting events is not passive recreation and does not preserve the character of land. The majority of the trees would be cut down to develop the athletic fields. I am not even sure if the project would maintain the proper buffer zone with some of the abutters. A park designed to include a walking path with exercise stations, picnic area, children’s playground (non-athletic fields), benches to sit at, and open grass area could be built and provide the preservation and passive recreation mentioned in the third item above while maintaining the character of the land.
The letter indicated that the proposed senior pavilion could act as a substitute for a community center where senior could teach crafts to our youth. How can this be a “center of community” when this structure is only large enough for 8 to 10 people? If it is more important to create a community than to build a community center, I guess we will always focus on building more and more athletic fields in Scarborough as the town grows and only focus on children’s needs at Community Services.
Secondly, the proposal does not respect the “center of community” already established in this area. There are the two churches located next to the proposed park. The people of the community both young and old deserve a place to worship, attend a funeral or wedding, or other spiritual function without the distraction of the roar of the crowd or listening to whistles blowing. This is not the proper location for athletic fields.
The letter states that 72 percent of our residents agreed that extracurricular activities are important. I do not disagree with this IF it is in the proper location. This is not the proper location for athletic fields. There are many parks without athletic fields such as Baxter Woods Park in Portland, Mill Creek Park, South Portland, and Capitol Park in Augusta to name a few. You do not need to have athletic fields to have a park.
This proposal is to spend over $1.3 million to build. It does not included additional costs for possible fencing that may be required, the cost to maintain the park (year round) by plowing the parking lot and walking path, mowing the lawn, maintaining and cleaning the bathroom facilities and pavilion area. The town will be either contracting this out or hiring an additional person to maintain this site. Also, to build proper sidewalks for the entire Black Point Community Park neighborhoods, I am sure would double or triple the expense.
It has been asked several times over the last 16 months that a traffic study be conducted. This has not been done. Black Point Road, Fogg Road, and Highland Ave are major traffic corridors between Scarborough, Cape Elizabeth, and South Portland. Traffic is already congested in the area and adding athletic fields that will import additional people and will increase this congestion along with the additional development being proposed at the beginning of Black Point Road and the future development on Pleasant Hill Road.
I believe the development of a community park should include the community that will be impacted. This has not been done. While some will say that the focus group put together from the town did this, I disagree. It was pretty much written on the wall that athletic fields would be include in any proposal developed regardless of whatever the proposals were from the group and in fact we were told it was one of the parameters. It was designed to divide and conquer. This is continuing with a meeting being scheduled to discuss “specific concerns and suggested modifications to the current plan while maintaining all of its features.”
Whether you agree with the need to add additional athletic fields in the community is a good idea or not, it is not the only issue. The question should also include – is this the proper location?
I do not believe this proposal addresses the safety issues with traffic or sidewalks that have been raised since June 2006 and is not the proper location as I stated above. I will be voting NO and I urge the community of Scarborough to vote this proposal down as well.
Winifred Malia
Scarborough
I would like to respond to the recent letter by Brian M. Van Dam, Sr., chairman, Scarborough Community Services and Recreation Advisory Board and Nancy Gaudet, member, park subcommittee on the proposed Black Point Community Park.
The letter stated that the 1999 Attitude Survey, page 44, lists the three most important projects for the town. First is the “creation of pedestrian and bicycle access.” Second, “a community center” and third, “purchasing undeveloped land for preservation or passive recreation."
The reality is that the proposal does nothing to address these items. The development of the “park,” with a 50 to 70 foot sidewalk, only addresses the safety issue for a few residents. There are a number of children and adults that would still have to walk in the roads to access the “park” on Fogg Road or Highland Avenue. I am afraid that a car will hit someone trying to access the “park.”
Also, the creation of athletic fields with organized sporting events is not passive recreation and does not preserve the character of land. The majority of the trees would be cut down to develop the athletic fields. I am not even sure if the project would maintain the proper buffer zone with some of the abutters. A park designed to include a walking path with exercise stations, picnic area, children’s playground (non-athletic fields), benches to sit at, and open grass area could be built and provide the preservation and passive recreation mentioned in the third item above while maintaining the character of the land.
The letter indicated that the proposed senior pavilion could act as a substitute for a community center where senior could teach crafts to our youth. How can this be a “center of community” when this structure is only large enough for 8 to 10 people? If it is more important to create a community than to build a community center, I guess we will always focus on building more and more athletic fields in Scarborough as the town grows and only focus on children’s needs at Community Services.
Secondly, the proposal does not respect the “center of community” already established in this area. There are the two churches located next to the proposed park. The people of the community both young and old deserve a place to worship, attend a funeral or wedding, or other spiritual function without the distraction of the roar of the crowd or listening to whistles blowing. This is not the proper location for athletic fields.
The letter states that 72 percent of our residents agreed that extracurricular activities are important. I do not disagree with this IF it is in the proper location. This is not the proper location for athletic fields. There are many parks without athletic fields such as Baxter Woods Park in Portland, Mill Creek Park, South Portland, and Capitol Park in Augusta to name a few. You do not need to have athletic fields to have a park.
This proposal is to spend over $1.3 million to build. It does not included additional costs for possible fencing that may be required, the cost to maintain the park (year round) by plowing the parking lot and walking path, mowing the lawn, maintaining and cleaning the bathroom facilities and pavilion area. The town will be either contracting this out or hiring an additional person to maintain this site. Also, to build proper sidewalks for the entire Black Point Community Park neighborhoods, I am sure would double or triple the expense.
It has been asked several times over the last 16 months that a traffic study be conducted. This has not been done. Black Point Road, Fogg Road, and Highland Ave are major traffic corridors between Scarborough, Cape Elizabeth, and South Portland. Traffic is already congested in the area and adding athletic fields that will import additional people and will increase this congestion along with the additional development being proposed at the beginning of Black Point Road and the future development on Pleasant Hill Road.
I believe the development of a community park should include the community that will be impacted. This has not been done. While some will say that the focus group put together from the town did this, I disagree. It was pretty much written on the wall that athletic fields would be include in any proposal developed regardless of whatever the proposals were from the group and in fact we were told it was one of the parameters. It was designed to divide and conquer. This is continuing with a meeting being scheduled to discuss “specific concerns and suggested modifications to the current plan while maintaining all of its features.”
Whether you agree with the need to add additional athletic fields in the community is a good idea or not, it is not the only issue. The question should also include – is this the proper location?
I do not believe this proposal addresses the safety issues with traffic or sidewalks that have been raised since June 2006 and is not the proper location as I stated above. I will be voting NO and I urge the community of Scarborough to vote this proposal down as well.
Winifred Malia
Scarborough
Comments