Sunday, January 14, 2007
Its Tough
It seems like no matter what you do, your going to upset people. Save a huge parcel in the middle of Columbia from development, and you get people mad because you want to put ballfields there. Don't build the ballfields and you will hear people complain about the lack of ballfields. Allow one little grocery store to sell organic beer and wine and soon, according to local liquor store owners, the whole alcoholic beverage industry will be down the drain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Some of the comments by some very good activists confuse me.
Bridget Mugane, according to the article, said Blandair, being in (or partially adjacent to Columbia's most populous village) isn't a good place for a nature center.
In my opinion, putting a nature center on a 300-acre undeveloped parcel, much of which used to be a farm, in the heart of Columbia does make sense. Much of the nature center's purpose is to educate. Putting it near many of those to be educated makes sense. I do wonder if her statement was taken out of context.
Also, the article quotes Mary Catherine Cochran as saying we have a responsibility to provide active recreation in the park. What did that mean? Does she support using 100% of the park space for ballfields? Or just the portion stated at the public meetings (ballfields both north and south of 175)? Or just ballfields south of 175?
The article also says the committee approved plans for ballfields only south of 175. Yet, the only map of the park the County has posted, still shows the park design that was shown at the public meetings, with ballfields still north and south of 175.
If we're going to the State asking for lots of money to begin design, is it too much to ask to post on the web an updated park plan that lets the public easily know what we're going to spend on money on and what's going to be done with our park?
There are many ballfields already in Columbia at each of the schools, many of them even within walking distance of this park. Is this another case of the Board of Ed. and Rec & Parks not cooperating enough to fully utilize the existing facilities we already have available?
Also of note, the plan did show a planned multipurpose building on the parkland as well. Again, why, with all the other public buildings nearby, destroy greenspace for another building? Have surveys of existing public facilities been done that show we need to consume parkland for this building? Or was it just another checkbox on the menu of items that seemed reasonable to include in a regional park?
Post a Comment